Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[MBDK]

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.[/URL]

...but I suspect would ridicule the results if they proved you never did.

Look at me! I'm psychic! FYI, waning does not equal absence.

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?

Riiiiiight... An article dated August 11, 2021, 5 months after Delta was named. AND from the first paragraph of that link:

"COVID-19 breakthrough infections—where a fully vaccinated person becomes infected with the coronavirus—are occurring across the globe, due, in large part, to the highly contagious Delta variant."

Also, you don't understand what the term "efficacy" means, do you? Even at the 95% efficacy for the original COVID-19 virus, you can expect 5% to still suffer from a breakthrough case. Once Delta came along, the vaccines' efficacy for that more evasive variant dropped, thus the increase of breakthroughs. Why, for all your acclaimed effort in researching, do you not know these basic facts?[/QUOTE]

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:

Per my evidence above, that unknowing label apples to you, instead.

and this:



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.

Unfortunately, you either are a liar, or are the unknowing one. You either don't know, because you never fact checked anything, or you are lying, as the truth is easily found. Here is one of many proofs you are wrong on this item:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-263465830283

(quote)
“CDC and state health departments will be focusing only on investigating vaccine breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death,” Nordlund said. “Every breakthrough case of COVID will still be reported. We just won’t call it out in a certain place on the website.”
(unquote)

and, you can find that data (all breakthrough infections) here:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

Now quit pretending you are an honest and informed person. You may be one or the other, but not both.

 

[Tippit]

Also, you don't understand what the term "efficacy" means, do you? Even at the 95% efficacy for the original COVID-19 virus, you can expect 5% to still suffer from a breakthrough case. Once Delta came along, the vaccines' efficacy for that more evasive variant dropped, thus the increase of breakthroughs. Why, for all your acclaimed effort in researching, do you not know these basic facts?

So in other words, despite the lies of President Joe Biden and corporate media luminaries like Rachel Madcow who both assured me that the virus would end when I took the jab, the vaccines failed to prevent infection against all variants (including Alpha), and have dramatically waning efficacy going forward in time. They definitely did not work "as advertised". Thanks for confirming.

“CDC and state health departments will be focusing only on investigating vaccine breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death,” Nordlund said. “Every breakthrough case of COVID will still be reported. We just won’t call it out in a certain place on the website.”
(unquote)

So in other words, CDC decided to segregate breakthrough infection data in cases not resulting in hospitalization or death because... that would be the "honest" thing to do?

Nice attempt at gaslighting me. Have a nice day.

 

[Steve]

So in other words, despite the lies of President Joe Biden and corporate media luminaries like Rachel Madcow who both assured me that the virus would end when I took the jab, the vaccines failed to prevent infection against all variants (including Alpha), and have dramatically waning efficacy going forward in time. They definitely did not work "as advertised". Thanks for confirming.



So in other words, CDC decided to segregate breakthrough infection data in cases not resulting in hospitalization or death because... that would be the "honest" thing to do?

Nice attempt at gaslighting me. Have a nice day.

Your "other words" are just desperate twisting of the actual words that were posted by MBDK

 

[MBDK]

So in other words, despite the lies of President Joe Biden and corporate media luminaries like Rachel Madcow who both assured me that the virus would end when I took the jab, the vaccines failed to prevent infection against all variants (including Alpha), and have dramatically waning efficacy going forward in time. They definitely did not work "as advertised". Thanks for confirming.

Using non-experts as evidence for unfounded claims is VERY dishonest. Trying to use the words of non-scientists to establish scientific claims is VERY dishonest, Ignoring those scientific claims made by actual scientific subject matter experts is VERY dishonest. Thank YOU for confirming!

So in other words, CDC decided to segregate breakthrough infection data in cases not resulting in hospitalization or death because... that would be the "honest" thing to do?

Nice attempt at gaslighting me. Have a nice day.

In other words, you are still wrong, and ignored the reasons they did so (keeping the most impactful information separate from mundane statistics, when if they didn't, you would claim they were burying the important data with rubbish data). No gaslighting involved. No need to gaslight someone who's already crazy.

 

[Hans]

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.

The fringe only ever agree that orthodoxy is wrong they almost never agree what the actual truth is.

 

[bruto]

The fringe only ever agree that orthodoxy is wrong they almost never agree what the actual truth is.

For many it seems that "thinking for yourself" is an act more of distinction than of discovery.

 

[Tippit]

Using non-experts as evidence for unfounded claims is VERY dishonest. Trying to use the words of non-scientists to establish scientific claims is VERY dishonest, Ignoring those scientific claims made by actual scientific subject matter experts is VERY dishonest. Thank YOU for confirming!

Lol, I’m not the one who lied, President Biden, NIH director Anthony Fauci, and MSNBC host and government shill Rachel Maddow are the ones lying and misrepresenting the science. More gaslighting on your part.

In other words, you are still wrong, and ignored the reasons they did so (keeping the most impactful information separate from mundane statistics, when if they didn't, you would claim they were burying the important data with rubbish data). No gaslighting involved. No need to gaslight someone who's already crazy.

Why would anyone separate breakthrough infection data and then relegate it elsewhere, unless they were trying to downplay the breakthrough infection rate and misrepresent it for the people who were unaware of the deception? Who are you to decide that breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalizations or death are mundane? No need to respond. Talk to the hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MBDK]

Lol, I’m not the one who lied, President Biden, NIH director Anthony Fauci, and MSNBC host and government shill Rachel Maddow are the ones lying and misrepresenting the science. More gaslighting on your part.

Repeating the same thing you claimed earlier, though now trying to use different avenues for source, does not make your claims any less false. It just makes you look desperate.

You claimed the vaccines did not stop infections, and I pointed out that they did to the degree and the specifics they were designed for. You provided a reference to breakthrough cases that were driven by the Delta variant, which did not exist at the time the vaccines were available to the public. That made your argument false. Now you are repeating the same argument, except trying to blame different sources. That still doesn't address the crucial issue that your gripe is unevidenced. No gaslighting the gaslit.

Why would anyone separate breakthrough infection data and then relegate it elsewhere, unless they were trying to downplay the breakthrough infection rate and misrepresent it for the people who were unaware of the deception? Who are you to decide that breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalizations or death are mundane? No need to respond. Talk to the hand.

My reasons were conjecture based on the CDC's explanation (read my reference for more detail), and were never asserted to be more than that. Nonetheless your argument now is childish deflection from the point that you were WRONG when you claimed the CDC did not report that data. Absolutely, 100% WRONG. You may have been fooled by a poorly written article, but a person with any integrity would have no problem admitting that. Perhaps the only integrity you do have is sequestered in a dark recess of your hand, and that is why you want me to talk to it. So, okay, have you the cajones to admit your mistake, Mr. Hand?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

So in other words, despite the lies of President Joe Biden and corporate media luminaries like Rachel Madcow who both assured me that the virus would end when I took the jab, the vaccines failed to prevent infection against all variants (including Alpha), and have dramatically waning efficacy going forward in time. They definitely did not work "as advertised". Thanks for confirming.

Do please quote Biden and Maddox saying what you claimed they said.
Then you can do the same for the rest of the leaders of the world's governments and the major international media channels, just to demonstrate you are not the parochial ignoramus you appear to be.

So in other words, CDC decided to segregate breakthrough infection data in cases not resulting in hospitalization or death because... that would be the "honest" thing to do?

Nice attempt at gaslighting me. Have a nice day.

Detailed rebuttal of conspiratorial nonsense here:
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...t-manipulating-its-covid-19-breakthrough-dat/

 

[Petra]

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

Gee, this is proving to be hard work. Higher in 2017 than in 2020 not 2021, OK? The video was made in 2020.

Still claim untrue?

 

[Petra]

I already did that: I provided 2 links taking apart her "arguments". And I gave a link to that awful excuse for a paper of her husband's.

Well, I can give links to her rebuttals of her detractors. Where will that get us?

How about you state in your own words what the false claims are. Can you manage that? Else, I'll just give you the links to her rebuttals of her detractors. And then you can give me the links to the rebuttals of her rebuttals ... if you can find them.

 

[Mojo]

So in other words, despite the lies of President Joe Biden and corporate media luminaries like Rachel Madcow…

Misogyny as well, huh?

 

[Petra]

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.

It's pretty straightforward, Paul. There may be a massive consensus on whatever but if a challenge is issued to those putting forward an argument to defend that argument against refutation of it and a defence is unable to be put forward it doesn't matter who believes what that challenge stands as being correct.

These are very straightforward significant facts:

A paper was issued refuting the science put forward for a pandemic to which a debunking was made which in turn was rebutted to which there has been no response ... from a single soul who supports the mainstream narrative.

We can follow the argument along for ourselves - it's not massively complicated really - and see that the initial refutation stands strong. I invite you to come to grips with the material yourself.

This is a summary of the initial refutation:

--- As admitted by Australian infectious diseases expert, Sanjaya Senanayake there is no gold standard test for the alleged COVID-19. Immediately, without a gold standard test, the PCR test's fitness for purpose is called into question.

--- The PCR test is inappropriate for viral testing (its purpose was manufacturing not testing). Clear example: Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

--- Four science teams producing papers alleging isolation of SARS-CoV-2 admit that their electron micrographs do not show purified viral particles.

--- No clear evidence of origin of RNA used in test which accords with the fact that there is no evidence of virus purification.

--- Test results are irrational (many individuals producing different results on multiple tests) which would only be expected when the testing method used is against scientific testing protocol

--- The test contains "q" in its name, RT-qPCR, which should stand for quantitative, however, it is admitted the test is qualitative meaning it cannot test viral load which means they cannot test how many viral particles are carried in the body. For people to be considered infected a viral load needs to be determined.

--- High Cycle Quantification (Cq) values undermine validity of test and some PCR tests have high Cq values (Drosten test has 45). The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis, has this to say: "If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR."

--- Before starting with PCR, in the case of presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR,” but this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,”

Refutation of the science put forward for a pandemic
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless

Attempted debunking by PolitiFact
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-19-tests-are-not-scientifically-meaningless/

Rebuttal of debunking
https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/31/open-letter-refuting-politifacts-fact-check/

Zero response from PolitiFact or anyone in the virology world.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Zero response from PolitiFact or anyone in the virology world.

Well, that should make you think (for yourself)

 

[Petra]

majority of qualified medical professionals ≠ majority of the people

The majority of "the people" believes in gods, astrology, souls and other nonsense.

The majority of scientists doesn't.

I think you overestimate massively alleged objectivity of scientists. I have spoken with scientists who show great hostility to challenges to their beliefs and simply do not respond to argument. Scientists are humans like everyone else ... sometimes more so. It is incredible, for example, the hostility that the scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, receives from the scientific community on his scientific work showing animals' ability to know when their owners are coming home. This is an interesting video about a woman who participated in his experiments and then later in experiments conducted by psychologist, Richard Wiseman, who completely misrepresented the data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkrLJhBC3X4

This is what two editors of the most respected scientific/medical journals say about science.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572812/
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” (1).

More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (2).

Also see https://www.amazon.com/Weaponizing-Anthropology-Science-Militarized-Counterpunch/dp/1849350639

Since I do not think that the overwhelming majority of the experts is either gulled or part of a worldwide conspiracy I'll follow their advice.

But we aren't necessarily obliged to simply blindly follow one expert or another. Even if we're not scientists ourselves or scientists in the area under discussion where experts disagree and refute each others' arguments where the information is not at a too technical level we are in a good position to determine what's what for ourselves.

 

[Pixel42]

So in other words, despite the lies of President Joe Biden and corporate media luminaries like Rachel Madcow who both assured me that the virus would end when I took the jab ...

Simply not true. Early estimates of the percentage of the population that would need to be vaccinated for herd immunity against the original variant (which was what was actually meant by ending the pandemic) were around 80%, a figure which has still not been achieved in most countries. The possibilities of boosters being required to maintain it, and of new more infectious variants arising which would require an even higher percentage, were discussed right from the start, and the explanation of what the efficacy rate meant (i.e. that there would still be cases of infection amongst the vaccinated) was always given.

Of course I'm talking about reliable sources of such information; maybe you were looking at the wrong ones even then?

 

[EaglePuncher]

But we aren't necessarily obliged to simply blindly follow one expert or another. Even if we're not scientists ourselves or scientists in the area under discussion where experts disagree and refute each others' arguments where the information is not at a too technical level we are in a good position to determine what's what for ourselves.

Yeah, yeah, until a plastic hose is shoved into your lung, then all of a sudden, the experts will be good enough for you

 

[Pixel42]

Gee, this is proving to be hard work. Higher in 2017 than in 2020 not 2021, OK? The video was made in 2020.

Still claim untrue?

Yes, still untrue. Portugal's excess death figures for both April 2020 and April 2021 are higher than for April 2017.

 

[Petra]

The PCR test has been shown not to be fit for purpose. Citation needed for the highlighted.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

There are a number of other citations if you want them but why not start with that.

 

[Pixel42]

I think you overestimate massively alleged objectivity of scientists. I have spoken with scientists who show great hostility to challenges to their beliefs and simply do not respond to argument.

They certainly don't respond to unscientific argument. They are also, as you say, only human, and can get sufficiently attached to pet theories that they resist evidence against them. Fortunately the scientific method is self correcting against such behaviour.

It is incredible, for example, the hostility that the scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, receives from the scientific community on his scientific work showing animals' ability to know when their owners are coming home.

And yet some of them recently vindicated that work by finding the mechanism. Apparently it's due to the animals recognising when their owners smell has dropped to the level it usually is when they return home.

This is what two editors of the most respected scientific/medical journals say about science.

The limitations of the scientific method are indeed much discussed by scientists. It is, and always will be, a work in progress. But it's still the best way we know of discovering the truth.

But we aren't necessarily obliged to simply blindly follow one expert or another. Even if we're not scientists ourselves or scientists in the area under discussion where experts disagree and refute each others' arguments where the information is not at a too technical level we are in a good position to determine what's what for ourselves.

I guess the secret is understanding when we are in that good position and when we're not, and need to trust the consensus rather than the outliers.