Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Paul2]

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.

And your default assumption rests on your background knowledge of the many, many successes that expert consensus has created, whereas the vastly fewer times the expert consensus has been wrong, or even corrupt, gets far more attention per incident than the successes do. This leads to people thinking the failures form the bulk of the background knowledge.

 

[Paul2]

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."

Scientific consensus is a fine indicator of a scientific conclusion, but it is not the functional part of making a scientific conclusion. When we say that there is a scientific consensus that, say, vaccines work, we don't mean a vote was taken and therefore vaccines work, we mean that the evidence shows that vaccines work and scientists largely acknowledge that evidence, which creates a consensus.

So the numbers of experts who congeal upon a conclusion *is* relevant, but only as an indicator of a conclusion that has been created by the evidence, not the consensus itself, as a consensus.

 

[Tippit]

Scientific consensus is a fine indicator of a scientific conclusion, but it is not the functional part of making a scientific conclusion. When we say that there is a scientific consensus that, say, vaccines work, we don't mean a vote was taken and therefore vaccines work, we mean that the evidence shows that vaccines work and scientists largely acknowledge that evidence, which creates a consensus.

What's the definition of "work"? Lots of proprietary patented peer-reviewed pharmaceuticals "work", for the purpose intended, but they also come with a host of unwanted side effects, which may have intermediate or long term consequences that are worse than the symptoms they were designed to treat. Presumably the peer-review process eliminates pharmaceuticals with short term health-risks.

We were originally told that these vaccines would prevent infection. That turned out to either be a lie, or misinformation, take your pick. Now we're told that they don't prevent infection, but that they moderate the symptoms of breakthrough infections, preventing hospitalization and death. That may be true, but at what cost? There are lots of unknowns yet, and, having already been infected by and surviving the virus which causes the disease with the symptoms for which the "vaccines" are designed to mitigate, why should I subject myself to any more risk, when I already nave natural immunity to 20 antigens versus one synthetic spike protein that the "vaccines" ostensibly provide? You likely have no answer that will satisfy me.

So the numbers of experts who congeal upon a conclusion *is* relevant, but only as an indicator of a conclusion that has been created by the evidence, not the consensus itself, as a consensus.

None of that really matters. The overwhelming factor is the degree to which the science, ALL of the science surrounding and relating to the hypotheses in question are well understood, or not.

I gave you an example above of where millions of experts, plus the BILLIONS of people who incorrectly placed their trust in those experts are wrong, and who (happily, in some cases, but not mine) remain ignorant of their dependency and physical handicap.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You likely have no answer that will satisfy me.

No, there is definitely no answer that will satisfy you, because- as you freely admit- you only accept the anecdotes or evidence that support your prior beliefs, you think you're smarter than everyone else, you don't believe anyone else if they contradict you, and nothing and no-one will ever convince you that you might be wrong.
Note that this doesn't actually make you right.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Where do I ignore the errors in her claims? I've asked for her false claims to be stated and so far no one has provided them.

Why don't you give me her alleged false claims and we can discuss them.

Here you go:

The claim was that, according to this data, the spike in Portugal in 2017 was higher than the spike in 2020.
That is completely untrue.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#z-scores-by-country

I'll add to that your own false claim that you checked this data. You clearly did no such thing.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This has to do with Covid science in the sense that it is quite possible, if not necessarily likely, that millions of experts are wrong... that I'm smarter than millions of experts...

It strikes me that this is very similar to claims made by "psychics", in that if anything you claim were true, someone would have made it mainstream by now. Psychics would be employed by every military, corporation, health care system, etcetera, and you would have used your riches and genius to restore 20/20 visual acuity to millions.

 

[MBDK]

That is not true. When I had what in all likelihood was Covid in June ‘20...

Actually, THAT is not true. From:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infect...4&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

"In a survey of people recruited on social media, 45% of people who thought they'd had COVID, but never confirmed it, actually had no anti-spike antibodies, reported Dorry Segev, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues, in a JAMA research letter."

 

[bruto]

Not that I agree with much of anything he says about anything, but I must sympathize a bit with Tippit, who it seems is embroiled now in a two front war, the anti-conspiracists on one side, and a "no-such-thing" conspiracist on the other. Poor fella can't catch a break.

 

[Pixel42]

I'll add to that your own false claim that you checked this data. You clearly did no such thing.

Clearly this particular debunking trail had a wrong turn on it.

 

[MBDK]

We were originally told that these vaccines would prevent infection. That turned out to either be a lie, or misinformation, take your pick.

Rather than your ignorant, or purposely misleading terms (take your pick), I will pick the truth. When the vaccines were developed and authorized for emergency use (December 2020), they were done so prior to the Delta variant being recognized (named on 31 May 2021). They performed as advertised for previous variants. You seem to be demanding that the vaccine developers need to make their claims based on yet-to-appear variants, rather than known factors.

Now we're told that they don't prevent infection, but that they moderate the symptoms of breakthrough infections, preventing hospitalization and death.

Because, since Delta and continuing with Omicron, that is what the evidence has clearly indicated.

That may be true, but at what cost? ...You likely have no answer that will satisfy me.

Since you have shown no reasonable ability to discern your paranoid ramblings from objective evidence, I agree.

 

[Steve]

Rather than your ignorant, or purposely misleading terms (take your pick), I will pick the truth. When the vaccines were developed and authorized for emergency use (December 2020), they were done so prior to the Delta variant being recognized (named on 31 May 2021). They performed as advertised for previous variants. You seem to be demanding that the vaccine developers need to make their claims based on yet-to-appear variants, rather than known factors.



Because, since Delta and continuing with Omicron, that is what the evidence has clearly indicated.


Since you have shown no reasonable ability to discern your paranoid ramblings from objective evidence, I agree.

Tippit's (with two i's) argument appears to be that because science cannot reliably predict the future then everything it has accomplished in the past is equally unreliable.

 

[MBDK]

Tippit's (with two i's) argument appears to be that because science cannot reliably predict the future then everything it has accomplished in the past is equally unreliable.

Hmmm... Now that I think about it, that is a natural (but obviously incorrect) conclusion for a person who's entire mental construct is based upon unreliable information.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Tippit's (with two i's) argument appears to be that because science cannot reliably predict the future then everything it has accomplished in the past is equally unreliable.

Could you bang those coconut halves a little louder, please? It's very hard to hear your coded message all the way down here in South Carolina.

 

[bruto]

While rummaging for something else, I came across a cartoon I'd clipped many moons ago, and was reminded of the DNA altering debate here...



You are what you eat ( or inject, of course)!

 

[Tippit]

Not that I agree with much of anything he says about anything, but I must sympathize a bit with Tippit, who it seems is embroiled now in a two front war, the anti-conspiracists on one side, and a "no-such-thing" conspiracist on the other. Poor fella can't catch a break.

Aww. Well don't feel too sorry for me. I have natural immunity to Covid and I can safely avoid the associated mania, and I don't need to wear -2 diopter eyeglasses anymore. If the side effect of that is that everyone here thinks I'm a liar, and/or crazy, then so be it. Not a heavy price to pay at all.

 

[MBDK]

Aww. Well don't feel too sorry for me. I have natural immunity to Covid and I can safely avoid the associated mania, and I don't need to wear -2 diopter eyeglasses anymore. If the side effect of that is that everyone here thinks I'm a liar, and/or crazy, then so be it. Not a heavy price to pay at all.

Post #2376 shows you have no idea whether or not you had COVID-19. Of course, you could still get an antibody test to find out, but I suspect would ridicule the results if they proved you never did.

Post #2379 indicates you are either, ignorant or dishonestly manipulative. Your failure to admit to this is also evidence of another lie - when you claimed to have integrity.

 

[Steve]

Aww. Well don't feel too sorry for me. I have natural immunity to Covid and I can safely avoid the associated mania, and I don't need to wear -2 diopter eyeglasses anymore. If the side effect of that is that everyone here thinks I'm a liar, and/or crazy, then so be it. Not a heavy price to pay at all.

Do I wonder why you think you have something no one else has and are unique in the world? No, I really do not. You may be unique, but not in any way you think you are.

 

[Tippit]

Post #2376 shows you have no idea whether or not you had COVID-19. Of course, you could still get an antibody test to find out, but I suspect would ridicule the results if they proved you never did.

Since antibodies wane, I don't know what the results of an antibody test would be (although I suspect I will have Omicron antibodies, at least), nor would I put much credence into it. Memory T and B cells, on the other hand, hold the keys to natural immunity. There has been some work in this regard:

FDA authorizes new T-cell test that could be game changer for COVID-19 long haulers

Post #2379 indicates you are either, ignorant or dishonestly manipulative. Your failure to admit to this is also evidence of another lie - when you claimed to have integrity.

Nope, you're wrong. In your post #2379, you claimed that "They (the vaccines developed and authorized for emergency use (December 2020)) performed as advertised for previous variants." This is incorrect, breakthrough infections have been occurring since the onset of the "vaccines":

You've Had a COVID ‘Breakthrough Infection’—Can You Really Spread It to Others?

Now, I'm not going to assume that you're a liar, it's just safer to assume that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

From that Yale Medicine article:

"What’s required for a vaccine to be 100% effective at preventing infection
In order to entirely prevent infection, vaccines would need to induce what’s called “sterilizing immunity,” a type of immunity that prevents a pathogen—in this case the coronavirus—from infecting any cells. If the virus cannot infect cells, then the host (in this case, a person) cannot transmit it to others.

In a best-case scenario, all vaccines would provide sterilizing immunity, meaning they would protect against disease and prevent transmission. But in practice, most vaccines don’t do this. The influenza, rotavirus, and pertussis vaccines, among others, can prevent serious illness from developing, but they don’t reach the level of sterilizing immunity."

and this:

"Why don’t we have data on breakthrough cases?
Up until May 1, 2021, the CDC recorded all breakthrough cases, whether mild, moderate, or severe. But starting on May 1, they began recording only breakthrough cases that resulted in hospitalization or death. The CDC explains that they made this change to “help maximize the quality of data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.”

But this means that in the U.S. we do not know how often breakthrough cases occur or which variants are causing breakthroughs (though given that by August 21, nearly 99% of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. were from the Delta variant, it is probable that many of the breakthrough cases, at least recently, are from Delta)."

Well well. Isn't that convenient. On May 1st of 2021, the CDC decided to stop recording data that resulted in breakthrough cases that did not result in hospitalization or death. Of course, since infected people carry viral loads whether they're "vaccinated" or not, they're capable of infecting other people, which would seem to me at least to be of "public health importance". Yet more evidence that there is an agenda here to withhold data that makes the "vaccines" look bad ostensibly for selling more future "vaccines".

Clearly the CDC, FDA, and other entities are statistical gatekeepers, and I cannot trust any of the data anymore.

I am not a liar, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[bruto]

Post #2376 shows you have no idea whether or not you had COVID-19. Of course, you could still get an antibody test to find out, but I suspect would ridicule the results if they proved you never did.

Post #2379 indicates you are either, ignorant or dishonestly manipulative. Your failure to admit to this is also evidence of another lie - when you claimed to have integrity.

A while ago it was sterilizing immunity. Now it's only natural immunity. I wonder what it will be after the third time?

 

[Tippit]

A while ago it was sterilizing immunity. Now it's only natural immunity. I wonder what it will be after the third time?

Natural Immunity is generally sterilizing. If you survive (and clear) a given infection, you sterilize it upon re-exposure. The problem is that coronaviruses are highly mutagenic, and eventually you will be exposed to one with sufficient mutations resulting in new antigens that will make you sick. In the case of Influenza, it typically mutates enough within five years such that it becomes effectively unrecognizable. With Coronaviruses, that period is estimated to be between 1-2 years, but I don't think it is known with certainty.