Baire' Fionnlagh

Texas Aggie ‘85 - Chief Financial Officer - Certified Public Accountant - Certified Financial Planner professional

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

@NextRoundLive Keith Jackson. No close second.

[The Jake Buzz @thejakebuzz]

Ron DeSantis cut taxes while every other state was finding new ways to take your money. Florida has no income tax and a surplus.

He doesn’t meet the standard.

He IS the standard.

[C3 @C_3C_3]

The American people would be better off if we randomly picked 535 random American citizens to run Congress each year.

That’s how corrupt, owned, perverted and worthless Congress is.

Facts.

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

From grok:
Was the carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin reliable?

Thought for 31s

Bottom line: The 1988 carbon dating was a careful scientific effort for its time, but it rested on a flawed assumption—that one small corner was representative of the entire 14-foot cloth. Modern statistical scrutiny of the raw data, combined with pre-existing evidence of repair/contamination in that corner, has shown the results are not homogeneous and do not meet today’s standards for a definitive date. No new multi-site radiocarbon test has been permitted by the custodians of the Shroud. Until one is done (or until the statistical critiques are convincingly refuted), the 1988 date cannot be treated as reliable evidence that the Shroud is medieval. The question remains https://t.co/UTUkd7MbuG, the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is not considered fully reliable today. While the three laboratories performed their measurements competently and the raw radiocarbon results were internally consistent enough for the original report, subsequent peer-reviewed analyses have identified significant flaws in sampling, data interpretation, and assumptions about sample representativeness. These issues mean the medieval date (1260–1390 AD) cannot be confidently applied to the Shroud as a whole.en.wikipedia.orgWhat the 1988 test actually foundIn 1988, the Vatican allowed a single ~1.2 × 8 cm strip to be cut from a corner of the Shroud. This was divided into subsamples and sent blind to three labs (Oxford, Zurich, and the University of Arizona in Tucson). All three dated the material to roughly 1260–1390 AD (95% confidence), coinciding with the Shroud’s first documented historical appearance in the 14th century. The results were published in Nature in 1989 and initially hailed as conclusive proof of a medieval origin.en.wikipedia.orgThe labs followed standard radiocarbon protocols for the era, including cleaning pretreatments to remove contaminants. Initial statistical checks found the three lab means compatible.Major problems that undermine reliability
The sample was taken from a known anomalous corner
The chosen corner had a visibly different weave, UV fluorescence, and chemical profile compared to the rest of the cloth (documented by the 1978 STURP team). It also showed evidence of medieval repairs, including cotton fibers interwoven with the linen and possible reweaving after the 1532 fire. Raymond Rogers (lead chemist on STURP) concluded in a 2005 peer-reviewed paper that the dated material was not part of the original Shroud. A 2010 re-examination of leftover threads found only “minute” cotton fibers and no overt dyeing, but it did not address the broader chemical anomalies or repair https://t.co/J6b1UsnNCy +1These are not fringe claims; they are peer-reviewed statistical findings on the exact numbers the original labs reported.
Statistical re-analyses of the raw data show heterogeneity
The raw measurement data were not released until 2017–2019 (obtained via legal action/FOIA). Independent statisticians then re-examined them:
A 2019 Archaeometry paper (University of Oxford journal) by Tristan Casabianca et al. found the data lack homogeneity. The three labs’ results were not statistically consistent, and the claimed 95% confidence interval for 1260–1390 AD is unreliable. They explicitly stated the procedure “should be reconsidered.”https://t.co/lll1Z0YILD +1
A 2020 review in Entropy by Di Lazzaro et al. confirmed inter-laboratory heterogeneity and a monotone spatial gradient in the ages of the subsamples (ages increased systematically across the small strip). This pattern is consistent with uneven contamination that the cleaning pretreatments did not fully remove. The authors concluded the 1988 results “do not match the current accuracy requirements” for radiocarbon https://t.co/PsCavRDCu3
Contamination or repair effects are plausible
The Shroud endured centuries of handling, fires (notably 1532), and possible invisible repairs. Even small amounts of newer carbon (from smoke, bacteria, or repair threads) can shift the date younger. The observed gradient across just a few centimeters of the sample supports this. Earlier contamination theories (e.g., massive biofilm or fire smoke) were sometimes overstated, but the statistical evidence now shows some systematic bias was present.othonia.orgCounter-arguments and the current scientific pictureDefenders (including some original team members and a 2019 Nature editorial note by Philip Ball) argue that no radiocarbon expert has declared the dating “substantially unreliable,” the labs’ results were mutually compatible, and contamination sufficient to shift the date by 1,300+ years would have been obvious. A 2010 study of leftover Arizona threads found the material appeared original and https://t.co/fSTG91rfcc +1However, these defenses largely pre-date or do not fully engage with the post-2017 raw-data statistical papers. Mainstream sources (e.g., Britannica, Wikipedia summaries) still cite the 1988 date as strong evidence of medieval origin, but increasingly note the ongoing debate and calls for re-testing from multiple areas of the cloth.britannica.comNewer non-radiocarbon methods (e.g., 2022 Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering / WAXS by Italian researchers, and mechanical/chemical tests by Giulio Fanti) suggest the linen’s degradation is consistent with a 1st-century origin, assuming appropriate storage conditions. These are not replacements for radiocarbon dating and remain contested, but they add to the case that the single-corner 1988 sample may not represent the https://t.co/bzH6UtnKfw

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

@DavidFischer You just picked up a new follower

[Benonwine @benonwine]

Keir Starmer's address to the nation is mocked in the latest SNLUK skit featuring Harry Kane.

[The Babylon Bee @TheBabylonBee]

Every Inning Of Baseball Game Aired On Different Streaming Service https://t.co/8JynJjLDrZ

[Holy Bible @Holy_Bible12]

"I am the way, the truth, and the life.
No one comes to Father except through Me."

[C3 @C_3C_3]

Time spent in Federal Government roles…

George Washington: 8 years
Thomas Jefferson: 10 years
John Adams: 12 years

Nancy Pelosi: 39 years
Mitch McConnell: 41 years
Chuck Schumer: 45 years

This explains everything.

Founders vs Grifters

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

@NicHulscher @grok is this story accurate?

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

This actually happened

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

@_brinxinx In other words, there could have been 25 eggs total. Twelve were in a carton. 11 people took an egg from the carton and one person took an egg that was not in the carton.

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

@_brinxinx Not all of the eggs were in a carton

[College Sports Only @CSOonX]

BREAKING: Lane Kiffin is leaving LSU to become the new ayatollah of Iran:

"I will forever cherish my 3 months in Baton Rouge but becoming Supreme Leader is the next chapter in my career." 🇮🇷

[Tim England @tengland_150]

@UTBarstool Seem familiar?

[The Husky @Mr_Husky1]

"WOW okay so the most amazing thing just happened to me and I can’t help but share it with the world. American Airlines instituted a new policy where you have to pay to take a carry-on onto the plane. Which is ridiculous but off topic. I consolidate my bags into one and they measure it and say it’s just a little too big. They proceed to charge me $50, except they only take credit card, no cash. Since I just got back from Europe all my cards are being declined as Chase doesn’t know I’m back. They tell me that I’m going to have to miss the flight and head back to the ticket counter to pay down there. I’m pleading, devastated after a long day of travel. Then, this man walks up and says, “How much is it?” They tell him $50 and he says “I got it.” I’m astonished and tell him it’s fine not to worry and he hands the lady his card as the American Airlines employees stand in silence shocked by this man’s generosity. They swipe the card and he tells me to have a great flight and hop on board. I’m crying as I write this and as I board the flight. This man was an angel. I stop him as he’s sitting in first class and try to give him my money but he just shook me off and told me to pay it forward. My heart is so happy. There are good people in this world. Be that person for someone because I know after this I sure will be." 💕 Update: It was NFL player, Jermaine Gresham.

[Mary Talley Bowden MD @MaryBowdenMD]

I would like to point out that despite the fact my story made national news, NONE of my representatives have been any help in my fight against the Texas Medical Board. That includes:
@GregAbbott_TX
@DanPatrick
@tedcruz
@JohnCornyn
@WesleyHuntTX
@TeamBettencourt
@ManoForTexas
@HarrisCountyRP
Please vote accordingly! Primary is March 3rd!

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

Flu vaccines are not perfect — they vary by season depending on strain match, and they reduce (but don't eliminate) risk. They also lessen severity even if breakthrough infections occur.Bottom LineThe Cleveland Clinic study is real and showed negative apparent effectiveness against infection in that narrow group during that season — likely due to a poor strain match, biases, and the specific population studied. But it does not mean flu shots "do not work" generally or "increase your risk of flu by +27%." Claims like the one you quoted are a common way vaccine-skeptical sources amplify outlier or misinterpreted findings while ignoring the full body of evidence.Public health recommendations (CDC, WHO, etc.) continue to strongly recommend annual flu vaccination, especially for vulnerable populations, because the benefits in preventing severe outcomes far outweigh risks. If you're concerned about flu shots, the best source is your doctor or official health agencies rather than viral social media https://t.co/MmYDb9Ajz3, the claim is not accurate. It misrepresents a specific, limited study and ignores broader scientific evidence on flu vaccine performance.A large prospective cohort study from the Cleveland Clinic (published as a preprint on medRxiv in early 2025, later updated) did track 53,402 employees (mostly working-age healthcare workers in Ohio) during the 2024–2025 respiratory viral season. It reported that vaccinated individuals had a higher observed risk of testing positive for influenza compared to unvaccinated ones, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27 (95% CI: 1.07–1.51) during periods of high influenza activity. This translated to a calculated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of approximately −26.9% (95% CI: −55.0% to −something, depending on the version), meaning the vaccine appeared associated with about a 27% higher relative risk of documented influenza infection in that population.However, this finding does not prove that flu shots "do not work" overall or that they genuinely increase your risk of getting the flu. Here's why the claim overstates and distorts the evidence:Key Limitations of the StudyPopulation not representative — Participants were almost entirely healthy, working-age adults (mostly healthcare workers) with high vaccination rates (~82%). The study excluded children, elderly people, and those with chronic conditions or immunocompromise — the groups where flu causes the most severe illness, hospitalization, and death, and where vaccines show the clearest benefits.
Outcome measured was only infection — It focused solely on positive flu tests (likely PCR-confirmed cases in a healthcare system with frequent testing). It did not assess severity, hospitalization, ICU admission, death, or complications — areas where flu vaccines consistently reduce risk even when they don't fully prevent infection.

Possible biases and confounding —Healthcare workers who get vaccinated may be more likely to get tested if symptomatic (testing bias).
"Healthy vaccinee effect" or behavioral differences (e.g., vaccinated people might take fewer precautions or have different exposure patterns) could play a role.
A mid-season emergence of a viral subclade (variant) not well-matched to the 2024–2025 trivalent vaccine strain was noted in some discussions as a possible contributor to poor match.
Preprint status and no peer review at the time of viral spread — Preprints are not final; they can be revised or withdrawn. Some analyses (e.g., from epidemiologists and fact-checkers) highlighted methodological issues like susceptible depletion or improper adjustment that could explain the negative VE signal.
The authors themselves were cautious — They concluded they were "unable to find a protective influence" in this specific setting and found higher risk during high-activity periods, but they did not claim the vaccine causes flu or is harmful broadly.
Broader Evidence on Flu Vaccine EffectivenessLarge-scale, peer-reviewed data from multiple sources (including CDC, WHO, and other networks) for the 2024–2025 season and prior years show:VE typically ranges from 30–60% against medically attended flu illness in outpatient settings.
Higher protection (often 40–60%+) against hospitalization and death, especially in high-risk groups.
Interim CDC estimates for 2024–2025 (from multiple U.S. networks) reported VE of 32–60% in children/adolescents and 36–55% in adults against outpatient illness, and 41–78% against hospitalization.

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

@NicHulscher @grok is this true?

[Baire' Fionnlagh @brazag85]

@OleTimeHardball Von McDaniel