Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Petra]

Here's some data to get your teeth into. They've made data make it look like mortality is lower in the vaccinated when what they've done is roll out the vaccinations to the different demographics in a particular order and count people as vaccinated only 14 days after their final jab. I'm curious to see how the "skeptics" explain this data.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/04/covid-vaccines-death-rates-higher-than-reported/

"In other words, the vaccines were rolled out in stages, first administered to the most elderly (80+years old) and then to the next group (70-79) and then to the 60-69 group some weeks later. The death peaks then followed the vaccination stages.

So why would people NOT getting the vaccine be the ones dying in huge numbers, and not those getting the vaccine?

This is because in Europe, the status of “vaccinated” first gets assigned 14 days after getting the final jab. Thus any deaths occurring before this ends up being counted as an “unvaccinated death”! So if a patient who got a vaccine dies less than 14 days later, he/she gets counted as an unvaccinated death. This is how vaccine deaths are getting hidden. And there many thousands.

As Figures 5-7 above show, thousands of deaths occurred shortly after the vaccines had been administered, and many among them were likely linked to the vaccine itself. If this is the case globally, and not just in Britain, then the number of vaccine deaths may be profound. The nightmare appears to be true, Prof Kuhbandner shows.

 

[junkshop]

...I don't think this is a very fruitful exercise so I'll end it here.

Thank you.

Here's some data to get your teeth into. They've made data make it look like mortality is lower in the vaccinated when what they've done is roll out the vaccinations to the different demographics in a particular order and count those as vaccinated only people who've got the vaccination 14 days after getting the final jab. I'm curious to see how you explain this data.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/04/covid-vaccines-death-rates-higher-than-reported/

Damn, I had a feeling that sounded too good to be true.

Regarding the highlighted: punctuation doesn't cost extra.

 

[Petra]

Again, you assert this, and again provide no evidence.
Moreover, you have not specified exactly what factual disagreements you had with PolitiFact's debunking.

OK, here's one. PolitiFact rejects the article's claim that covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms by providing a link to the CDC's page on symptoms. Well the page clearly shows there is no distinctive set of symptoms. The "possible" symptoms listed are all common symptoms of other illnesses notably respiratory illnesses.

You clearly don't understand the concept of peer review, and you are (possibly unintentionally) confusing scientific consensus with argumentum ad populum.
If the majority of experts in a field agree that the evidence supports a particular conclusion, then it's pretty safe to say that conclusion is valid.
If you are going to dispute that, then you need some extraordinary evidence.
So far, you have presented none, nor do you appear to have actually looked at the evidence regarding Covid-19 or PCR tests.
Furthermore, you keep saying you rely on the experts, because you're not a scientist, and the rejecting what the experts say because you don't agree with it. Once again: this is confirmation bias.

No, I don't reject what scientists say because I don't agree with them, I reject what they say because others, including scientists and doctors, have pointed out clearly what is wrong with what they say. Five science teams have produced papers saying they isolated the virus and when questioned about whether their electron micrographs showed purified virus particles they said they didn't ... but they didn't say it didn't matter, they didn't say no they don't show purified virus particles but that's OK because x, y, z.

As has already been pointed out, Professor Weuffen died in 2013, so he cannot have been reviewing that edition of the book. Did you check this yourself before posting? If not, why not?

Because I'm not so particular as you.

Interesting. I'll look at that response in more detail later.
For everyone else, here it is:
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.wee...ebunkers-pcr-tests-scientifically-meaningless

A quick look tells me that blog is a smorgasbord of crazy. 9/11, obviously, but also Sandy Hook denial, Manchester bombing denial, mind control. Wow.

But I didn't link to those did I? I linked to another page. Did you look at it? If you are going to pay the slightest attention to the other links why not look at my Occam's Razor Challenge that no one has responded to. If you think my claims are so jaw-droppingly outrageous why not give that page a look and see if you can respond. No hardline believers of the official stories of those events you mention can respond to my challenge - in the slightest - but maybe smart guy you can. You really aren't a skeptic, are you, you're a firm believer in the official narrative of just about everything. Your mind seems pretty closed to me. A skeptic is supposed to have an open mind, not just believe official stories willy nilly.

Petra is basically saying that everything is fake. All of it.

Not the moon landings and I certainly used to accept the science for AGW and still do ... until I take another look which I'm kind of scared to do.

As I say above, my Occam's Razor Challenges have all gone unresponded to.

 

[Mojo]

As I say above, my Occam's Razor Challenges have all gone unresponded to.

The results of applying Occam’s razor to conspiracy theories are tediously predictable.

 

[Petra]

Damn, I had a feeling that sounded too good to be true.

Regarding the highlighted: punctuation doesn't cost extra.

So that's what you're interested in, the punctuation, not the misrepresentation of very important data.

 

[Petra]

The results of applying Occam’s razor to conspiracy theories are tediously predictable.

It's truly amazing how supposed skeptics simply respond without the slightest glance, not the slightest. Why do you think a comment based on absolutely zero has any credibility?

Your response is not one of a genuine skeptic but of a close-minded anti-conspiracist who follows the mainstream narrative every single time.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Influenza is an illness said to be caused by a virus. Whether it is or not I don't know.
(snip)

I looked at the paper but I don't understand it.
(snip)

This is why you fail. Not so much that you don't understand the paper, but that you don't trust the experts who do.

A question for you: do you understand regular expressions? Do you even know what they are?

If you read the Wikipedia article, do you agree they exist? I for sure know they do, since I use them daily in my computer work.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should reject it. But until you develop a thorough understanding of something, it's best to rely on the experts who do instead of going all conspiracy theory on them.

For example, I don't understand quantum mechanics and have barely a beginner's understanding of special and general relativity. But I don't reject them, because there are people in this world who do understand them. And they've been able to make use of those concepts in the real world. Results from the study of quantum mechanics are used by your computer, LEDs, and fibre optic cables. Relativity is needed to keep the clocks that make GPS work accurate.

I find it unsettling that you're willing to reject experts in fields you don't understand. It would be like rejecting an electrician's advice on wiring a three phase motor if you don't understand 600 volt three phase circuits.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The results of applying Occam’s razor to conspiracy theories are tediously predictable.

It's truly amazing how supposed skeptics simply respond without the slightest glance, not the slightest. Why do you think a comment based on absolutely zero has any credibility?

Your response is not one of a genuine skeptic but of a close-minded anti-conspiracist who follows the mainstream narrative every single time.

Did you notice Mojo's join date? July 2004. That's 16½ years ago. He's been around the block a few times. This may all be new to you, but for a lot of us it's old hat. Like, really old hat!

Consider an Olympic athlete at the top of her craft. She can make very complicated moves that look effortless. But that's because she's spent most of her life perfecting them.

It's the same for Mojo's comment. After years of reading posts by conspiracy theorists and responding to them, he's gained a lot of expertise in seeing through them and knowing where the problems lie. And there's that expert thing again.

Maybe you should seek out an expert or two in fields where you have a bit of knowledge and hang around with them for a while. It might give you insight into expertise and how experts function.

 

[varwoche]

It's truly amazing how supposed skeptics simply respond without the slightest glance, not the slightest. Why do you think a comment based on absolutely zero has any credibility?

Your response is not one of a genuine skeptic but of a close-minded anti-conspiracist who follows the mainstream narrative every single time.

It's not unlike when I walk through Pioneer Square (Seattle) and there's a deeply disturbed street dweller who tells me "The end is near!" I have an extremely high degree of confidence the guy is delusional, so I don't stop to discuss.

I'm equally confident in your delusionality. There's simply not enough time in the day to delve into the blatant garbage that stokes the fevered imagination of someone who doubts the very existence of viruses.

 

[Petra]

This is why you fail. Not so much that you don't understand the paper, but that you don't trust the experts who do.

You do recognise that not all experts support the mainstream narrative, don't you, but you seem to act as if there are no naysayers among the experts. I wouldn't dare to look at scientific papers I know nothing about and simply apply my own mind but when experts lay out their criticism clearly I think we, as laypeople, can follow along and see where their criticism deserves merit.

Then there are things we can easily see that are wrong ourselves. Currently, a friend is staying with me for a week longer than planned because her PCR test returned a positive result and she's not allowed to board her flight until it's negative - she also had to wait 7 days to have the second test. She is perfectly well, showing no symptoms. She was suffering cold symptoms before and while she was suffering those symptoms underwent two Rapid Antigen Tests which both returned negatives. Interesting, no? While sick she returned negatives and while well she returns a positive.

Her being held hostage for a week while perfectly well is lunacy of the highest order but only one such example. If you can't see anything wrong ... well I simply don't know what to say.

 

[Petra]

It's not unlike when I walk through Pioneer Square (Seattle) and there's a deeply disturbed street dweller who tells me "The end is near!" I have an extremely high degree of confidence the guy is delusional, so I don't stop to discuss.

I'm equally confident in your delusionality. There's simply not enough time in the day to delve into the blatant garbage that stokes the fevered imagination of someone who doubts the very existence of viruses.

Regardless of how confident you are, you haven't got anything specific to say to support that confidence, just your arrogant confidence. Certainly I can understand you might feel confident in whatever you think of me but without anything specific to put forward I don't understand why you express it. Why bother - what purpose does it serve?

 

[junkshop]

So that's what you're interested in, the punctuation, not the misrepresentation of very important data.

No, I'm interested in both punctuation and your misrepresentation of very important data.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Influenza is an illness said to be caused by a virus. Whether it is or not I don't know. I think that what is said about how viruses haven't been proved to exist is compelling but that doesn't mean a pathogen isn't responsible for illness, perhaps it just means they haven't found the pathogen they think they have. I simply don't know enough about it.

Nope, don't believe you. You're being disingenuous.
You clearly think you know enough about this to have formed a conclusion, namely that you believe the fringe scientists who reject the entire field of virology, and disbelieve all the rest.
It is also clear that you can't state your reasons for this. If you don't know, or can't explain, why you have reached a particular conclusion, then it doesn't say much for your claim to have looked at all the evidence and based your conclusion on that, does it?
Do, by all means, prove me wrong. Spell out your factual disagreements with virology. There are scientists on this forum who will be better able than I to examine them.

Please explain to me how, if testing stopped tomorrow, covid would be able to be diagnosed as not being a cold, flu, whatever.

How many people choke to death because of a common cold, Petra?
How many people suffer long-term debilitating symptoms from a common cold?
Now, the initial symptoms of both flu and Covid are very similar. No-one is disputing that. This is why testing is so important, because we need to know if those symptoms are just a cold, or whether they are from something more dangerous. That could save someone's life. You understand that, right?
Why, then, would we stop testing? If we don't, then Covid will continue to spread and kill people around the world. Why would we want to do that?

Can you point me to a PCR test that has specificity and sensitivity rates (false positives and false negatives) published as well as how those rates were determined?

No. I'm not going to play that game. Your claim, your burden of proof.
You say PCR tests are worthless. OK, prove it.
Can you point me to published, peer-reviewed research that indicates that PCR tests are not accurate or fit for purpose, as you claim?

People die from flu and pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses. Please tell me what the special symptoms are that covid sufferers experience? You are aware that many older people suffering co-morbidities are said to have died of covid.

Are you aware that many older people suffering co-morbidities die of pneumonia and influenza?
What is your point here?

Mea culpa. However, the MAIN point of Sam's data which still stands strong is that excess spikes in April 2020 correlated with countries where aggressive drug trials were conducted.

Now, as for the rest of this, I'm not going to go any further until you detail, exactly and specifically, what Sam Bailey's claim is.

 

[Petra]

That "paper" is a perfect example of my earlier point about these claims being laughably, pitifully wrong.
Unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, 'everyone else is lying except me', 'all the other scientists are wrong and lying, and always have been, except me, because I say so'. 'Bill Gates globalists blah blah blah'.
Oh, and, if you scroll down to p 42 onwards, 'UFOs in vaccines'!

And bonus 'nano-chips'.

Petra, this is utter drek. How can you swallow this bilge?

Do you see how your post has zero content, that it's just full of ad hominem and derision. There's no actual criticism of any particular statement or claim.

So if it's unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion why not put one down?

Your hostility is a bit over the top isn't it? My goodness.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If the argument is that there's no covid then the reported 5 million deaths won't be from covid and if the science put forward to say that covid exists is shown to be fraudulent then we can infer that the claim of 5 million deaths from covid is false. We must look at the science put forward. What do you say about the "science" put forward for the suspicion of a new virus?

No, reversing the burden of proof still won't work.
What alternative explanation do you have for the 5.5 million reported Covid deaths, and what evidence do you have to support it?
On what are you basing your assertion that the science showing the existence of Covid is fraudulent?

Yes, we all know a genome is claimed but the science put forward for a genome is fraudulent. You can't just push out what is claimed you need to address the claims of fraudulence.

Then present the evidence for fraud. Ideally, not in the form of a YouTube video. Got any actual research papers? Just saying it's fraudulent is simply not good enough.

 

[Petra]

Yeah, I didn't think it'd be this bad. Is this supposed to resemble an actual academic paper?



Lol. Petra has made a real splash in the deep end of the cesspit.

Criticism needs to include actual content. Criticism does not just consist of deriding something because someone you don't like endorses it or simply expressing an opinion. Criticism involves rigour, it means taking what is put forward and saying why there's something wrong with it.

 

[Mojo]

It's truly amazing how supposed skeptics simply respond without the slightest glance, not the slightest. Why do you think a comment based on absolutely zero has any credibility?

Your response is not one of a genuine skeptic but of a close-minded anti-conspiracist who follows the mainstream narrative every single time.

When you’re pushing a conspiracy theory that requires the complicity of virtually the entire medical profession and pretty much every government in the world, the last person you should be drawing attention to is William of Ockham.

 

[varwoche]

Regardless of how confident you are, you haven't got anything specific to say to support that confidence, just your arrogant confidence. Certainly I can understand you might feel confident in whatever you think of me but without anything specific to put forward I don't understand why you express it. Why bother - what purpose does it serve?

You asked a meta question and I provided a meta answer.

Pay better attention please.

 

[Petra]

No, reversing the burden of proof still won't work.
What alternative explanation do you have for the 5.5 million reported Covid deaths, and what evidence do you have to support it?
On what are you basing your assertion that the science showing the existence of Covid is fraudulent?

I wasn't reversing the burden of proof! What I put down was what I think is fraudulent science, namely, what was put forward for suspicion of a new virus. Please respond to that. I didn't bring 5 million deaths into the argument. Let's just stick to whether the science is fraudulent or not.

Then present the evidence for fraud. Ideally, not in the form of a YouTube video. Got any actual research papers? Just saying it's fraudulent is simply not good enough.

Criticism isn't necessarily in the form of a research paper although it certainly may be a critique of a research paper.

The paper you derided co-authored by Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith has a whole section on the fraudulence of the genome but I put forward the simple fact of taking only swabs from a single patient to create a genome as being fraudulent science ... that's as far as I went because my understanding is limited, however, if you believe that a sample from one patient is good science then perhaps you can explain why.

The paper is not peer-reviewed. Perhaps you could provide some peer review yourself, not of the roll-eyes, derision type but with some clear statements of what is wrong with the section of the paper criticising the science put forward for creating the genome.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

If the argument is that there's no covid then the reported 5 million deaths won't be from covid and if the science put forward to say that covid exists is shown to be fraudulent then we can infer that the claim of 5 million deaths from covid is false.

If the moon is made of green cheese and the 381kg of moon rocks collected by six Apollo missions are fraudulent, then we can infer there may be rats living on the moon.

We must look at the science put forward. What do you say about the "science" put forward for the suspicion of a new virus?

Solid. Denied only by wackos.

Sequencing enabled the world to rapidly identify SARS-CoV-2; and knowing the genome sequence allowed rapid development of diagnostic tests and other tools for the response. Continued genome sequencing supports the monitoring of the disease’s spread and activity and evolution of the virus.

Yeah, someone oughta think about sequencing its genome.

Yes, we all know a genome is claimed but the science put forward for a genome is fraudulent. You can't just push out what is claimed you need to address the claims of fraudulence.

Your ultracrepidarian opinion has been noted, your claims of fraudulence have been addressed, and you continue to ignore all such scientific evidence.

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?

Why yes he was ... Kary Mullis, a friend and colleague of David, who won the Nobel prize for the invention of the PCR technique fraudulently being used to test for the alleged covid also denied the connection between HIV and AIDS. How 'bout them apples? All so long ago now. AIDS, yes I remember those ads with the grim reaper and the bowling ball in Australia. Did you have them too? AIDS, all so long ago now. Haven't heard of anyone with AIDS in years. How 'bout you?

The reason you haven't been hearing so much about AIDS is that the identification of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) led to the development of antiretroviral therapies that control the virus and slow the progression to AIDS.

It is important for people to know that AIDS denialists do indeed still exist. AIDS denialists are the best known for having joined with former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki to create the impression that there is a debate among scientists as to whether HIV causes AIDS. Tragically, more than 330,000 South Africans needlessly died and 35,000 babies were born with HIV infection as a result of Mbeki’s denialist policies (8–11).

Kalichman was commenting upon an opinion piece that, despite its retraction by the journal that published it, continues to be cited by AIDS denialists. As Petra has demonstrated, AIDS denialists are now being cited by COVID-19 denialists. Determining which group of denialists was responsible for more deaths is left as an exercise for readers.

I don't think this is a very fruitful exercise so I'll end it here.