Ed Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Childlike Empress said:
Don't worry. There is a time for every "debunker" when he/she/it meets a "conspiracy theorist" smarter and better informed than itself. Sleep about it, shrug it off and read the provided material again with the intention to learn something.
Click to expand...

Is this imaginary friend here with us now?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Don't worry. There is a time for every "debunker" when he/she/it meets a "conspiracy theorist" smarter and better informed than itself. Sleep about it, shrug it off and read the provided material again with the intention to learn something.
Click to expand...



I did read the material again, and it's crap. The usual conspiracy theory nonsense.

A humble, self taught man asks his scientist colleagues simple questions, so they begin to shun him. The men is supported by a cadre of unnamed credentialed scientific. Soon, paid shills begin to attack the man, indicating his questioning is a dangerous etc etc

That is a childish power fantasy : I know more than the experts and they fear me for being better than them and soon the world will know my genius.

Bwahahahahahaha
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Don't worry. There is a time for every "debunker" when he/she/it meets a "conspiracy theorist" smarter and better informed than itself. Sleep about it, shrug it off and read the provided material again with the intention to learn something.
Click to expand...
So you admit I'm smarter and better than you?

Bwahahahahahaha!
 
zooterkin said:
That's a theme I see from a number of covidiots, that the amount of replication needed to get enough material to detect on the PCR test means they are unreliable. They quote some old document, presumably from before the tests were perfected?
Click to expand...

Last time I looked, Victoria and NSW were listing nearly 400,000 consecutive tests with zero positives.

It's straightforward to get a 95% confidence level upper bound for false sensitivity assuming a Poisson distribution, which is no more than a few tens per million.

The PHE Covid and flu surveillance reports also show that there's no issue either
 
jimbob said:
Last time I looked, Victoria and NSW were listing nearly 400,000 consecutive tests with zero positives.

It's straightforward to get a 95% confidence level upper bound for false sensitivity assuming a Poisson distribution, which is no more than a few tens per million.

The PHE Covid and flu surveillance reports also show that there's no issue either
Click to expand...

Yes. My understanding is that a false negative is usually only false in the sense that the person is not shedding live virus; they have recovered from the illness (whether with symptoms or not) and still have fragments of the RNA in their system.
 
zooterkin said:
Yes. My understanding is that a false negative is usually only false in the sense that the person is not shedding live virus; they have recovered from the illness (whether with symptoms or not) and still have fragments of the RNA in their system.
Click to expand...

To the degree there are false positives, it's likely in an environment where there are actual positives because RT-PCR amplifies what's there. It doesn't create positives by amplfying what isn't there. Fragments and contamination is an issue when there is higher presence of actual virus in the samples being handled. The lower the prevalence, the lower the risk of contamination.

RT-PCR is quite specific and can detect tiny amounts with CT counts of 45 but it doesn't make something out of nothing.
 
Last edited:
TheSupermeerkat said:
The men is supported by a cadre of unnamed credentialed scientific.
Click to expand...


When you wake up, consider that the man is supported by named credentialed scientists who are listed as the 22 (if you counted correctly) co-authors of the rebuttal to Dr. Osten's crucial paper. You have linked to the rebuttal, and I've pointed out that among the authors are the former chief scientist of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon, and the man who at the moment has the spot in my signature, Wolfgang Wodarg, who almost single-handedly busted the 2009 Swineflu hoax against a lobby of fear-mongers already including Dr. Osten.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
When you wake up, consider that the man is supported by named credentialed scientists who are listed as the 22 (if you counted correctly) co-authors of the rebuttal to Dr. Osten's crucial paper. You have linked to the rebuttal, and I've pointed out that among the authors are the former chief scientist of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon, and the man who at the moment has the spot in my signature, Wolfgang Wodarg, who almost single-handedly busted the 2009 Swineflu hoax against a lobby of fear-mongers already including Dr. Osten.
Click to expand...

I have counted 22 correctly, and if you've read the paper you'd see that number was correct. Checking out the names of the 22 reveals one to be a Radiographer and Physicist and another a Chemist. Surely, one would want scientists with qualifications relevant to the subject at hand?

The crazy man has the support of just 22 scientists, and two of them don't have qualifications relevant to the field?

Why do you believe this lot and not the many thousands who have differing opinions?

I can find 22 credentialed scientists who say the earth is flat, the moon landings are a hoax and the earth is 6000 years old so I guess they must be right as well?
 
varwoche said:
The alternate reality occupied by CTists is one thing. Add to that the smug, illusory superiority. And add to that the sniveling cowardice. Unwilling/unable to stand by their convictions. Unwillling/unable to even attempt to support the drivel they foist.
Click to expand...

As a former conspiracy theorist the COVID-19/Anti-Vaxxer crowd offends me by the sheer third-rate nature of their claims. It is truly pedestrian content. In a world where China is racing to collect DNA samples from every human possible, and the US experiencing social unrest you'd think this would generate a higher quality conspiracy.

A good CTist would automatically claim that the death toll is much higher; citing Florida and the NY Nursing Home scandal as proof. They would point to the first COVID-19 case in California; how it was a contracted in a small-town nail salon(maybe), and how this suggests the virus was already wide-spread or that it was being spread deliberately. The first big outbreak was Italy, yet nobody tries to link it to the Vatican? Come on, They're not even trying. Hell, the first big outbreak in the US was in Seattle but the CT crowd can't come up with a link to Microsoft.

No, instead we just get bush-league CTist trying to justify their selfishness with faux science.

Makes me sad.
 
Childlike Empress said:
When you wake up, consider that the man is supported by named credentialed scientists who are listed as the 22 (if you counted correctly) co-authors of the rebuttal to Dr. Osten's crucial paper. You have linked to the rebuttal, and I've pointed out that among the authors are the former chief scientist of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon, and the man who at the moment has the spot in my signature, Wolfgang Wodarg, who almost single-handedly busted the 2009 Swineflu hoax against a lobby of fear-mongers already including Dr. Osten.
Click to expand...

Who is Doctor Osten? Any idea? Nope, didn't think so. Because no such person exists.

And your pal Wolfgang turns out to be a total nutter.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I've pointed out that among the authors are the former chief scientist of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon, and the man who at the moment has the spot in my signature
Click to expand...

Yeadon was interesting. Months ago I watched a video he did. I found him not credible but he is quite a contrarian. He also said in Oct that Covid-19 was essentially over in the UK and there was no need for vaccines. He was wrong by a rather large amount. There are now three times as many Covid-19 deaths in the UK as there were when he made his poorly founded claim.

Michael was never "chief scientist of Pfizer" and he left almost 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Well I get my first shot April 2nd. I'm hoping the super powers I get are in place before I go to Calgary April 5. However if extra limbs or something like that happens I want to get back home first. People will stare.
 
gmanontario said:
Well I get my first shot April 2nd. I'm hoping the super powers I get are in place before I go to Calgary April 5. However if extra limbs or something like that happens I want to get back home first. People will stare.
Click to expand...

homercat.png
 
marting said:
Yeadon was interesting. Months ago I watched a video he did. I found him not credible but he is quite a contrarian. He also said in Oct that Covid-19 was essentially over in the UK and there was no need for vaccines. He was wrong by a rather large amount. There are now three times as many Covid-19 deaths in the UK as there were when he made his poorly founded claim.

Michael was never "chief scientist of Pfizer" and he left almost 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

He went well off the deep end. Utterly non-credible and possibly a nervous breakdown.

He started tweeting some seriously deranged stuff before he deleted his account.
 
Childlike Empress said:
When you wake up, consider that the man is supported by named credentialed scientists who are listed as the 22 (if you counted correctly) co-authors of the rebuttal to Dr. Osten's crucial paper. You have linked to the rebuttal, and I've pointed out that among the authors are the former chief scientist of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon, and the man who at the moment has the spot in my signature, Wolfgang Wodarg, who almost single-handedly busted the 2009 Swineflu hoax against a lobby of fear-mongers already including Dr. Osten.
Click to expand...
I've done a little research into 10 of those 22 scientists:

Pieter Borger - creationist / PhD molecular genetics

Bobby Rajesh Malhotra - can't find qualifications, but his Twitter feed shows he has a bee in his bonnet about the Israeli vaccination program, accuses Netanyahu of selling the Israelis to multi national corporations. Ben Garrison retweets. Spotted nazi themed meme. General crank magnet.

Michael Yeadon - removed from twitter, former Pfizer scientist.

Clare Craig - a consultant pathologist, wrote letter to parliament criticising Govt's data collection procedures, criticises cause of death reporting. No mention of conspiracies, but letter hints at extreme position. https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2It9kNzH5CczFW1-EPT5jU

Kevin Mckernan - genetic scientist, former R&D manager at Human Genome Project at MIT. Extensive experience in DNA sequencing.

Klaus Steger - PhD life scientist, Andrologist, Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology in Giessen

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/andr.12349


Paul McSheehy - oncologist / cancer biologist. Many research papers, none related to viral genomics.

Lidiya Angelova - virologist, many research papers related to the subject. https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Lidiya-Angelova-2121414000

, Fabio Franchi - specialized in “Infectious Diseases” and “Hygiene and Preventive Medicine”. Has article in Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination accusing local and international health authorities of lying about influenza for the purposes of vaccinating people. https://www.longdom.org/author-profile/fabio-franchi-220647


Thomas Binder - conspiracy theorist Doctor, unable to find much solid info on him, but many Web pages with same picture, all accusing local and international health authorities of lying about health crises and pushing vaccinations. One twitter user reports his psychiatric detainment by police in April last year. Twitter feed apparently active, mainly in German with much conspiracy like posts, some in English

https://twitter.com/Thomas_Binder?s=09

Now, of these 10 only 4 appear to have relevant qualifications. A few have their name associated with many research papers such as Lidiya Angelova and Paul McSheehy, most have none or papers linked with less than reputable organisations.

From my reading of the paper, I don't think the above names where actively involved in the research paper. Rather, the authors simply looked for anything they said that is critical and used their name, likely not approaching them, although that is supposition on my part.

In the case of Lidiya Angelova and Paul McSheehy, they appear to be serious and credentialed scientists. My Google fu reveals no CT activity associated with them.

Here are the rest, if anyone is interested. What are the chances that this lot are a mixed bag of cranks similar to the above?

Henrik Ullrich(11) , Makoto Ohashi(12), Stefano Scoglio(13), Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens(14), Dorothea Gilbert(15), Rainer Klement(16), Ruth Schruefer(17), Berber W. Pieksma(18), Jan Bonte(19), Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare(20), Kevin P. Corbett(21), Ulrike Kämmerer(22)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom