Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Petra]

Good point, Steve. By "thinking for yourself" I absolutely do not mean "thinking entirely for yourself completely devoid of any outside information whatsoever". I do not consider myself a "conspiracy theorist" but rather a "conspiracy analyst". Those whom I might tend to think of as conspiracy theorists although that isn't really the term I'd use are people who think that whatever they come up with is fine, they don't feel the need to check whatever they think against what others say, especially those who are more knowledgeable on the subject.

I assure you I am not of that ilk. I respect and rely on the superior knowledge of others and I certainly respect the evidence.

When I heard the inventor of the PCR technique, Kary Mullis, say:
"The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong," I thought "Bingo! that's what I do. I try to check if what I believe is correct from as many angles as I can."

Of course, I'm not a scientist, am I, and how can I understand whether whether what a scientific paper puts forward has merit or not. I cannot on my own, I need guidance from those more expert. Sam Bailey is certainly not the only expert who disputes the covid narrative, not by a long shot. There are those, of course, who dispute it but who simply put out rubbish but there are those, like Sam, who put forward credible arguments.

What I do as much as I can is follow the debunking trail. In her videos Sam replies to her detractors and has invited one of them, Alison Campbell, to discuss Alison's "debunking" of Sam. Alison refused. Rather telling, no? (You can find her video, Why Sam Bailey is Wrong, on her odysee channel, DrSamBailey.)

Sam is co-author of the latest edition of the book, Virus Mania, which has a great number of laudatory reviews and has also been endorsed by relevant, reputable professionals. Another of the co-authors, Torsten Engelbrecht, has co-authored a couple of articles, one of which, COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, had a debunking attempt made by fact-checker, PolitiFact. Even the layperson can identify its complete lameness. Unsurprisingly, PolitiFact were unable to respond to the response to their debunking.

I think following the to and fro argument between experts is an excellent way to determine who's wrong. While on your own in a subject you have no familiarity with it's difficult to work out what's what when you see argument laid bare between two people it's much easier to get a sense of who's right and who's wrong. But "blogger" or "published in a scientific journal" mean absolutely nothing to me these days. I know loads of hogwash gets published in scientific journals - admitted to by editors of the journals themselves so I look at the material not the source. Source means nothing.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Bump for Petra.

But I do think for myself.
So far, my brother-in-law, nephew and niece have all had Covid, as have several of my friends, all with varying degrees of severity. (All have recovered, btw). Last May, I lost my sense of taste and smell for a few days. This was in May, before it was known that this was a symptom of Covid-19.
Now, all these people did actually get sick. They got sick from something that had all the symptoms of Covid. If they didn't have Covid (because, as per your claim, it doesn't exist), then they all got sick with another disease that had all the symptoms of Covid, but wasn't Covid, and all the doctors who attended them, the nursing and support staff, and all of the world's health authorities and medical scientists on whose advice they were relying, were all lying. I find this unconvincing.
In addition, the evidence for the existence of the pandemic is readily available and conclusive, unless you believe that there actually is a vast conspiracy, involving huge numbers of people, to fix all of the data everywhere, to do what? Increase profits for pharmaceutical companies, at the expense of almost every other business? Destroy democracy and install a worldwide fascist tyranny? That requires a great number of assumptions and assertions.
However, just because an idea is crazy doesn't mean I automatically dismiss it. That's not what scientific scepticism means. I have looked at these claims, both here and elsewhere, and I have found them, every single time, to be laughably, pitifully wrong. The assumptions and assertions in each and every one of these conspiratorial, anti-science, counterfactual claims are wrong. Without foundation. Not even close to being right.
Moreover, many of these claims are being made and spread by some deeply unpleasant people, who have agendas of their own, and who are profiting from this difficult and tragic situation. They are knowingly, intentionally, provably dishonest.
I have therefore concluded that the general scientific consensus is correct, that Covid-19 is as described, and that vaccines are both necessary and safe.
All by thinking for myself.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Bump for Petra.

Petra, you claim to think for yourself, and mention here that you would 'chew on those figures'. This is to be commended. Blindly accepting the claims made in a YouTube video is not 'thinking for yourself'.
Can you please link to the specific pages on Euromomo that you looked at to substantiate this claim? This would help the rest of us understand what the evidence was that persuaded you to accept this claim.
Thanks.

 

[EaglePuncher]

I respect and rely on the superior knowledge of others and I certainly respect the evidence.

You clearly don't. The evidence that your are lying is in your last few posts. So, why do you lie while the evidence that you lied is easily available?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Good point, Steve. By "thinking for yourself" I absolutely do not mean "thinking entirely for yourself completely devoid of any outside information whatsoever". I do not consider myself a "conspiracy theorist" but rather a "conspiracy analyst". Those whom I might tend to think of as conspiracy theorists although that isn't really the term I'd use are people who think that whatever they come up with is fine, they don't feel the need to check whatever they think against what others say, especially those who are more knowledgeable on the subject.

I assure you I am not of that ilk. I respect and rely on the superior knowledge of others and I certainly respect the evidence.

Yet you have not presented any actual evidence, just tried to get more clicks for a YouTube video.

When I heard the inventor of the PCR technique, Kary Mullis, say:
"The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong," I thought "Bingo! that's what I do. I try to check if what I believe is correct from as many angles as I can."

No evidence you have done this, either.

Of course, I'm not a scientist, am I, and how can I understand whether whether what a scientific paper puts forward has merit or not. I cannot on my own, I need guidance from those more expert. Sam Bailey is certainly not the only expert who disputes the covid narrative, not by a long shot. There are those, of course, who dispute it but who simply put out rubbish but there are those, like Sam, who put forward credible arguments.

IOW, you only believe the scientists who support your prior conclusions, and reject those who do not.
Pure confirmation bias.
As you admit to not being a scientist, on what basis do you throw out the verdict of the vast majority of qualified medical professionals, in favour of a handful of outliers, if it's not confirmation bias?

What I do as much as I can is follow the debunking trail. In her videos Sam replies to her detractors and has invited one of them, Alison Campbell, to discuss Alison's "debunking" of Sam. Alison refused. Rather telling, no? (You can find her video, Why Sam Bailey is Wrong, on her odysee channel, DrSamBailey.)

Citation needed.

Sam is co-author of the latest edition of the book, Virus Mania, which has a great number of laudatory reviews

A selection:

It is astonishing that this pile of made up blabber got published. Yes, pollution and such are bad but viruses are entirely real and do cause terrible disease. Authors are quacks.

This fiction novel from a group of anti-vaxxers did not age well at all.

This is junk science of the worst sort.

This is another book in a long series that follows in the tradition of twisted paranoia seen in all denialism. The book is amusing for people who understand science and medicine and dangerous to those who do not. If you run out of kindling sticks, it could come in handy.

From Amazon.

and has also been endorsed by relevant, reputable professionals.

For example?
Citation needed.

Another of the co-authors, Torsten Engelbrecht, has co-authored a couple of articles, one of which, COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, had a debunking attempt made by fact-checker, PolitiFact. Even the layperson can identify its complete lameness. Unsurprisingly, PolitiFact were unable to respond to the response to their debunking.

'Complete lameness' needs a little explanation, Petra. What, specific factual disagreements do you have with the PolitiFact debunking?
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-19-tests-are-not-scientifically-meaningless/

Citation needed for the claim that PolitiFact were 'unable to respond to the response to their debunking'.

I think following the to and fro argument between experts is an excellent way to determine who's wrong. While on your own in a subject you have no familiarity with it's difficult to work out what's what when you see argument laid bare between two people it's much easier to get a sense of who's right and who's wrong. But "blogger" or "published in a scientific journal" mean absolutely nothing to me these days. I know loads of hogwash gets published in scientific journals - admitted to by editors of the journals themselves so I look at the material not the source. Source means nothing.

No, the source does not mean nothing. While each claim should be examined on its own merit, knowing where it came from is an important first step in determining whether it is true or not. If the source is a known fount of disinformation, then any claim from that source should be treated with extra caution. Sources can be unreliable for a number of reasons: deliberate dishonesty, uncritical spreading of unverified material, state propaganda from the likes of Russia and China, agenda-fuelled propaganda from extremist political groups and media channels, and simple though well-meaning ignorance. This is why using a site like MediaBiasFactCheck is helpful, to get a feel for the source before proceeding with a fact-check of the actual claim.

Then go ahead and examine the actual evidence for that particular claim. Is it true? Is it relevant? Has it been verified by others in the field?
Finally, run it past your cognitive biases. Have you dismissed evidence that is contrary to your prior conclusions- and why?

If you cannot distinguish between the output of a blogger and a scientific journal, I suggest you follow these steps a little more closely.
Oh, and a further citation is needed for the claim that the editors of scientific journals freely admit that their content is 'hogwash'.

Look at what you posted here, Petra. Look at the number of times I've asked for citations. Look at the previous post of mine, asking for more evidence from you. You make a big deal of looking at the evidence, yet you have posted precisely none to back up your claims. If you truly have this evidence, then post it.

 

[Pixel42]

I think it's a matter of different default assumptions.

My default assumption is that an expert consensus is correct, until and unless there is good reason to think otherwise. Disinformation, whether deliberate or honestly mistaken, is not a good reason, and my scientific education equips me to be able to recognise it when I see it.

The default assumption of the Petras, Bubbas and Tippits of this world seems to be that an expert consensus is very likely to be wrong. They then seek out, and accept without due diligence, anything they can find that supports that assumption, no matter how dubious the source.

 

[Petra]

Good point, Steve. By "thinking for yourself" I absolutely do not mean "thinking entirely for yourself completely devoid of any outside information whatsoever". I do not consider myself a "conspiracy theorist" but rather a "conspiracy analyst". Those whom I might tend to think of as conspiracy theorists although that isn't really the term I'd use are people who think that whatever they come up with is fine, they don't feel the need to check whatever they think against what others say, especially those who are more knowledgeable on the subject.

I assure you I am not of that ilk. I respect and rely on the superior knowledge of others and I certainly respect the evidence.

When I heard the inventor of the PCR technique, Kary Mullis, say:
"The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong," I thought "Bingo! that's what I do. I try to check if what I believe is correct from as many angles as I can."

Of course, I'm not a scientist, am I, and how can I understand whether whether what a scientific paper puts forward has merit or not. I cannot on my own, I need guidance from those more expert. Sam Bailey is certainly not the only expert who disputes the covid narrative, not by a long shot. There are those, of course, who dispute it but who simply put out rubbish but there are those, like Sam, who put forward credible arguments.

What I do as much as I can is follow the debunking trail. In her videos Sam replies to her detractors and has invited one of them, Alison Campbell, to discuss Alison's "debunking" of Sam. Alison refused. Rather telling, no? (You can find her video, Why Sam Bailey is Wrong, on her odysee channel, DrSamBailey.)

Sam is a co-author of the latest edition of the book, Virus Mania, which has a great number of laudatory reviews and has also been endorsed by relevant, reputable professionals. Another of the co-authors, Torsten Engelbrecht, has co-authored a couple of articles, one of which, COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, had a debunking attempt made by fact-checker, PolitiFact. Even the layperson can identify its complete lameness. Unsurprisingly, PolitiFact were unable to respond to the response to their debunking.

I think following the to and fro argument between experts is an excellent way to determine who's wrong. While on your own in a subject you have no familiarity with it's difficult to work out what's what when you see argument laid bare between two people it's much easier to get a sense of who's right and who's wrong. But "blogger" or "published in a scientific journal" mean absolutely nothing to me these days. I know loads of hogwash gets published in scientific journals - admitted to by editors of the journals themselves so I look at the material not the source. Source means nothing.

 

[Petra]

But what says they had covid and not another respiratory illness? Covid, as indicated on the CDC website, doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms and the PCR test is shown not to be fit for purpose. If testing stopped tomorrow there would be no way to say that anyone had covid and not another respiratory illness.

 

[Stee]

Sam is co-author of the latest edition of the book, Virus Mania, which has a great number of laudatory reviews

So do David Icke’s books!

 

[Petra]

IOW, you only believe the scientists who support your prior conclusions, and reject those who do not.

No. I follow the debunking trail so I look at the to and fro argument and see who sustains their argument and is able to have the last word. PolitiFact had no response to the rebuttal of their debunking.

As you admit to not being a scientist, on what basis do you throw out the verdict of the vast majority of qualified medical professionals, in favour of a handful of outliers, if it's not confirmation bias?

It's got zero to do with numbers. Science is not consensus OK? As said by 16th century Italian philosopher and mathematician, Giordano Bruno, and many other sages:

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

A selection:

[Link to the first edition of the book and reviews in that book.]

Unfortunately, I still cannot post URLs and this is not the edition I refer to. If you go to the third edition which has four authors including Dr Sam Bailey the reviews are of a completely different calibre.

These are two endorsements by reputable professionals.

"The book 'Virus Mania' has been written with the care of a master-craftsman, courageously evaluating the medical establishment, the corporate elites and the powerful government funding institutions."
Wolfgang Weuffen, MD, Professor of Microbiology and Infectious Epidemiology

"The book 'Virus-Mania' can be called the first work in which the errors, frauds and general misinformations being spread by official bodies about doubtful or non-virus infections are completely exposed."
Gordon T. Stewart, MD, professor of public health and former WHO advisor

'Complete lameness' needs a little explanation, Petra. What, specific factual disagreements do you have with the PolitiFact debunking?

Citation needed for the claim that PolitiFact were 'unable to respond to the response to their debunking'.

If you search for "debunking the debunkers: exposure of fraud stands strong" you will see my blog post where I provide evidence for PolitiFact not being able to respond to the rebuttal of their debunking and also the debunking of their debunking by the authors as well as my own debunking that I wrote before I realised the authors had debunked the debunking themselves. Additionally, in that post is evidence of a similar situation of Italian scientist, Dr Stefano Scoglio, (also a co-author of the 3rd edition of Virus Mania), debunking a debunking of his article by Italian fact-checker, facta, with no further response by facta.

I am very happy to provide citations. Unfortunately, it is rather annoying not being able to post URLs. When I get to 15 posts I believe I can do that.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Not agreeing to appear on some quack's video channel looks like the height of good sense, in not being seen to give someone the oxygen of publicity (I wanted to use the late, great Linda Smith's line about not giving someone the oxygen of oxygen, but couldn't manage...).

Gorski (on SBM and RI) has written several times about the whole idea of scientists and proper medics "debating" with quacks and loons - https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/de...es-by-science-deniers-in-the-age-of-covid-19/ - and makes a reasonable case for not doing so.

 

[Petra]

So do David Icke’s books!

True (although I think David Icke says some good things at least) but the book also has endorsements made by reputable, relevant professionals.

"The book 'Virus Mania' has been written with the care of a master-craftsman, courageously evaluating the medical establishment, the corporate elites and the powerful government funding institutions."
Wolfgang Weuffen, MD, Professor of Microbiology and Infectious Epidemiology

"The book 'Virus-Wahn' can be called the first work in which the errors, frauds and general misinformations being spread by official bodies about doubtful or non-virus infections are completely exposed."
Gordon T. Stewart, MD, professor of public health and former WHO advisor

And the authors themselves are well-credentialled.

Torsten Engelbrecht works as investigative journalist in Hamburg. In 2009, he received the Alternative Media Award for his article "The Amalgam Controversy." He was trained at the renowned magazine for professional journalists "Message" and was a permanent editor at the "Financial Times Deutschland," among others. He has written for publications such as "OffGuardian", "Süddeutsche Zeitung", "Neue Zürcher Zeitung", "Rubikon", "Greenpeace Magazin" and "The Ecologist". In 2010 his book "Die Zukunft der Krebsmedizin" (The Future of Cancer Medicine) has been published, with 3 doctors as co-authors.

Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, is a medical specialist of internal diseases. He completed his residency in the Oncology Department at the University of Kiel. Since 1993, he has worked in his own medical practice, treating also Hepatitis C and AIDS patients who are skeptical of antiviral medications. Köhnlein is one of the world's most experienced experts when it comes to alleged viral epidemics. In April 2020, he was mentioned in the "OffGuardian" article "8 More Experts Questionig the Coronavirus Panic." A "Russia Today" interview with him, published on Youtube in September 2020, on the topic "fatal COVID-19 overtherapy" achieved almost 1.4 million views within a short time.

Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD, is a research physician in New Zealand. She completed her Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree at Otago University in 2005. She has worked in general practice, telehealth and in clinical trials for over 12 years with a particular interest in novel tests and treatments for medical diseases. She has the largest YouTube health channel in New Zealand, and creates educational health videos based on questions from her audience. Bailey has also been a co-presenter for a nationwide television health show in New Zealand that debunks common health misconceptions, called The Checkup.

Dr. Stefano Scoglio, BSc PhD, is an expert in microbiology and naturopathy. Since 2004, he has been working as a scientific researcher, publishing many articles in international scientific journals and coordinating scientific and clinical research on Klamath algae extracts, and on microalgae-based probiotics, in cooperation with the Italian National Research Center and various Universities. He is the inventor of 7 medical patents. For his important scientific publications, in 2018, Scoglio was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

 

[Petra]

Not agreeing to appear on some quack's video channel looks like the height of good sense, in not being seen to give someone the oxygen of publicity (I wanted to use the late, great Linda Smith's line about not giving someone the oxygen of oxygen, but couldn't manage...).

Dr Sam Bailey is a medical doctor and, as stated, was a co-presenter of the medical myth-busting series, The Checkup. She was also a pioneering provider of tele-health services (pre-covid). She was rather a media darling until she went rogue on covid. To call her a quack is simply a very inapproporiate ad hominem. Her husband is also a well-credentialled medical doctor.

 

[EaglePuncher]

What I do as much as I can is follow the debunking trail.

You misspelled "follow the trail of opinions that match my own"

 

[EaglePuncher]

Dr Sam Bailey is a medical doctor and, as stated, was a co-presenter of the medical myth-busting series, The Checkup. She was also a pioneering provider of tele-health services (pre-covid). She was rather a media darling until she went rogue on covid. To call her a quack is simply a very inapproporiate ad hominem. Her husband is also a well-credentialled medical doctor.

Ignoring the errors in her claims and repeatedly referring to their medical grades and credentials is called "argument from authority" btw. So maybe don't call out false logical fallacies while committing one

 

[junkshop]

...this is not the edition I refer to. If you go to the third edition which has four authors including Dr Sam Bailey the reviews are of a completely different calibre...

...."The book 'Virus-Mania' can be called the first work in which the errors, frauds and general misinformations being spread by official bodies about doubtful or non-virus infections are completely exposed."
Gordon T. Stewart, MD, professor of public health and former WHO advisor...

A minor quibble, perhaps, but the 3^rd edition of 'Virus Mania' was published in 2021. Gordon T Stewart died in 2016, so I doubt he was talking about this edition.

 

[junkshop]

...this is not the edition I refer to. If you go to the third edition which has four authors including Dr Sam Bailey the reviews are of a completely different calibre.

...."The book 'Virus Mania' has been written with the care of a master-craftsman, courageously evaluating the medical establishment, the corporate elites and the powerful government funding institutions."
Wolfgang Weuffen, MD, Professor of Microbiology and Infectious Epidemiology...

Another little quibble, if I may. As I said before, the 3^rd edition of 'Virus Mania' was published in 2021. Wolfgang Weuffen died in 2013. As with Dr Stewart, I doubt he was reviewing the 3^rd edition.

 

[Petra]

You clearly don't. The evidence that your are lying is in your last few posts. So, why do you lie while the evidence that you lied is easily available?

Let's make it clear, I don't respect all alleged experts, that's for sure, but I do respect people whose knowledge is greater than mine and who speak authoritatively. Then again, there are people whose knowledge is greater than mine - far greater - but I don't necessarily respect them because I can still see where their argument is poor and they have an agenda to push.

 

[MBDK]

Dr Sam Bailey is a medical doctor and, as stated, was a co-presenter of the medical myth-busting series, The Checkup. She was also a pioneering provider of tele-health services (pre-covid). She was rather a media darling until she went rogue on covid. To call her a quack is simply a very inapproporiate ad hominem. Her husband is also a well-credentialled medical doctor.

Regardless of any titles. the fact that the viruses can be isolated and observed ex vivo to exhibit the observed in vivo characteristics/results, proves she is WRONG!

 

[MBDK]

Let's make it clear, I don't respect all alleged experts, that's for sure, but I do respect people whose knowledge is greater than mine and who speak authoritatively. Then again, there are people whose knowledge is greater than mine - far greater - but I don't necessarily respect them because I can still see where their argument is poor and they have an agenda to push.

IOW, you fall for the biggest BS artist, regardless of expertise.