Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Foster Zygote]

No, I said science happened before those things.

A very few people came quite close to the scientific method, such as Democritus of Abdera, but the scientific method hasn't been practiced for thousands of years.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Is this your informed opinion as someone who has strongly implied you are a professional scientist while taking care not to specifically make that claim?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Influenza is a virus: that's what it is.
Your position on viruses is vague to the point of incomprehensibility.
What, specifically, are your reservations about the body of scientific work demonstrating the existence of viruses, and- perhaps more importantly- what would convince you they actually do exist?

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.

Unsupported assertions. The junk "science" you have quoted to support this idea that PCR tests don't work has been examined and found sadly wanting. Again, what level of evidence would convince you that Covid is real, and that the tests work?

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

Yet, as I said before, in another of my posts that you ignored, people are dying, and people are getting sick from an illness that displays all the symptoms of Covid. If it's not Covid that's making them ill, then what is?
Oh, and 'I do not accept' on its own is just an argument from incredulity- a logical fallacy, On what factual grounds do you 'not accept' them?

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.

So you haven't analysed the figures, as you claimed you had, you haven't questioned Bailey's cherry-picking of the data, and the only thing you have is your aforementioned incredulity. Utterly unconvincing.

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

At last, some actual data!
Oh, but you really shouldn't have done this. Have you actually read these? Have you?


First one: Remember, the claim is that Spain and Portugal were carrying out 'aggressive drug tests', that caused a significant spike in mortality in Spain and Portugal.
1. The Solidarity trials were carried out in 52 countries, not just 2 as Bailey claimed. Did you check to see if there was a spike in mortality in the other 50 countries at that time? I'm guessing you didn't.
2. The drugs were an anti-malarial derived from plants, in use for over 30 years and perfectly safe; an anti-cancer drug invented in the 1990s; and a drug used to treat immune system disorders, in use for 20 years and also safe. Which of these drugs does Bailey claim caused the mortality spikes?

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

1. Carried out in the UK, not in Spain or Portugal.
2. Trialled, among others, aspirin. Is aspirin suddenly lethal, or is this yet more bollocks?
3. The trials did not test the same drugs as the Solidarity trial.
4. The trials did not finish in April 2020.
5. The results are published. Even if they applied to Spain or Portugal, which they do not, they do not indicate high levels of mortality.

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

1. This is about hydroxychloroquine, the so-called wonder drug of the conspiracy crew. and how dangerous it is, It is not about any of the drugs in the other trials.
2. This article is about studies in Brazil and the UK, not Spain or Portugal.

So, in summary- what the chuffing hell are you talking about? Did you just google random drug studies and post them here? Did you actually read them yourself?
Do not, please, pretend you examined this evidence. This is a joke, nothing more.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Do your own research. <snigger>

 

[eerok]

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.

That's wrong.

In real life, bad science is largely ignored. There's not enough time or money to debunk all the nonsense that gets published.

 

[Steve]

All CE said was that he'd worked in science. When my gf was an undergrad she was an hourly assistant in a lab where they dirtied a lotta glassware AND SHE WASHED IT UP! If she hadn't, they would've had to hire somebody else! That makes her an essential scienceperson just almost like CE.

In German, they'd call her a Diener, and that clinches it for CE and me.

Kind of like not everyone who works in the food industry is a chef, or everyone who works in engineering is an engineer. Bus persons and office clerks are also required. So now maybe we are much closer to knowing what the smartest person we will ever meet actually did while "working in science".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Yes, that appears to be Sam's fundamental argument, and yours as well.

That may be the dippiest argument yet seen in this thread, which is saying something, but it does seem to be the core of your argument.

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.

Here's a much better idea: Let's not say stupid things.

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"

Not to mention almost 400 million subsequent cases and more than 5 million deaths.

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.

Yeah, someone oughta think about sequencing its genome.

Recommended for above two points:

Biochemist, Dr David Rasnick....

NZ medical doctor, Dr Sam Bailey....

Isn't Rasnick the guy who denied the existence of HIV, or at least its connection with AIDS, so he could claim the vitamin supplements he was selling would treat the disease?

And Bailey says viruses have never been shown to cause disease.

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.

"NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana, produced images of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, previously known as 2019-nCoV) on its scanning and transmission electron microscopes on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020....These images are available to the public for free high-resolution download on the NIAID Flickr page."

4. UNSCIENTIFIC: LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIRUS (SARS-COV-2) AND ILLNESS (COVID)

As seen in (literally!) hundreds of millions of cases, the extraordinarily high correlation between the illness (COVID-19) and detection of that specific virus (SARS-CoV-2) cannot be denied.

It is unsurprising that Sam Bailey, who denies any causal relationship at all between any virus at all and any illness at all, would claim there is no evidence for a causal relationship between this specific virus and this specific illness, but Bailey's claims are so surpassingly stupid that no one with any sense would cite Bailey as a source.

5. UNSCIENTIFIC: TEST FOR COVID

No diagnostic test is perfect, but the COVID-19 tests are pretty good, as shown by mundane facts cited above.

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

Simplifying the double negative of the highlighted phrase, Petra is saying "it can be [diagnosed] because it does have a distinctive set of symptoms." That is true, but I think it's safe to assume Petra wrote that truth by accident.

ETA: I probably parsed Petra's sentence incorrectly. I parsed it as a serious question of how COVID-19 is diagnosed, followed by "it [how COVID-19 is diagnosed] can't be because". I suspect Petra was not asking a serious question of how COVID-19 is diagnosed, but rather a rhetorical question, followed by "it can't be [diagnosed] because it [COVID-19] doesn't have".​

It is a phantom illness, we cannot point to anything and say, "This is covid."

Most of the folks who have died of COVID-19 knew they were dying of COVID-19. A few insisted, to their dying breath, that COVID-19 was a phantom illness. Yet they died of it.

But I know people say things about Sam, of course, but I don't agree with them

As arguments go, that's about as convincing as sticking your fingers in your ears, stamping your feet, and yelling "I can't hear you!"

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.

So you are spectacularly uninformed about the subject you are discussing.

2. ....What proves covid doesn't exist is the lack of scientific work that proves its existence,

So you are spectacularly uninformed about the subject you are discussing.

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

As arguments go, that's about as convincing as sticking your fingers in your ears, stamping your feet, and yelling "I can't hear you!"

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.

As arguments go, that's about as convincing as sticking your fingers in your ears, stamping your feet, and yelling "I can't hear you!"

It also shows you are spectacularly uninformed about the subject you are discussing.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

As arguments go, that's about as convincing as sticking your fingers in your ears, stamping your feet, and yelling "I can't hear you!"

It also shows you are spectacularly uninformed about the subject you are discussing.

Yes, but she's watched some YouTube videos- and she's got a blog!

 

[Steve]

Yes, but she's watched some YouTube videos- and she's got a blog!

A combination that, in uneducated persons, invariably results in ultracrepidarianism.

 

[bruto]

The virtue of doing your own research kind of depends on where you do it. If you do not find Covid in the back of the refrigerator, this may not be definitive.

 

[Tippit]

https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigative-Committee:5/session-90-en-online:a

In the video there is a short clip of The WEF’s Klaus Schwab, where he brags about the WEF’s influence over governments throughout the world, in particular Canada and Trudeau. I thought it was interesting that he was being interviewed by none other than David Gergen of Bohemian Grove/Alex Jones fame. This scumbag really has some longevity. I’m sure these two have had some interesting sessions at Bohemian Grove, or other elite get togethers, cremating care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[varwoche]

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.

There are posters with far more patience than me who have done an excellent job revealing that your citations consist of unhinged crappola. But you ignore what they post and bleat the same gibberish over and over.

Realize that when you question the very existence of viruses, it's painfully evident that you're untethered from reality to a WTF extent, on par with flat-earthers and the like. I mean really, it's a path to madness that leads to lizard people.

 

[Steve]

In the video there is a short clip of The WEF’s Klaus Schwab, where he brags about the WEF’s influence over governments throughout the world, in particular Canada and Trudeau. I thought it was interesting that he was being interviewed by none other than David Gergen of Bohemian Grove/Alex Jones fame. This scumbag really has some longevity. I’m sure these two have had some interesting sessions at Bohemian Grove, or other elite get togethers, cremating care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting insight into what CTists such as CE and yourself discuss when you are ensconced in your own little corner of the world. The reveal is appreciated.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

"Independent researchers" just have to put their money where their mouth is and pay for independent studies. No one owes them a debunking or confirmation.

 

[eerok]

"Independent researchers" just have to put their money where their mouth is and pay for independent studies. No one owes them a debunking or confirmation.

Nope. Everything they say is a fact until it's proven wrong. /s

They have no idea what "proof" means, though, so there's a bit of a wait.

 

[Paul2]

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.
. . . .

What you wrote that I edited out concerns the specifics of Covid testing, etc., and goes beyond the lay knowledge and the inclination I have for me to address.

It would take an expert search of papers to determine that some challenge hasn't been addressed. Also, a challenge has to pass a minimum level of expertise and knowledge in the field in order to merely deserve a reply in the first place. Again, I'm speaking generally and without regard to the specifics of Covid testing.

I think it's important to establish and agree on first principles initially, separate from any specific issue that might tend to bias someone one way or the other. Once those general, first principles are established, we have a better chance of applying them to controversial and specific issues with less bias.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The international "Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion" has finally opened today. It's kind of symbolic at the moment, but we'll get these criminals.

 

[marting]

The international "Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion" has finally opened today. It's kind of symbolic at the moment, but we'll get these criminals.

PCR tests have a false positive rate approaching 100%, studies show a false positive rate of 97% which means only 3% of people that test positive actually have "something"

What utter nonsense. Simply false on its face. PCR positivity rates are often under 1% near the bottom of the waves and only briefly go over 30% at the peaks.

Do you really swallow this?

 

[Resume]

The international "Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion" has finally opened today. It's kind of symbolic at the moment, but we'll get these criminals.

Citizen Grand Juries are a great idea!

Sovereign "Judge" Bruce Doucette Sentenced to 38 Years in Prison.

One of the most notable figures in America proselytizing and exercising “sovereign” ideology, Bruce Doucette, was sentenced to 38 years in Colorado state prison on Tuesday, May 22.

Doucette, who owned a computer-repair shop in Littleton, had declared himself a judge despite not being recognized by any U.S. judicial system, and was one of the leading actors in an extra-legal organization calling itself the “people's grand jury of Colorado.” On March 9, a jury in Denver had found Doucette guilty of 34 felony charges stemming from actions that Doucette described as an attempt to root out corruption in American government at its various levels: federal, state and local.

 

[Bubba]

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.

Thats not it. Its not about being wrong vs right.


Its more like smelling rats. Hidden truths. Propaganda. Honest people vs corrupt people.

Look at who is doing the censoring.