Topic: You deserve to suffer from another pandemic. (Read 1056 times)

Most people on this site are morons, and that includes you. And most people in general are worthless morons. The trust score is the opinion of morons who know absolutely nothing about anything. Bitcoin attracts morons like you because Bitcoin has a mining algorithm that was never designed to advance science. And since humanity consists of such worthless asinine morons, it is not worth it for me to make any more effort to prevent the next 5 pandemics.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Oh great intelligent one, tell me, why are you trying to scam people? Have you ever seen your trust score? 

Are you sure that you are not the real retard? You are over here thinking that science is stupid because you lack intelligence. I just talked to your mother and she confirmed once again that you were born out the anus. Go poop on yourself.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

For someone so smart you get your ego touched a bit too fast, look at that, a scammer with an ego. Your scams won't work, try xrpchat, there's plenty of restards over there.

alterra57-F@#$ you.

Yeah. There is a grand total of zero people who are currently actively researching the algebras of rank-into-rank embeddings, so too few people know about rank-into-rank embeddings.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Good for you, I'll be waiting for these 5 pandemics and surviving all 5 of them, not thanks to your schizo brain. I'd suggest an appointment with a psychologists as soon as possible, please do so before the brain rot eats what's left.



This dude tried to shill a scam token he made, did so by roleplaying as someone who's not.


I don't know what you mean by this, if the real Phd this scumbag is impersonating says it's not me and this scumbag can't verify he is who says he is then it's pretty clear.

so there's been other fake ones? where? how? explain. i can't tell anything.

does that sound like what someone would say if you emailed them telling them some scammer is impersonating them on an online forum? lets be reasonable here...


thanks Dr. Joseph. another solid. i'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of rank-into-rank cardinals my poor mind just can't concieve of the concept it seems so bizarre. i doubt most people have any idea about the topic even mathematicians. professional ones. but it's definitely an interesting topic and i'm glad that you took an interest in it and really know your stuff! 

I already have. That is why I am committed to ensuring that you all get your 5 pandemics that you f@#$ing deserve. It is a royal shame that people like you take pride in your evil. You live like hell on Earth so that you can spend the afterlife in Hell. You are pathetic.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

World is a nasty place snowflake, grow a pair.

Everything you say is incredibly offensive. You are a horrible person. I would not be surprised if you were both a terrorist and a Nazi.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Damn it, someone suffers from multiple brain injuries, or were you born this way? 

alterra57 is a moron. And the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem (both the upwards and downwards versions) are standard results. To get a countable elementary substructure of your structure, you construct an algebra consisting of all your Skolem functions, and then subalgebras of this algebraic structure will always be elementary substructures. One can get a subalgebra of arbitrary cardinality smaller than your original algebra simply by taking the closure of a subset of whatever cardinality you want. To get an elementary equivalent structure of large cardinalities, you would take ultrapowers of your original structure by a large enough ultrafilter (I think you also may need regularity).


Everything you say is f@#$ing stupid because you are stupid. No. I am not going to do anything for you for free. Why the f@#$ would I do that? You are a piece of trash, and Jesus hates you.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

This one is fake, can't you tell? He won't prove he is the real one unless you send him money.

You're literally talking to him right here in this thread. Why would you need to send an email to him? Explain.

Again, cryptocurrency chlurmcklets have absolutely no ability to distinguish between scams and non-scams. And I talked to your father as well, and he confirmed that you indeed were born out your mother's anus. You hate science because science says that people cannot be born out of the anus, but you proved science wrong because your hatred of science was that strong and powerful.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

The dung fly has spoken, the one who's trying to scam people has spoken.

Bitcointalk is filled with harassers who hate science, education, and love harassing others. How sad! Bitcointalk is filled with trash humans. But since Bitcoin has a mining algorithm that was never designed to advance science, Bitcoin attracts mainly trash humans.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Hahahahahahaha, the scammer is mad he's getting called out of his mother in laws basement...a disappointment to her and your own.

I will never bow down to you because you are garbage.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Whatever sails your schizo delusions mister impersonator.  Bow down and kiss my feet, thank me for allowing you to interact with me.

You were born out of the anus. And do you know who else will be born out the anus? That is right. The anti-christ will be born out of the anus because that is a demonic anti-miracle performed by Lucifer.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Sent an email to the person you're impersonating, let's see what he has to say about this scammery. I doubt that will stop you from being schizophrenic tho, I feel sorry for your family and the one who got you an internet connection, what a parasitic little critter you are.

thanks Dr. Joseph. You are truly amazing in your understanding of deep issues in mathematics. I doubt someone like Norman Wildberger even heard of the Lowenhein Skolem theorem I surely hadn't! For you to be able to talk about these type of issues, it's really a rare treat since there's so few people in the world that even know about these things much less have an actual understanding of them. pure gold. is what you are.

I'm afraid people here in this forum have treated you very badly and they don't appreciate someone like you at all I hope you wont let them get you down because you have a tremendous mind and thanks for sharing those amazing mathematical insights I have never met anyone like you that knew so much about foundations of mathematics. no one. not even college phDs.

if foundations of math is not your specialty area then i'm even more at a loss for words since you have such a deep knowlege in it. wishing you the best. 

You are stupid. You hate science because you are stupid. And the other day, I was talking to your mother, and she told me that you were born out of her anus.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

You're talking gibberish again. You don't see us labeling Bitcoin a scam, do you? Your project however is one, and a low effort scam at that. Who told you Bitcoin needs to advance science? It's simple math intertwined with an idea, it does not help science but it helps human freedom and worlds economy. F your science you bot, get a job and stop posting nonsense.

The cryptocurrency community has the habit of labelling everything that is legitimate as a scam, and they also gobble everything that every scammer sells them. It is really quite sad. But what would you expect when Bitcoin does not even have a mining algorithm that is designed to advance science?

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

You are angry because you couldn't scam anyone, if mental illness = too smart for you to get money out of us then I'm the most retarded one here. Please don't be angry mister scammer, there will be plenty of missed opportunities for you.

F@#$ off. I already said that I will no longer make an effort to prevent the next 5 pandemics because people need an @$$ whooping more than anything else. What the f@#$ are you going on and on about? Oh wait. You are completely incapable of thinking or communicating anything that remotely makes any sense because you are extremely mentally ill just like most Bitcoiners are.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Your "help" is not needed, get a job and stop trying lowlife scumbag scams.

I have not heard of Norman Wildberger, but there are some mathematicians who criticize basic structures like the real numbers or even the natural numbers. And they do not have much of a reason to do so. We cannot even find an inconsistency with extremely large cardinals, so these extremely large cardinals probably exist. So since extremely large cardinals work just fine in practice, we should accept that there is probably some legitimacy to them and to the real numbers as well. One can say that the real numbers and large cardinals may exist but only in a countable model (this is guaranteed by the Lowenhein Skolem theorem), but that unnecessarily complicates the issue. I do not see any reason why large cardinals would evade all attempts at finding an inconsistency while they only exist in a countable model and cannot extend to larger models.

So far, large cardinal axioms have not helped with problems like the Twin prime conjecture, but I have used rank-into-rank cardinals to produce some falsifiable statements about finite algebraic structures, and I have ran the computations trying to falsify these statements myself, but I have not been able to find any inconsistency even after about a million attempts on a computer. Large cardinal axioms may not allow us to prove everything like the twin prime conjecture, and we may not be able to keep on adding stronger large cardinal axioms since mathematicians have not been able to formulate large cardinal axioms much higher than rank-into-rank; there are some cardinals axioms that are much stronger since they imply models of rank-into-rank, but these stronger axioms are not consistent with the axiom-of-choice. If we do not abandon the axiom of choice, then the only way that I know to make larger cardinals is to take something like limits of cardinals, but this idea does not seem to go very far since we do not know how to get them to be as strong as the axioms that are inconsistent with the axiom of choice.



You are worthless. The Lord Jesus Christ hates your soul and will send you to Hell after the next 5 pandemics kill you.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Says the guy who's using ChatGPT to formulate his topics  .

You truly are a brilliant mathematician Dr. Joseph. I would imagine there's very few mathematicians that would understand all of what you just discussed. Of course, I'm woefully inadequate to understand it but I'll be googling some of the things you talked about to try and get a better understanding but wow. You are one amazing mind and thanks for your 2 cents (200 more cents more like it!). If foundations of mathematics is not your specialty research area then I would be flabbergasted since you sound so authoritative in your knowledge of it. Thanks so much for your lengthy response, I really do appreciate it.

All I can say about the incompleteness theorems in my limited understanding of them is I just don't understand how there could ever be a concrete example of a statement that is true but cannot be proven. Because from what it appears, all that "true" means is "cannot be proven with the set of axioms in the system". So you could either add the statement itself or its negation to your axiom system and I guess it would still be consistent. I don't see how that could work with something like the Twin Prime Conjecture or The Collatz Conjecture. The Twin Prime Conjecture is either true or false. That truth exists we may just not know what it is. So because of that issue, the statement that there are infinitely many twin primes doesn't seem like a feasible candidate to add as a new axiom of arithmetic since we don't know if it is true but the truth exists one way or the other about it so if we choose the wrong version of the statement we are going down a wrong path.

Given some arbitrary statement that one does not know how to prove and seems challenging to prove, how do they go about proving it is not provable in their axiomatic system? I would think that's impossible. For example the Riemann Hypothesis.

One other quick question, have you ever heard of Dr. Norman Wildberger I think that's his name. He has made alot of videos criticizing the "real numbers" as though they really don't exist and he doesn't think there is a valid construction of them, just handwaving. Do you think the real numbers have a solid foundation? or do they have issues. he maintains that things like dedekind cuts and cauchy sequences as ways of constructing the real numbers are flawed. to me that's kind of troubling since higher math is all based on you guessed it, the real numbers! 

Everything you say is f@#$ing stupid.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Why are you begging for money? Get a job scammer.

Instead of talking in all caps, why don't you make an effort to support those who have been trying to make a difference. I have given up on helping people because nearly everyone is insufferable.

I am not bothered by Godel's incompleteness theorem. First of all, it is better to have an incompleteness theorem where we know that our axiomatic system cannot prove everything than to not have an incompleteness theorem and not know whether our axiomatic system can prove everything or not. The correct response to Godel's incompleteness theorem is to look at Godel's second incompleteness theorem to tell us how to strength  our axiomatic systems so that we will be able to prove more results. Godel's second incompleteness theorem states that no axiomatic system stronger than Peano arithmetic is allowed to prove its own consistency. Godel's incompleteness theorem is good because it gives us a direction to go to strength our axiomatic systems. If we want to strength an axiomatic system A, then a natural thing to do would be to work in the system A+Con(A) which states that A is consistent. We can iterate this process to obtain A+Con(A)+Con(A+Con(A)), and so on and so forth. While iterating this process does yield stronger axiomatic systems, this process of iterating the consistency is rather inefficient and cumbersome. First of all, if we iterate the process that gives us A+Con(A)+Con(A+Con(A)) finitely many times, we won't get very far, so we will need to iterate this process transfinitely. But we can do much better than this. Godel's completeness theorem states that an axiomatic theory is consistent if and only if it has a model. Therefore, by combining Godel's second incompleteness theorem with his completeness theorem, we conclude that a strong axiomatic theory cannot prove that it contains a model of itself. Therefore, in order to strengthen an axiomatic theory, we can add an axiom from which we can obtain a model of that theory. And by adding axioms about models, we can get better strengthenings of our axiomatic theory. For example, if we add an axiom stating that there exists a well-founded model of ZFC to the ZFC axioms, then this new axiomatic theory is stronger than what we would obtain by iterating the process of ZFC+Con(ZFC) transfinitely. We can do even better than this though. Large cardinal axioms are much stronger strengthenings of the standard ZFC axioms that easily encapsulate the process of transfinitely iterating the consistency hierarchy A,A+Con(A),A+Con(A)+Con(A+Con(A)) and much more. Not only do large cardinal axioms provide strengthenings of ZFC, but one can prove interesting theorems from these large cardinal axioms including theorems about finite structures. The only catch is that if we go too far with large cardinal axioms, then we will end up with an inconsistency (such as Kunen's inconsistency). I am personally confident that all large cardinal axioms up to rank-into-rank cardinals are consistent. If anyone is able to prove that the existence of n-huge cardinals for all n is inconsistent, then I will forfeit all of my cryptocurrency.

I do not know much about the JWST, but I have no reason to believe that it is a waste of money.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

thanks Dr. Joseph. I don't think some people here in the forum understand how lucky they are to have someone like you here. But I do. I'm really enjoying your insights. About the incompleteness theorem, does it bother you that there's statements that are true but can't be proven but I'm not even sure we know an example of such a statement. But that would be kind of bad to spend ones life trying to solve a problem that actually is true but can't be proven but you don't know that. so you waste your life working on something like the twin prime conjecture. no mathematician would consider it wasted but maybe non productive to a degree.

i kind of understand where you're coming from. if we can have self driving ubers such as waymo then clearly that problem has been solved to some degree of acceptability even though sometimes they get stuck in traffic or impede an ambulance...

you're the man! appreciate you.

oh another question hope it's not too off topic but what's your whole stance on the JWST? do you think it was a waste of money or is it actually accomplishing something useful? or do we already know there is life outside of the solar system, intelligent life even? are we the only "intelligent" life in the universe or is there something smarter than us out there somewhere? and what is god or does god even exist? as a scientist i don't know how someone would approach investigating those types of questions but i would love to hear what you have to say about them.

Please let us stop this abuse.

NO ONE DESERVES TO SUFFER EVEN IF IT IS THE WORST CRIMINAL ON EARTH. LET'S KEEP LOVE AND UNITY, PEACE AND HARMONY WITHIN US ALL.

You have been completely and totally enb@#$hed because you are a b@#$h. You will take the next vaccine because it will be in the @$$ for each pandemic every 6 months for the rest of your short miserable life. Enjoy being miserable. I tried to warn you but you are suicidal. You choose death because you are f@#$ed up.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

No offense to your highness but I don't bend over like you do, didn't even get the 1st one, unlike you. Perfectly healthy but you can't comprehend that you disease ridden scammer.

Ok. I won't prevent the next 5 pandemics. Enjoy the 5 vaccines that you will have to get in the @$$ every 6 months for the rest of your miserable short life. And no, the vaccines won't even work.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Lmao, please don't prevent the other "5" pandemics, I'd like to go through this pain you're rambling about.

-Go away. You are producing nothing of value here. The only thing you are doing is convincing me that it is not worth it at all to make any effort to prevent the next 5 pandemics.

I agree with the halting problem since it is not controversial among mathematicians and other experts and the proof is not that hard; the proof of the halting problem really simplifies Godel's incompleteness theorem. I am only familiar with the basics of the stop button problem, and I am not yet convinced that the stop button problem is what we should be focused on with AI safety. 

1. The stop button issue is only a problem when we train an AI system to optimize a fitness/loss function. But our current AI systems optimize not just for having the right outputs, but they may also be regularized and thus their L_1 and/or L_2 norms may be minimized as well. In this case, we are training an AI to minimize a quantity that is not a function of the outputs of the network. What if we keep on using more and more regularized AI that performs well in practice but which does not clearly optimize certain outputs? In this case, the stop button issue may not even be important or the solution may not work since the AIs reaction to the stop button may not even be directly optimized for.

2. The stop button issue is a problem for centralized AI systems, but what about AI systems that are distributed and where each implementation of the AI is slightly different (with fine tuning for example with LoRAs we can easily retrain an existing AI for specific purposes)? In this case, a stop button may only stop some of the AI systems, but we still need to deal with the other AI systems.

3. Even if we have a solution to the stop button problem, we will still need to use AI interpretability to make sure that the solution is properly implemented in AI systems. This is why I consider AI interpretability to be the most fundamental aspect of AI safety.


-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

You're a scammer roleplaying someone you're not, a bad one at that too. Go ahead, guess who the worthless pile of shit is.

obviously you're a very brilliant mind. i don't think i could ever understand that type of math no matter how hard i tried but thanks for sharing. i think the world doesn't value people that do research like you. kind of sad but i guess its the truth.

what are your opinions about things like the halting problem in computer science and the stop button paradox? I'm assuming you agree with the halting problem but do you think there is a simple solution to the stop button paradox for AI?

Please go away. The only thing you are doing is demonstrating how much of a worthless pile of s@#$ you are.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

It's not pride, it's basic biology and it also makes me refuse empty eggs like yourself.

Pride comes before death, b@#$%.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

No offense to your inferior genetics but some of us are built like walking tanks.

Nothing that you say has any value whatsoever. Please learn virtue or die during the next 5 pandemics. But I know that you choose death. You are suicidal.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Look who's talking, the fake Ph.D, hypocrite.

If I stopped doing research I would get really bored. And I really do not dealing with the s@#$ from people because most people act like s@#$ as much as possible because most people are s@#$. Suppose that A_1,...,A_r are real m by m matrices and B_1,...,B_r are real n by n matrices. Define the L_2-spectral radius similarity between (A_1,...,A_r) and (B_1,...,B_r) as rho(kron(A_1,B_1)+...+kron(A_r,B_r))/(rho(kron(A_1,A_1)+...+kron(A_r,A_r))*rho(kron(B_1,B_1)+...+kron(B_r,B_r)))^(1/2). If (A_1,...,A_r) are n by n matrices, then we say that a collection of d by d matrices (X_1,...,X_r) is an L_2-spectral radius dimensionality reduction (LSRDR) if the L_2-spectral radius similarity between (A_1,...,A_r) and (X_1,...,X_r) is locally maximized. The L_2-spectral radius dimensionality reduction can be found using the typical gradient ascent, so this should be thought of as a machine learning algorithm. I promise that LSRDRs satisfy magical properties. I have been dealing with things like LSRDRs and other machine learning algorithms for AI safety since these are useful for cryptocurrency research. Imagine that. The one cryptocurrency that you don't value is the one where the developer is doing the most research. This is because the cryptocurrency sector values stupidity much more than it values intelligence. Most people value stupidity over intelligence. And that is why we all deserve more pandemics.

I forgot to mention that kron stands for the Kronecker (or tensor) product while rho stands for the spectral radius.

You are exactly what I am talking about when I say that most people act like s@#$ most of the time.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

P.S. If you see research done by a schmuck at a university, you can be confident that such research is really s@#$ty. Universities are extremely unprofessional. Universities refuse to apologize for promoting violence, so their research is s@#$ by default.

Cry harder. Try harder.

-alterra57 Ph.D.K.W.

Joseph since this is your thread, can I ask you a question I'd like to know what types of research you are doing these days. I'm assuming you stopped doing math research but I'm not sure.

I didn't break. You are trash.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Lmao, didn't take long for the Bitcoin forum Ph.D. to break. Get off your high horse, you're no better than the rest.

-alterra57, forum knight.

You are garbage. F@$% off.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Get used to people not caring about you, you're not important.

-alterra57 C.c.

This means that you are a chlurmck.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

I don't care about your ideas so I can't hate or love them.

-alterra57 D.Sc

Please learn some virtue. Stop hating ideas.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Too many assumptions oh great one.

You just hate ideas. This kind of attitude is convincing me that humanity needs virtue more than health and safety. This also convinces me that there is absolutely nothing in it for me if I make an effort to try to prevent the next 5 pandemics.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Too much grandiose thinking.

The only thing I care about is MYSELF. I don't care about you, and you don't give a f@#$ about me either. Your life means nothing to me, and you cannot complain about this because I do not mean anything to you. I have the capacity to care about you, but I don't care about you or anyone else. Humanity has tried relentlessly to convince me of its worthlessness. If you want me to start caring and actually do something, then you need to learn some VIRTUE. I am willing to teach you some virtue if you will let me. And no, it is not virtuous in any way for me to care about you one bit with the way that you and everyone else are acting. The truth hurts. I am being much more heroic by doing nothing and refusing to put humanity's health and safety first because I am putting humanity's virtue first. Humanity needs to learn virtue much more than it needs health and safety.

After the black death pandemic, Europeans learned the virtue of cleanliness and hygiene and that maybe there is a reason why s@#$ stinks (s@#$ stinks and is disgusting because natural selection has mostly eliminated organisms who were not disgusted by s@#$). The black death killed about half of all Europeans, so it took the death of half of the population for Europeans to learn that maybe it is better if the tallest building in Europe were something like the Empire State Building rather than a steaming pile of s@#$. Covid-19 did not kill as large of a proportion of the human population as the black death, so humans did not learn very many lessons from it. They could have if they were virtuous, but they did not.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Op your fighting a good flight don't go back on the advocating work, it's always like that the beginning may be small but the later end will increase. May who have written their name with gold never give up. Information is power, if you really want to make a name out of this keep up moving a time will come where those information you have passed will work . Advocating for this issue of pandemic is like fighting for refrendom, a good freedom fighter never give up untill success is achieve.example an African hero called Nelson Mandela, he fight until he conquer without surrendered don't rise as hero and become weakling keep pushing u will conquer.

Yes. That is called a quarantine. Of course, if the bug escapes before anyone in the lab is able to implement a quarantine, then we have a problem.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

So lets say a laboratory was going to work with a very contagious virus and it broke out inside the lab and infected some of the workers. Do you think they should try and lock them inside the lab and let the whole thing play out rather than risk letting the virus escape out into the general population? If it was a really dangerous contagion then I think the answer is clear. You can't just let something like that get the chance to get outside the lab.

Sorry. Universities promote violence. Universities are extremely unprofessional. They have promoted violence against me. You should not trust anything that anyone in academia has to say unless it has been out for about 10 years because they are @#$%ing liars. Just look at the studies on reproducibility of 'scientific' studies. Most 'scientific' studies are not reproducible, so you should not believe them unless you have a really good reason to do so. I have heard of that proximal origins paper that you have cited for a long time and it has been thoroughly debunked. Here is the reasoning of the people who were writing that paper.

Kristian G. Andersen-F@#$.

Anthony Fauci-F@#$.

Kristian G. Andersen-F@#$ing s@#$.

Some other doctor-Holy f@#$ing s@#$.

Doctor-So I am like 50 percent confident that this coronavirus that is f@#$ing s@#$ up came from a lab.

Doctor 2-Me too. F@#$ing s@#$.

Doctor Fauci-So what are we gunna do bout this?

Doctor 2-I know what to do. We will write a paper in Nature defending the natural origin hypothesis. And everyone will gobble that paper up without any questions whatsoever because they hate science. And we will call anyone who believes that 2019-NCov came from a lab a stupid moron and a s@#$face.

Doctor 3-Yeah?

Doctor-Well, I heard that Joseph Van Name will not gobble up our bullshit. He is a mathematician who questions everything and who is solving the problem of reversible computation which will bring about dangerous AI systems. But he has a solution to the problem of dangerous AI that he is developing from his cryptocurrency research. He will demand that biological laboratories be secure. But pretty much everyone else will gobble up anything that we print in Nature. Nobody is going to listen to Joseph Van Name because humans are f@#$ing stupid.

Kristian G. Andersen-That settles it. Sars-Cov-2 did not come from a lab because if people suspect that it came from a lab, then we are f@#$ed. Haha. What a bunch of morons. They will buy anything, and they will accept their own deaths without question. I hate them.

Watch this video about the unredacted e-mails that lead up to that f@#$ing proximal origins paper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc9YHBXad5o

Hmm. That gives me an idea. Maybe I should ban anyone who has a paper accepted into Nature from contributing to the open source project that I am working on.

Happy New Years,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

P.S. The director of the FBI in about March of 2023 stated that Covid-19 likely came from a lab. Do you not think that the director of the FBI had access to the proximal origins paper?

I accept the report printed by nature:


Read the entire piece here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/S41591-020-0820-9

The speed the disease spread was quite astonishing.

Me and my wife had a covid like phase about 6 weeks before it was "discovered" or broke out in China. We live just off the Venezuelan coast. 
A heavy flu, with all the symptoms covid is known for.

That is not evidence of a natural origin of Sars-Cov-2. You should try using the scientific method to produce evidence of your claims. I want for biological laboratories to be more secure so that we can more easily use the scientific method to evaluate claims of the origin of viruses. Or maybe I don't anymore because I am tired of the attitudes of angry hateful people who do not care about their own deaths. There is no excuse for this. We are 4 years into Covid-19, and nearly all people still have not learned some basic lessons in bio-safety, and it is going to cost them dearly.

Happy New Years,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

so is the assessment of the virus being created.
A lab living of testing blood samples is sufficient nowadays to kick in the social media logic.
Journalist living off the input from twitter, now x. 

In order to make a conclusion as to what virus the virologists will tinker with, one has to have a clear understanding of the motivation of the virologists. Were the virologists even trying to cause as much harm to humanity as possible? Was the leak accidental or intentional? If it were accidental, then the virologists could have been working with any virus. And the prospect of a version of Nipah with both a high mortality rate and infectivity rate for humans is something that we need to be as secure as possible against.

Stating that biological laboratories would not work with coronaviruses simply because there are viruses with a higher mortality rate is not evidence that Sars-Cov-2 originated naturally in the wild.

Happy New Years,


-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Happy new year to you too,)

Well I don't think that by finding out how the virus came into existence has an effect on the outcome.
I believe that people engineering a virus as a weapon would not take a flu virus as starters. They would go with ebola or the nipah virus.
Yeah I know the current tenor of the mainstream media is that the flu has killed more people than Ebola.
But who would you rather talk to face to face? A person with the flu or with the Nipah Virus.

Nipah made its way from Malaysia China towards India. The bats move also through climate changes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005932/

Those are great hypotheses. And I totally agree that we eat crap and that it will be very healthy for us to eat a little bit less crap and that our lifestyle is quite unhealthy. But there are still two incompatible hypotheses for the origin of covid-19. Either it was engineered from some other virus (probably a bat virus) in the laboratory so that it can infect humans or it has arisen naturally and biological laboratories have nothing to do with its origin. You should now use the scientific method to make a conclusion one way or the other. And if we cannot use the scientific method to make such a conclusion, then we need to improve our biological laboratories worldwide so that such a question can be answered.

Happy New Years

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Well humans from the beginning of time were victims of diseases.
That in itself should be a fact rather than a hypothesis, disease is nature's selection process.
Thus it cannot be avoided to fall ill, the laziness of us humans make pandemic more susceptible, we rather look for a Dr. then seeing that we eat crap and convert into crap by eating useless materials. Already today hospitals turn into spreader locations.

Nature has waited too long or humans have learned too well to avoid catastrophes 

Common sense is my tool to look for reasons.

I also believe that we only have seen little. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1573511/shenzhen-company-develops-kit-test-ebola-virus-report-says 
The Chinese are always a step ahead. once a virus mixes with another .....

I agree that people need to eat better and stop being such disgusting fat piles of lard. And the hypothesis that pandemics are unavoidable is a reasonable hypothesis. Now that you have established a reasonable hypothesis, you will need to provide a source of evidence of your hypothesis.

Do you think that trying to prevent a pandemic is something that I should do for free? If you do, then my only response to that is to not give a s#$%. Preventing a pandemic should be HIGHLY REWARDED. And I hope you know that preventing a pandemic will be EXPENSIVE and difficult. Of course, making a good effort at preventing a pandemic will be far easier than dealing with the pandemic itself, but I am not going to put in the work without any pay when there are many people here who have nothing but HATE and MALICE.

My family is actually a demotivation. My family members consist of people who are obese, smoke, eat s@#$, don't exercise, and who are very angry sociopaths. If anything, my family is just another reason why I should not give a s@#$. My brother is one of my more reasonable family members, but he is not talking to me anymore. And they did not pay me s@#$ to prevent any pandemic, so I don't give a @#$%.

Happy New Years

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Hospitals get overwhelmed due to people believing that hospitals provide miracles. Earlier we went to churches for that.


Pandemics cannot be avoided. Disease is part of the natural selection prozess.
We can prepare better by eating better, going out and walk, do a little sport and such.

People need to perform a much better cost/benefit analysis for preventing the next pandemic. It costs a lot of resources to lock down Earth (and the benefits have been questioned; going outside and getting exercise is healthy). It costs barely anything to make sure that biological laboratories are safe. But the desire that humans has to be enbitched and refuse to think causes them to want to lock down Earth and get the vaccine in the @$$.

Oh. And Pfizer will start to market @$$ vaccines by telling people that an arm bruise caused by the vaccine will be unsightly, so they should get their vaccine in a place that is usually covered. When we get Covid-26, a lot of people will be pulling down their pants in public at KFC for the vaccine.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D. (Mathematics, and yes, this is relevant)

I don't agree that the lockdowns were stupid.  They were needed to try and slow down the virus so hospitals didn't get overwhelmed. For sure they weren't perfect and made some crappy things happen.  But at the time, felt like lockdowns were our best shot. 

With the biosafety stuff, yeah theres always gonna be risks when dealing with sketchy germs and whatnot.  but we can't just throw our hands up and be like screw it let people get sick.

Our body is full of bacteria workling with us.
Germs are all around us, and the biggest issue humankind has is to let go of their loved ones.
Spartans had that right.

For real numbers I think the 1920 flu was harder than covid still is. Covid still is among us as the vaccine does not deserve that name. 

If there were no germs, there would not be any need for an immune system now would there?  But I agree that those 2020 lockdowns were stupid. It would have been smart if biological laboratories exercised enough bio-safety so that we could rule out a lab leak as the origin of Sars-Cov-2, but this did not happen because people lack the intelligence to exercise proper bio-safety, so we had lockdowns instead.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

The Immune System does not work if you hide before germs.
Its the other way round.

No. People are just going to take it in the ass like the bitches that they are. In fact, the next vaccine will be in the ass as a marketing scheme. The vaccine makers know that humans are all a bunch of bitches who love being humiliated and enslaved (they do not care that biological laboratories do not follow proper safety protocols; they would rather suffer another pandemic than think), so these vaccine makers will capitalize on the desire than humans have to be enbitched. With a vaccine injected straight into the gluteus maximus, I predict that 99.9999% of all people will faithfully get their Covid-26 vaccine (2 doses) along with a booster every 6 months. Never underestimate a human's ability to obey like an obedient pet bitch.

THE TRUTH ABOUT BITCHES: Do you see those pet bitches on leashes? They are spayed, so they are not even legitimate bitches, but I am still going to call them bitches. Those bitches were originally wolves. But then humans took them and selectively bred as many genetic anomalies into them as possible. This is why bulldogs have noses that as squashed so far into their faces that their noses come out their assholes, into their mouthes, out their assholes again, and up their noses. Pet bitches are obedient and happy because they have a genetic anomaly that in humans is called Williams–Beuren syndrome. In humans, Williams–Beuren syndrome makes the humans that have this anomaly dumb and happy.

Don't be a bitch. Don't be obedient. Don't just take a vaccine in the ass. Don't accept your own death without any questions.

Oh? Do you think that you won't just accept another pandemic released by a lab even though you just accepted Covid-19 without questions?

What about when they used to add lead to gasoline? That lead went into everyone's brains and @#$%ed them up badly. Why do you think the boomers are they way they are? It is not just age. It is brain damage. The appropriate response to such a disaster would be for every single lawyer on Earth to sue all oil companies and automobile manufacturers. All of the car companies should have gone out of existence when they banned lead from vehicles in order to tell such corporations not to do so much @#$%ed up shit. And that never happened. At least they banned lead from gasoline.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Interesting. I have to think though that people would resist a vaccine like that even more than they did the one in the arm.

I will advice you not to stop the sensitization that you have started, the difficulty in what you are doing is that you might be playing against the 'big wigs' with affluence and your voice can only go but a little far, they on the other hand control mega institutions that will do their biding at the sight of few 'green backs'.

One of the motivations you should have is family, if your voice can save even one member of your family, its  a big win for you and posterity will not hold you responsible

I have been the only entity advocating for all bio-safety level 4 laboratories to implement a specific bio-safety protocol. This bio-safety protocol is needed to ensure that if the BSL-4 lab leaks a pathogen, the investigators will be able to actually investigate without worrying that the BSL-4 laboratory is hiding something. And if the BSL-4 laboratory is lacking in other information security measures, then this information security protocol will

Now I am not advocating for this information security protocol anymore. Why is that? Was I wrong? No. I was not wrong. BSL-4 labs still need to follow this protocol. I have simply been exacerbated by all the chlurcmks who are absolutely everywhere who have such sick minds that they erupt in unceasing hatred whenever I mention anything sensible. These chlurmcks are pro-death. They just want people to die in the next pandemic. And the worst part is that these chlurmcks hate the idea that I would be compensated in any way for advocating for a protocol that could prevent pandemics. Well, if you do not like that I would like to be compensated in any way for helping to prevent pandemics, then I guess you just want to all f@#$ing die in another pandemic. I will not impede your wishes. I will not advocate for bio-safety any more. If you want me to change my mind, pay me (figure out how to pay me yourself, b@#$%).

In the next pandemic, there will be just as much economic destruction, death, lockdowns, masks, misery, and hatred against one another. And in the next pandemic, the vaccine will be in the ass and not the arm. And in the next pandemic, you will deserve all the suffering that you get.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.