3 ms·
What candidate are you referring to?
by tcbawo 2y ago
What candidate are you referring to?
- throwawaymaths 2y agoNope. Don't want to be on surveillance lists, even with an anon account. Was researched in the 80s, before we knew enough about the antibody side to make a good go of it. then dropped for obvious reasons (it didn't work which makes sense in retrospect given the crude conjugation strategy plus the restrictedness of the warhead side). That's all I'll say. Probably enough info for you to figure it out if you're smart. Don't wind up in jail.
- DigitalPaladin 2y agoAre you referring to monoclonal antibodies? For which a Nobel Prize was awarded in 2018, and research has continued since the 80s?
- loeg 2y agoNo, that's the "homing system" side of this analogy. GP is talking about some sort of poison (chemo), but I don't know which one or what the paranoia is about.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoYeah there's stuff that will get you on lists especially since 9/11. But some of them have been restricted since before that, though de facto unenforceable. Today there is the ability to ingest huge volumes of data. I just don't want to deal with the pain in the ass even if I'm found innocent.
- dekhn 2y agoYour paranoia is not justified. merely mentioned potential treatments (even ethically questionable ones) does not get you on any "watchlists". Just say what it is you're referring to, or don't mention it at all.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoI will do this for you. List 20 compounds surveiled by the US government for potential association with terrorist groups in a comment under your account below this comment and I will answer yes/no if it is in the group as a whole.
- dekhn 2y agoMerely mentioning illegal/regulated drugs does not get you on a watch list. Answering yes/no to a list does not protect you. I will not continue to engage.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoThat's fine if you don't respect my boundaries I don't need your engagement