PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[catsmate]

As usual you have no meaningful contribution. <>

Pot>---<Kettle.

 

[catsmate]

<>
I could produce proof I wrote that in 1992 but it would mean getting more personal than I care to get.
<>

Right....

 

[Cosmic Yak]

5) Why would the Telcos NOT engage in "strategic warfare" against science showing harm?

1. Because they work in that industry, they would be more exposed to the dangers, and therefore more likely to suffer than the rest of us.
2. Because companies that deliberately conceal evidence of the harm of their products get prosecuted. Huge fines and bad publicity can be bad for a business.
3. It is possible that not every employee of every telecom company is happy with watching their families, friends and loved ones getting sick, knowing why they're getting sick, and yet somehow not warning any of them.
4. It is possible that not every manager of every telecom company wants everyone to die an early and nasty death either.

 

[abaddon]

As usual you have no meaningful contribution. Ironically, you do just what my post says you and the Telcos are doing. You just fire broadside after broadside of negative comments about me.

That reference has a huge amount of science. Did you even bother to read it?

Try answering this.

Do you think that the VGCC mechanism can be affected by low-level microwaves?

If not, please cite a credible peer-reviewed science paper that gives specifics as to why the effects seen by so many are wrong? Why are scientists seeing and measuring the effects?

We did that already and you handwaved it away.

Why do you want us to do it again?

Why should we believe that this time will be different?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Experts cannot explain the difference in death rates. Under-reporting cannot be the only factor. Something else is going on.

Check the graph. High tech countries with hi-tech ICUs meaning lots of hospital WiFi. I will not be going into hospital if I get very sick. You can speculate all you like.

Until the REAL reason is found you cannot rule out cell MWs. If no reason is found (likely) it will probably be because certain speculations (like cell MWs) were not pursued. Feel free to attack me, rather than my speculation - even though my speculation is supported both by science and my personal experience. It may have the effect of impressing the captured audience here, but any astute reader of this thread will see it diversionary tactics.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53284144

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/135E0/production/_113282397_india_per_cap_640-nc.png

There have been a lot of questions around India's Covid-19 death figures, and most experts agree that they are likely being underreported.
But Dr Ravi said that did not explain the significant gap in death rates between India and Europe. "If we were indeed having high death rates, no amount of data could have hidden that - that's 20-40 times as many deaths," she said. India's low death rate is also similar to other countries in the region, such as Pakistan or Indonesia. Theories range from a higher prevalence of infections in the region to a less virulent strain of the virus circulating in these countries to younger populations on average than badly hit Western nations, given that Covid-19 predominantly kills the elderly. "Every country cannot be fudging its data," Dr Jameel said. "Maybe innate immunity in these populations is higher due to a high load of other infections. But we really do not know yet why their deaths rates are so low.

 

[JayUtah]

As usual you have no meaningful contribution.

You admit you don't read my contributions, so you have no basis for this claim. You found my previous posts too laborious, you said. Now you're trying to say they're insubstantial. It seems there's no pleasing you. No matter how much or how little is written, somehow it's never worth your attention.

Ironically, you do just what my post says you and the Telcos are doing.

No. There's no "me and the telcos." As hard as you might try to lump everyone together and brand them The Enemy, the problem remains the lack of erudition and rigor in your argument. You need a better argument than just accusing your critics of being in cahoots with some designated bad guy.

Tell us what "war-gaming" means in the context of American business. I already know the answer. And I already know the people who spoon-fed you your opinion don't. So don't bother trying to bluff. You either know the right answer or you don't. You need to prove to us that you know what you're talking about, so that we can judge whether your interpretation of the Lai memo has the proper background of knowledge.

You just fire broadside after broadside of negative comments about me.

Because your argument deserves them. You've come to a place where it is expected that claims and the arguments meant to support them will be rigorously challenged. If they can't rise to the challenge, that's critical thinking at work. Don't like critical thinking? Then post somewhere else.

No, you're not being attacked personally. You know the drill. If a post attacks you rather than your argument, it is ripe for moderation and should be reported. Otherwise, merely whining that you're being opposed doesn't get you anywhere.

Try answering this.

Try not constantly attempting to change the subject every time you're cornered on something you don't know.

The topic is the Lai memo and war-gaming.

 

[varwoche]

Oh, so you foresaw the current racial protests and calls to defund the police as inevitable? And so did the bulk of Americans?

I could produce proof I wrote that in 1992 but it would mean getting more personal than I care to get.

I hope to publish the book and then you can decide..

I write things on this forum in good faith. Yet is seems that this forum keeps going back the tired and hackneyed response that anything I say is unprovable and therefore unacceptable. And any link I provide is unacceptable because ... well, just because... A real debate killer.

You just added that in. Your post in question says nothing about defunding the police.

What, are we playing three card monte here? That's the sort of not-so-slick maneuver, intentional or not, that racks up the false positives.

Add: In 1992 there were HUGE riots following the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King. Predicting racial tensions in 1992 requires a Master of the Obvious degree.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, so you foresaw the current racial protests and calls to defund the police as inevitable? And so did the bulk of Americans?

Yes. America has had chronic problems with racially-motivated violence, and police brutality and corruption. All this goes back many decades. It periodically comes to a head.

I write things on this forum in good faith. Yet is seems that this forum keeps going back the tired and hackneyed response that anything I say is unprovable and therefore unacceptable. And any link I provide is unacceptable because ... well, just because... A real debate killer.

If you don't like critical thinking, you've come to the wrong shop. What you're claiming, in "good faith," is extraordinary ability in a huge variety of applications. You can foresee the future. God talks to you. You're a scientific genius. And so forth. What's common among all those claims is your unwillingness to demonstrate that your ability exists, or is in any way more adept than normal. That's most assuredly not in good faith. You interpret any challenge to these claims -- however fairly put -- as a personal affront. You even reject people's good-faith attempts to help you acquire the proof they seek. What you want is blind faith. Asking skeptics to give it to you is a recipe for failure.

 

[JayUtah]

Are you closing your mind to the possibility that he is right?

As Pixel42 points out, turnabout is fair. Are you closing your mind to the possibility that he is wrong?

As for anecdotes there are three more new issues with science (and governments) not dealing with anecdotal evidence until it becomes overwhelming...

Being able to rigorously quantify the effect alluded to in anecdotes is part of what transforms anecdotal evidence into actionable evidence. Again, this is science doing what science does. Not all anecdotes become actionable evidence, not necessarily because no rigor is pursued, but because when pursued rigorously the effect vanishes. Insinuating that anecdotes should be generally actionable remains poor reasoning.

the huge number of anti-emf organizations;

Have you considered that these organizations might have ulterior motives that aren't driven by a quest for good science? You find it easy to attribute bad motives to certain people, but are unconcerned with testing the motives of others. As an independent observer, I consider that evidence of bias.

the huge number of law suits and letters and appeals;

Your lawsuit is an indication of where the demonstrable evidence points, in that the evidence is tested using an adversarial process. You excuse the outcome by claiming the courts are corrupt, but the record of the trial suggests otherwise. Civil litigation is a chronic condition, in America at least. It is not necessarily an indicator of legitimate concern.

Letters and appeals are evidence that a sector of people feel strongly about something, but that's not an indication of the objective strength of whatever is alleged to be supporting evidence. People are chronically upset about all sorts of things. Discontent is not proof of others' wrongdoing.

and the huge number of testing devices for emf;

If there's money to be made, people will do what it takes to make it regardless of whether there's a strong scientific basis for the claim. You can't equate market demand with evidentiary merit -- caveat emptor. I live in a state whose economy boasts a large sector of do-nothing "supplements," and whose previous long-serving senator championed the legislation freeing the makers of those products from any legal obligation to prove their claims of efficacy. Similarly the device you purchased has been evaluated by someone with appropriate knowledge and found not to be adequate to the task for which it was advertised. As such, it's evidence only of someone else's likely desire to profit from your fear regardless of whether the fear is justified.

are based on scare mongering and have NO science what-so-ever?

Straw man. You're the one claiming the science is conclusive in a particular direction. Disputing that does not require arguing that the science is conclusive in the other direction.

If yes, then you guys are not skeptics - just nay-sayers to anyone who has views that are not main stream media.

Desperately trying to portray your critics as irrational on the basis of arguments you've foisted on them, and pretended they made, is ultimately revealing of your motives. Are you interested in testing claims and discovering the truth? Or does your interest lie more in vilifying people who disagree with your claims?

 

[Pixel42]

High tech countries with hi-tech ICUs meaning lots of hospital WiFi.

It also means lots of many, many other things. You need much more than "there's more of both these things in this place" to deduce a cause and effect connection between them.

ISTR you predicted months ago that slum areas of cities, which have less cell coverage, would suffer fewer Covid-19 cases than more affluent areas. Did that prove to be true? Have you made any effort at all to find out?

I will not be going into hospital if I get very sick.

There's a very good reason to avoid going into hospitals unless absolutely necessary during a pandemic. The wifi coverage is not it.

You can speculate all you like.

That's your forte. I prefer to wait for evidence.

Incidentally there's a thread here discussing the different rates of infection in different countries, and speculating about the possible reasons for it. There are several knowledgeable posters contributing to it. By all means post your own speculation, they may be able to point you to the relevant data.

The thread is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=343009

ETA: Actually it belatedly occurs to me that the mods might object to posts about the crackpot 5G conspiracy theory being made in a science thread, but the point about sources of data - which there is plenty of in that thread - stands.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I have not given up on the Wifi testing.

I have sourced a meter that is affordable but has the following features. Range up to 8 Ghz. 0.2uW/sqm up to 9999 mW/sqm. Spectrum analysis. Directional capability on 3 axes. Data logging with USB download. I will double check the manual and then buy one.

I have other people who have other meters (3 other types) and I will be able to compare readings.

 

[Pixel42]

You still haven't explained what role a meter will play in your test protocol, despite being asked several times by more than one poster.

 

[Darat]

You still haven't explained what role a meter will play in your test protocol, despite being asked several times by more than one poster.

It's sciency!

 

[PartSkeptic]

I am in touch with some people who are EHS.

Two of them found out it was cell towers because there were periods when they felt okay. It took each of them about 2 years to figure out the cause. On person was so sick she lost her career and all her assets. She was a mess when I first met her. But she shields herself now and she is quite a different person.

Now explain this. They found out that the periods they felt okay was when a nearby mast or antennae array was powered down for maintenance.

I will make it easy for a bit of a poll.
1) It is not cell MW because it has been proven safe
2) It is not cell MW because such a claim is a tin-hat conspiracy
3) It is not cell MW because the Telcos' would not harm the public
4) The two people are lying and do not have symptoms
5) The cause is psychosomatic and correlation is not causation
6) They have real symptoms but the cause is unknown but not cell MWs
7) The fact that some governments recognize EHS is because they have been fooled by a group of nutters (some of them claiming to be scientists)
8) The cell MW affects their VGCC and they are suffering.
9) Pain does not exist because it cannot be measured and quantified so there is no evidence to support any complaint of pain.

Pick any rational possibilities in the order you feel most possible.

And for those feeling energetic there are some bonus questions.

A. There are people who have appeared on various shows who have to live away from their families in areas that have no EMF. Why are there no doctors or specialists that explain their symptoms as NOT being cell MW so that they can live ordinary lives. (Why have the Telcos not taken them to such specialists?)

B. Some countries have recommended limits that are much lower than the ICNIRP limits. Some by orders of magnitude. Why?

C. Germany and Israel come to mind as low limits and they do not want WiFi in schools or hospitals. Is it possible that this has helped with lower Covid mortality?

 

[PartSkeptic]

You still haven't explained what role a meter will play in your test protocol, despite being asked several times by more than one poster.

Is is not blindingly obvious? Every EMF experiment at least tries to explain the type of MW, the pulsation (usually absent), the duration, the direction, the spacing from the animals. In some cases, I think they try to use a cell phone scheme and say what it is.

The meter will measure the various aspects of the WiFi. I will record my symptoms and how I feel. Then look for correlation. If I get a strong signal but not symptoms and then find there are a set of frequencies that this is associated with then it would APPEAR that frequency is a factor.

Would you like me to take my temperature as well? Orally is the only acceptable option. Must I specify if I ate curry the night before (tonight is curry night - my wife is has good reputation for her dishes)? What about how many pain tablets and when and how many days? Room temperature? What I am wearing? Exposure to sources the day before? A diary of everything for a week before and a week after the tests. Calibration of the instruments against one another and a known source?

And what do I do with the results? Get some experts in to confirm initial findings? And also the police to corroborate the test set up? And then what?

 

[JayUtah]

[deleted]

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

If we go with anecdotes, my boss is also EHS, he's been feeling a lot better since we told him we turn the wifi off when we don't directly use it.

We don't, but ever since we told him, his problems have vanished.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No. Electromagnetic field energy is not a catch-all aggravating factor to physical illness. This is not your "experience." It's naive speculation.

How do you know it is not my experience? How can you make such an unsupported statement? You do that a lot, you know.

Is this an argument from authority? Yours, that is?

It is a bad as me telling you that you only imagining you have been to the toilet in the last week. On what basis could I claim that?

 

[JayUtah]

The meter will measure the various aspects of the WiFi.

What aspects, and how will it measure them? Be specific.

I will record my symptoms and how I feel. Then look for correlation.

Describe the statistical model that will provide that insight.

If I get a strong signal but not symptoms and then find there are a set of frequencies that this is associated with then it would APPEAR that frequency is a factor.

It sounds like you're introducing a number of new variables into the model. Previously you said the effect appeared strictly as a matter of the on-off state of your wifi bridge. I provided a statistical model that would be dispositive of that sort of data. Then later you said that "obviously" signal strength was a factor, but without many details. I provided a different statistical model that would work. Now that all those pieces are again in place to do the test, you're trying to move the goalposts again.

I don't believe you have any interest in testing. Convince me you're not just throwing wild guesses into the mix so as to preclude an effective protocol.

 

[JayUtah]

How do you know it is not my experience?

Because it's a generalized statement that also happens to be absurd on its face. A statement of general effect cannot be established on the basis of one person's experience. Even just in one person's case, the vast modality of potential illnesses precludes a single, universal aggravating factor.