Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Carrot Flower King]

Sheldrake? Oh, my...Some of us can remember when he was still a biologist. Perfect example of what Horton (gosh, it's as if none of us had ever come across that Horton quote before) is talking about and an actual citation for Wiseman misrepresenting data might be helpful (not another video: I don't watch videos as it is not a helpful way of taking in information. Can I have something to read please?).

While Horton definitely has a point about the quality of some research and publications and the whole process is always capable of improvement, if things are published we can look at the quality of the data and the methodology and analysis and see if it stands up; if something is replicated then so much the better (this one is a structural issue of the way research is funded and the way many journals work, rather than an issue of science per se). His was an argument for more and better science...

 

[Pixel42]

Pretty much everything she said about PCR has been shown to be inaccurate, a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation or some other form of not being correct: this has been done to death in several threads on this forum alone, explained by many virologists and biochemists over and over.

Bailey isn't coming up with anything novel.

There's a limit to how many times even the most patient expert can be expected to debunk the same nonsense. It's like an endless game of whack-a-mole. They could easily spend their whole lives doing it, and never get any actual work done. I remember when climatologists were being bombarded by so many vexatious FOI requests that they were legally bound to respond to that they were literally in that position. Which was the intention, of course.

This forum is probably one of the few places where people can be persuaded to whack the same mole over and over again. I sometimes wonder why they keep bothering to do it. I often wonder why I keep bothering to do it. Fortunately I'm retired, so I don't have anything more important to do.

 

[Childlike Empress]

This forum is probably one of the few places where people can be persuaded to whack the same mole over and over again. I sometimes wonder why they keep bothering to do it. I often wonder why I keep bothering to do it. Fortunately I'm retired, so I don't have anything more important to do.

They "bother" because this was the philosophy of this forum from the beginning. Would it be any more prominent, the censorship you fail to perceive because you just dwell on mainstream sources would be enforced here as well against the will of the very few people who still "bother" to run it.

Maybe think about why I have to link to "odysee" instead of "youtube".

 

[Petra]

Pretty much everything she said about PCR has been shown to be inaccurate, a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation or some other form of not being correct: this has been done to death in several threads on this forum alone, explained by many virologists and biochemists over and over.

Bailey isn't coming up with anything novel.

It simply astounds me how so much guff is written about science in general, peer review, false claims made by Sam Bailey ... with no specifics.

Please anyone give me a specific claim that she has made that is false. Please.

 

[Petra]

You are re-referencing the debunked article.

FYI, you wondered why their open letter to debunk the debunk was not answered, but that in and of itself is evidence of absolutely nothing.

That's why you need to read the articles, at least to get some idea of what's what. And when you do that it's abundantly clear that the alleged debunking is lame. I have a page on it:
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.wee...ebunkers-pcr-tests-scientifically-meaningless

Whatever you think about no reply to Off Guardian's open letter, it does not take away from the fact that they are woefully ignorant, or deceptive in their ramblings. Example, their first question in that letter relates to almost every other complaint, and reads:

"That is to say, if there is no evidence for purification (as we outline in our OffGuardian article), how is it possible to claim that the RNA obtained is a viral genome?"

What you'd need to do is debunk their claim not simply push out a paper you think answers the question that there is no evidence for purification. You need to actually read the article. Are you willing to do that?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

People like Biden and Maddow only know what the scientists tell them. Fauci is saying exactly what the entire scientific community is saying, so it's still you against them.

I know that no scientist has promised that COVID-19 would magically disappear if everyone took the vaccines. That's a lie on the order of, "Publix is deliberately starving people to death!!!". Then there's the problem that the effectiveness of the vaccines has been compromised by all the scientifically ignorant people who refuse to be vaccinated for one ridiculous reason or another, so even if they had said that, you'd still have no argument.

"Gaslighting" is obviously a new favorite word of yours, but it's just psychological projection on your part. Continuously telling lies about "gene therapy, forced starvation, global scientific conspiracies" etcetera is gaslighting.

 

[Petra]

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
"Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. ..

Science was done without "peer review" as it is currently practised for millennia. Can we please just simply look at what scientists and doctors ACTUALLY SAY against the science put forward for the pandemic - and what is said in response to that if anything - and quit this meta stuff.

 

[Stee]

Well, that should make you think (for yourself)

Several of Petra’s posts seem to indicate they believe whoever shouts the loudest or the longest is therefore correct. This is obviously nonsense. Gosh-Galloping would seem highly effective against such a person.

Not responding to nonsense doesn’t magically mean it’s correct!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

1. The links you have posted claim that all of virology is a lie. For you now to admit that flu can kill people means there is a contradiction to be resolved here. Which of these claims is untrue? Do viruses exist or not?
2. Do please explain again why a bad flu season a few years ago means that Covid-19 does not exist.
3. Do you accept the accuracy of the figures you are using, and, as a consequence, the authorities compiling them?
4. If you do, then why exclude the figures for later in 2020/2021, which clearly show spikes far higher than in previous years?
5. You have claimed that the spikes in April correspond to 'aggressive drug trials' in Spain and Portugal. Perhaps I missed it, but did you provide any details of what those drug trials were, what the results were, and whether these drugs were trialled in any other countries?

It simply astounds me how so much guff is written about science in general, peer review, false claims made by Sam Bailey ... with no specifics.

Please anyone give me a specific claim that she has made that is false. Please.

Or, you could stop ignoring all the posts made by myself and others, and actually answer them.

 

[Steve]

Misogyny as well, huh?

It's a feature.

 

[Pixel42]

Science was done without "peer review" as it is currently practised for millennia.

Would these be the same millennia during which blood letting and purging were believed to be effective treatments for almost all illnesses, basic hygiene precautions were unknown, the child mortality rate was 50%, and average life expectancy was less than 40 by any chance?

Peer review is only the latest improvement in the scientific method which has been refined and improved in many ways since it was first invented, to the great benefit of humanity. It's not perfect, nothing is, but fewer mistakes are made with it than without it.

 

[Steve]

Would these be the same millennia during which blood letting and purging were believed to be effective treatments for almost all illnesses, basic hygiene precautions were unknown, the child mortality rate was 50%, and average life expectancy was less than 40 by any chance?

Peer review is only the latest improvement in the scientific method which has been refined and improved in many ways since it was first invented, to the great benefit of humanity. It's not perfect, nothing is, but fewer mistakes are made with it than without it.

Explaining actual science to a Luddite is rather futile. Still, I commend your efforts.

 

[abaddon]

It simply astounds me how so much guff is written about science in general, peer review, false claims made by Sam Bailey ... with no specifics.

Please anyone give me a specific claim that she has made that is false. Please.

You could just google it. Bailey is comprehensively bonkers. A simple google search would reveal that.

Somehow, you are unable to do even that level of research and expect everyone else to do it for you.

Well no. Anyone who actually cared about the topic would already have done the relevant research.

Yet here you are demanding that everybody else should do the research that you should have done in the first place. That is not how it works. That is not how anything works.

Suppose I claimed that pixies provided my electricity. Would you believe me? Or would you ask for evidence of such a stupid claim before you gave it any credence?

Oh tell Putin I said Hi

 

[abaddon]

Explaining actual science to a Luddite is rather futile. Still, I commend your efforts.

This is not a luddite. The agenda is very different.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Peer review is only the latest improvement in the scientific method which has been refined and improved in many ways since it was first invented, to the great benefit of humanity. It's not perfect, nothing is, but fewer mistakes are made with it than without it.

Peer review is theoretically a great thing but in practise it's only as good as the peers are. With the situation we have now, in a deeply corrupted "science" environment, it sadly doesn't count for much. One of the arguments Lanka uses against Wodarg in the discussion I've linked to - and Wodarg doesn't even disagree.

 

[Petra]

It tells me that by implementing mitigation measures Portugal was able to keep the deaths from Covid 19 in that particular early month of the pandemic below those seen at the very peak of a very bad flu epidemic (unlike Spain, where its earlier arrival gave them insufficient time to react likewise). It doesn't tell me what the numbers of Covid 19 deaths would have been absent those measures, either that month or during subsequent ones.

ETA: you only need to look at the peaks in that mortality graph during 2020 and 2021 to see that Portugal's Covid 19 deaths have far exceeded those of that brief, very bad, flu epidemic. And that's despite all the mitigation measures.

OK, well I guess this is where we run into problems because Sam's fundamental argument is that the existence of sars-cov-2 hasn't been proven and there is no distinctive illness covid and I completely agree that the science put forward is fraudulent for both isolation of the virus and the existence of a distinct illness covid. What she and other scientists and doctors claim is that covid is being assigned to death where death has other causes such as flu or pneumonia or even completely unrelated illnesses or where certain intervention measures have been implemented. How healthcare is being delivered has completely been turned on its head so what's to say that iatrogenic deaths haven't increased?

The thing is, let's just say there is a special illness which causes greater mortality, the science put forward for it is completely fraudulent from go to whoa.

1. UNSCIENTIFIC: SUSPICION OF NEW VIRUS
Suspicion of a "novel" virus is based on an alleged "cluster" of 44 cases of pneumonia of "unknown origin" in the highly-polluted city of Wuhan.
44 cases doesn't make a cluster and pneumonia has many causes - "unknown origin" makes no sense.
Then, if indeed these 44 cases of pneumonia were caused by a novel virus why is the association between pneumonia and the novel virus now completely lost?
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2020-DON229

2. UNSCIENTIFIC: NOVEL CORONAVIRUS GENOME IDENTIFIED FROM A SINGLE CASE
Novel coronavirus genome identified from using swabs from only a single one of these cases.
Completely unscientific. You can't take samples from one person to identify a coronavirus genome. Unbelievably unscientific.
http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/a3907201-f64f-4154-a19e-4253b453d10c

Recommended for above two points:

Biochemist, Dr David Rasnick (10 minutes)
https://youtu.be/WY-QdejUYLs?t=73

NZ medical doctor, Dr Sam Bailey
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Once-Upon-A-Time-in-Wuhan-Odysee-Exclusive-Comp:2

3. UNSCIENTIFIC: ISOLATION OF VIRUS
Science teams have published papers claiming they have isolated the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus but on questioning they admit their electron microscopy images don't, in fact, show purified virus particles. Heaven knows what the test is supposed to find when there is no reason to think they've isolated the virus they say they have.

4. UNSCIENTIFIC: LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIRUS (SARS-COV-2) AND ILLNESS (COVID)
Even if they had isolated the virus they have to prove it causes the alleged illness, covid, and they haven't done that. Lots of viruses cause no harm, you need to prove that the virus causes the illness. Where is the evidence for a distinctive illness, covid, being caused by a specific monocausal agent?

5. UNSCIENTIFIC: TEST FOR COVID
Unscientifically quickly, a PCR "test" was developed to test for infection by this new virus which is not fit for that purpose.
One of the problems with the PCR "test" but there are significant others: the PCR technique (very powerful when used in the appropriate situation) was developed to find specific molecules in the body and multiply them for research purposes - not to test for infection. Infection is determined by millions of viral particles - you can't just find a single molecule and determine infection. If you look at the PCR kit packets they say things such as:

"not for use in diagnostic procedures"
"aid in diagnosis"
"for emergency use only"
"qualitative" (you need quantitative - how much virus not just a molecule)

Recommended for above three points:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless

6. UNSCIENTIFIC: DIAGNOSIS OF COVID
Let's just say they really did isolate the virus and that the test is an "aid" in diagnosis. How is covid diagnosed? Well, it can't be because it doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms - if you test positive using the unfit-for-purpose test when you have symptoms of a cold, how do you know whether you've got "covid" or just a cold or perhaps both? Same for flu, same for pneumonia, same for any respiratory illness. There is nothing to grab onto to say "this is covid" and NOT flu, cold, pneumonia, whatever. It is a phantom illness, we cannot point to anything and say, "This is covid."

 

[Foster Zygote]

Science was done without "peer review" as it is currently practised for millennia.

Where in the world did you get the idea that peer review, or even the scientific method, have been around for thousands of years?

 

[Petra]

You could just google it. Bailey is comprehensively bonkers. A simple google search would reveal that.

Somehow, you are unable to do even that level of research and expect everyone else to do it for you.

Well no. Anyone who actually cared about the topic would already have done the relevant research.

Yet here you are demanding that everybody else should do the research that you should have done in the first place. That is not how it works. That is not how anything works.

Suppose I claimed that pixies provided my electricity. Would you believe me? Or would you ask for evidence of such a stupid claim before you gave it any credence?

Oh tell Putin I said Hi

But I know people say things about Sam, of course, but I don't agree with them as she doesn't. What I want to do is debate the supposed false claims she makes. For goodness sake, it's not as if I don't know what's said about her, I want you to state what you think it is that's bonkers.

 

[Petra]

Where in the world did you get the idea that peer review, or even the scientific method, have been around for thousands of years?

No, I said science happened before those things.

 

[Petra]

Or, you could stop ignoring all the posts made by myself and others, and actually answer them.

I try to keep up but there's so many. I saw this post and then couldn't find it again to respond.

1. The links you have posted claim that all of virology is a lie. For you now to admit that flu can kill people means there is a contradiction to be resolved here. Which of these claims is untrue? Do viruses exist or not?

2. Do please explain again why a bad flu season a few years ago means that Covid-19 does not exist.

3. Do you accept the accuracy of the figures you are using, and, as a consequence, the authorities compiling them?

4. If you do, then why exclude the figures for later in 2020/2021, which clearly show spikes far higher than in previous years?

5. You have claimed that the spikes in April correspond to 'aggressive drug trials' in Spain and Portugal. Perhaps I missed it, but did you provide any details of what those drug trials were, what the results were, and whether these drugs were trialled in any other countries?

1. The flu doesn't need to be caused by a virus but I don't say viruses don't exist, on that point I'm not sure but it does seem true that the scientific work that supposedly proves their existence isn't convincing.

2. A bad flu season doesn't mean covid doesn't exist but it can explain high mortality obviously. What proves covid doesn't exist is the lack of scientific work that proves its existence, also the fact that if testing stopped tomorrow there would be no way to identify covid as not being a cold, flu, whatever. There is nothing to say covid and not another respiratory illness other than a test not fit for purpose.

3. I do not accept any figures speaking of covid cases or covid as cause of mortality.

4. I hadn't really looked at the figures since Sam did her video in 2020. I see now a massive spike in Jan 2021 ... but the thing is it simply doesn't mean it must be covid as covid hasn't been proven to exist. I don't know what the cause is but I say not covid.

5. These are the drug trials.
WHO Solidarity trial
https://www.who.int/emergencies/dis...darity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments

Oxford Recovery trial
https://www.recoverytrial.net/

Article in France Soir, Oxford, Recovery et Solidarity: Overdosage in two clinical trials with acts considered criminal?
https://www.francesoir.fr/politique...verdosage-two-clinical-trials-acts-considered