Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV
- Thread starter AcesHigh
- Start date
- Status
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
I am talking about the importance of taking superfoods such as black cumin oil, spicy turnip juice, ginseng, garlic every day to protect against corona. New research shows that black cumin oil is even more effective than Ivermectin in the treatment of covid-19:
https://onedaymd.aestheticsadvisor.com/2021/08/black-seed-and-covid-19-australian.html
https://onedaymd.aestheticsadvisor.com/2021/08/black-seed-and-covid-19-australian.html
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
Edited by xjx388:
<SNIP>
Removed moderated content
Removed moderated content
No such thing.
Even more effective than something that has not been shown effective?
Wow.
Last edited by a moderator:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
That's like saying a **** sandwich is tastier than mashed ladybugs.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
I'll take your word for it . . . .
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Yes, facts. To use an old saying, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. In addition, see the list at the end of this article wherein I list the sources I trust for information.
What does Martin's Twitter feed have to do with this topic? I see no indication on the feed that he's a professor or a doctor. Most of it is about the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and it looks like he's merely parroting the western mainstream media on this
. He does take a contrarian view of the measures taken to control the pandemic, but he has lots of company there: see Sorry Anti-Vaxxer.The one article you keep referring to is from mid-2020, just as the pandemic was ramping up, and it's been thoroughly debunked.
Here are some more of those pesky (not to mention current) facts: NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources [National Library of Medicine at the National Center for Biotechnology Information]. If you scroll down that page you'll find the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence record, and at the end of that page is a list of all 29,903 base pairs in the virus.
Now are you going to tell me this virus doesn't exist?
This is a little frustrating. We're just getting a discussion going and you bail out. It's understandable, though; I've abandoned threads myself where I've been getting my ass handed to me.
For me, the evidence this virus exists and is causing a disease that's killed at least four million people worldwide, and probably a lot more, comes from these sources:
- Primarily, the scientists researching the virus, as shown by the hundreds of thousands of papers on PubMed. To conclude they're all chasing a rainbow is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
- Second, reports the world over of hospitals being overwhelmed with people sick and dying from a disease that, when looked at, comes from the same virus who's genome is sequenced in the page I referenced earlier.
- Government web sites the world over tracking cases, deaths, and preventative measures. If there was only one government (e.g. China) with such a site I could understand somebody being suspicious. When pretty much every government in the world has such as site, it's ridiculous to believe some shadowy cabal has managed to hoodwink every single one of them into putting up a fake site with fake information. Why would governments with all sorts of different ideologies be participating in a world wide hoax to convince the public a non-existent disease is killing their people?
- Numerous independent sites such as Worldometers,, Our World In Data, Johns Hopkins, the World Health Organization, and the US Centers for Disease Control. For your ideas to be correct, every one of these sites is wrong or lying. For me, I'll start with the hypotheses they're letting the numbers tell the tale.
- The numerous Wikipedia articles on the virus, the disease, and the pandemic, written by thousands of people, all of which contain links back to primary sources. Disbelieve Wikipedia all you want; are you seriously going to argue that every single source referenced by those articles is wrong or faked?
To me this is a good case of where there's smoke, there's fire. There is an incredible amount of smoke all over the world. To conclude there is no virus, disease, and no pandemic puts you at the same level of denial as the flat earthers.
As usual, science and politics don't mix.
Ivermectin fails another COVID trial as study links use to GOP politics (arstechnica.com)
Ivermectin fails another COVID trial as study links use to GOP politics (arstechnica.com)
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You don't have sufficient credibility here to make that accusation!
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 678
Says the guy at the bottom of the hole to those at the top.
I know that actual science might seem strange and frightening to you, and I understand your false bravado.
The rest of the world can't wait for science deniers to catch up, though.
Debunking of first alleged error
Pneumonia is not a relatively uncommon event or disease - are you serious? There are over 1M cases of pneumonia per year in China and it's a serious problem.
Debunking of second alleged error
Don't know what you're arguing here. What I say is that pneumonia is not an illness where source is particularly known so to claim "unknown origin" makes no sense. We don't say someone's "cold" is of unknown origin or "flu" is of unknown origin - it's not expected that we know the origin.
It's the tying together of the two things which make it unscientific:
Pneumonia is a common illness - 44 cases doesn't make a cluster unless we can identify something particular about those pneumonia cases but they didn't identify anything particular, they made the nonsensical claim that the cases were of "unknown origin" when we wouldn't expect to know the origin. Get it?
Debunking of third alleged error
Is the paragraph below supposed to indicate a connection between the virus and pneumonia? Is that what you're suggesting? Seriously? What the paragraph below says is that sometimes the symptoms, "often indicate pneumonia," which doesn't even say that the covid sufferer HAS pneumonia just that the symptoms are also the symptoms of pneumonia. A tiny reference in an article to symptoms being those of pneumonia is a connection of the most tenuous kind, bearing zero relationship to what we'd expect when the suspicion of the "novel" virus is based on 44 cases of pneumonia. I see no reference generally around me to any connection any tangible connection between pneumonia and covid and if you are seriously suggesting that this debunks my argument it means you will grab at anything at all.
"Common symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, dry cough, fatigue, loss of appetite, loss of smell, and body ache. In some people, COVID-19 causes more severe symptoms like high fever, severe cough, and shortness of breath, which often indicates pneumonia."
I stand by my claim that the suspicion of a "novel" virus based on an alleged "cluster" of 44 cases of pneumonia of "unknown origin" is unscientific.
Last edited:
I will stay on then ... a little. For health reasons, it's not good for me to sit and type all day and that is what I'm inclined to do on this thread so I'll answer this post and I've just answered another one and I'll keep it to two a day or so. I assure you I'm more than willing to keep on arguing. If I'm wrong then I want to change my mind not run away from the argument.
It may be old in covid terms but it is still very relevant. No, that's my whole point. It hasn't been debunked at all. An attempt was made to debunk it by PolitiFact which was resoundingly refuted with no further response. I also approached five fact-checkers, including PolitiFact and Sciencemag, and virologist, Dr Ian McKay (https://virologydownunder.com/about-me/), for a response to the authors' next article, Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2, with zero response. This article goes into some detail exposing the fraudulence of the alleged genomic sequence.
I put a link to my page with the debunking configuration all laid out nicely and a refutation that I wrote myself before I realised the article authors had done their own refutation, a link I gave to Cosmic Yak. His response was simply to recoil because he was "appalled" by the links he saw to 9/11 and Sandy Hook so what I ask you to do is to keep your eyes blinkered away from the menu and simply go to my Debunking of the Debunkers: Exposure of Fraud Stands Strong page. I spend a lot of time on this thread that could be saved by people going to my links but they seem to always have one reason or another not to.
I'm 100% aware of these pages and similar. I cannot debunk them myself but when I read the debunking of them by others far more authoritative than I am, I find them compelling. And then there's the lack of response to the debunking. I mean, how else can non-scientists such as I judge? I'm not going to judge by a consensus, I didn't even do that with climate change even though I agree with the climate scientists, I do it by following the debunking trail. I thought what the climate scientists said seemed reasonable but I looked at the debunking to see if it had any merit and I looked at the response to the debunking. Climate scientists win hands down! Just as in this case the debunkers win hands down!
You cannot just cite references, OK? You need to come to grips with the criticism. If somehow they can get scientists to come up with RNA threads that will result in lots of "positive results" to a test that isn't fit for purpose they can conduct a massive scam where people are hoodwinked into participation. They don't need everyone "in on it", they just need a few key people orchestrating things.
Hospitals overwhelmed?
A friend sent me a link to an article published by the ABC about an Australian nurse, Anne Elliott, who’d returned from working during COVID in the UK at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. Despite constant presentation of evidence that it’s a scam my friend still believes the official narrative and thought the article supported “real” pandemic. It’s a complete story, no particular evidence to back it up – it’s amazing how “story” supposedly favours real. The alien-looking image of someone in heavy-duty face mask headlining the story is quite scary.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-31/how-covid-delta-kills-patients-virus/100335290
“We were completely blind-sided by the scale of it,” says Elliott who worked with critically ill COVID patients in the hospital’s intensive care unit. “We had no PPE. We had cardboard walls with duct tape to corner off sections of the emergency and ICU to COVID patients. It took us completely by surprise.”
Poor Anne now lives with “very, very prominent post-traumatic stress disorder.”
So I searched for Chelsea and Westminster on YouTube to see if they showed any hospital scenes and guess what I found: all happy and relaxed-looking dancing ICU nurses and doctors with the slogan across the film at one point “waiting for patient.”
https://youtu.be/3DYkNMz7hF0
They tell us the photo of two masked-up nurses shows Anne with a colleague (but don’t indicate which one’s Anne) but I wonder if Anne exists at all and might be just a made-up person named after the protagonist of Jane Austen’s Persuasion.
In the article we’re told, “Nine months later Elliott had zipped more than 50 patients into body bags.” AFAIK, it is not the job of nurses to put bodies into body bags.
The importance of not "trusting" source
I cannot emphasise enough that no source is trustworthy. People keep rejecting my Off-Guardian links but I, myself, am extremely critical of Off-Guardian. I don't "trust" Off-Guardian, not at all. They wrote an article critical of me and didn't even have the courtesy to pin my response to the top of the comments when I asked them to and they censor my perfectly civil comments in exactly the same sneaky way that mainstream publications do - with zero transparency. They also publish material from authors I have zero respect for. I do not trust Off-Guardian, OK? But I recognise they publish important material that is published nowhere else.
Please, everyone, you cannot judge by source, you must judge by content. You need to canvass widely and put the pieces together yourself.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
And who is surprised about this?
Australian Bureau of Statistics report on Covid deaths misrepresented by rightwing media
Here in the tyranny capital of the country, our masks are coming off as of 6pm this Friday, except in schools, child care centres, hospitals, aged care centres, public transport, the airport and while on a plane. These evil communists and paedophiles who want to control our every action have now removed almost every restriction on our action that was previously imposed. How dare they?
Australian Bureau of Statistics report on Covid deaths misrepresented by rightwing media
Here in the tyranny capital of the country, our masks are coming off as of 6pm this Friday, except in schools, child care centres, hospitals, aged care centres, public transport, the airport and while on a plane. These evil communists and paedophiles who want to control our every action have now removed almost every restriction on our action that was previously imposed. How dare they?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Once again, you are misrepresenting me.
Why do you feel the need to do this, Petra?
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
You're using the wrong interpretation of the word "origin." In this context, origin is "the pathogen in the patient, and/or the disease the patient is suffering from, that lead to the patient getting pneumonia." As you said, "unless we can identify something particular about those pneumonia cases." The medical people in Wuhan did find something peculiar: they tested for all known causes of pneumonia in these patients, and they came back negative. Hence "unknown origin."
The Adventure of Silver Blaze said:
Sigh. It's already been pointed out to you that one of the complications of advanced COVID-19 is pneumonia.
COVID-19 Lung Damage:
Johns Hopkins Medicine said:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
No. Once again, just because fact-checkers have not replied to you in person does not mean their fact-checking is at all suspect.
Just to emphasise: I am heartily sick of your repeated and dishonest attempts to misrepresent me. Please stop doing this.
Your blog is full of complete rubbish. I did not 'recoil': I read some of the articles, concluded they were rubbish, and left your site, never to return.
Once again, appealing to your own cognitive biases.
Of all the ludicrous things you have come up with, this has to be the outright winner.
Complete and utter bilge. I'm not even going to bother going through it point by point, because you won't listen (this is the second time you've posted this poisonous bilge, I note), and most other posters here will see through it just as I did.
Then start by doing so yourself. You handwave away any content that you don't like, and instead state it can't be true because the authors won't enter into personal correspondence with you.
You still have not presented a single shred of evidence for the alleged fraud you keep going on about. I think it's time for you to admit you don't have any.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
I'll come back to this later as it will take some research on my part.
In my opinion, the same is true for COVID-19: the debunkers are winning, but you're refusing to see it. You stated at the outset you believed it was a psy-ops, and IMHO you're refusing to seriously consider thousands of sources that say otherwise in favour of a handful that agree with you.
In this case you'll need to do much, much more follow-ups of the debunking we're trying to post here. For example, we explained to you why your interpretation of the extremely preliminary notice from the WHO on COVID-19 in January 2020 was incorrect. You gave a detailed response (that's good!) but it turns out much of it was based on an erroneous assumption of what was meant by "unknown origin," followed up by an assertion you don't believe pneumonia is a complication from COVID-19. In the post just above this one I've attempted to correct both those mistakes.
And why have you not addressed this summary by the WHO on the day they declared COVID-19 a global pandemic?
Reputation matters. The sources we have on this side of the debate are rooted in science, government web sites, a plethora of other (mostly curated) websites, and honest reporting. Your side has conspiracy-leaning sites with a history of dubious claims, outrageous claims, false claims, and outright lies. Sure, some may even post accurate news from time to time, but again, remember the story of the boy who cried wolf. There's a reason we don't trust your sources—they have bad reputations!
Oh, yeah, there's a super-duper reliable source right there!
How about looking things up an a few news sites?
St. Thomas, Ont., hospital overwhelmed with unvaccinated COVID-19 patients [CBC]
Patients suffering, dying while waiting for care as Manitoba hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19, doctors say [CBC]
COVID-19 patients arriving 'back to back' at Vancouver General Hospital's ICU [CBC]
India's crematoriums overwhelmed as COVID-19 patients scramble for medical help [CBC]
Colorado hospitals allowed to turn away patients amid Covid-19 surge [NBC]
Oregon hospital at full capacity, overwhelmed with ICU patients sick with Covid [NBC]
Overwhelmed by COVID patients, Alaska’s health care workers also face harassment [PBS]
Some hospitals in Midwest overwhelmed as virus surge worsens in region [PBS]
Idaho hospitals nearly buckling in relentless COVID surge [PBS]
I will not accept a handwave saying, "Oh, those are just mainstream news sites." If you want to debunk the stories above, the burden of proof is on you to show they're wrong. And wrong individually, not just a simple quote from a site that agrees with you. And if somehow you manage to definitively show each and every one of the stories in the above links is false, I'll come back with dozen more. And a dozen more after that.
Also, Science Based Medicine has some over 200 articles on tagged with COVID-19. Every single contributor to that blog is a scientist or a doctor, and often both. Care to start debunking those articles, too?
Again, reputation matters. Now, all too often reputation itself is in the eye of the beholder; look at how many people believe things Donald Trump says. For me, reputation comes from people and organizations that have a consistent history of reporting factual information that is generally accepted as true—such as the sources you trust for the Moon Landings and, I suspect, a more-or-less spherical Earth. You know, science. I'm therefore bewildered that for this one very important topic you're refusing to accept the consensus of the world's scientists on the matter.
LOL. Where is it stated they tested for all known causes of pneumonia and I wonder how would they even do such a thing? Can you not see that the reporting of this suspicion is very low on detail, it's suspiciously low, in fact, if you'll pardon the pun.
There are people much more authoritative than I talking about the unscientific suspicion of a "novel" virus, biochemist, Dr David Rasnick, and medical doctor, Dr Sam Bailey - I think they would have noticed if there was mention of "testing for all known causes of pneumonia" and, if they had, they would have questioned such a strange claim.
Quote:
Debunking of third alleged error
Is the paragraph below supposed to indicate a connection between the virus and pneumonia? ...
OK, but there isn't a common association. I shall leave the association between covid and pneumonia out of my argument as it isn't germane anyway.
My basic claim is that the suspicion of a "novel" virus is unscientific because 44 cases of pneumonia in the highly-polluted city of Wuhan doesn't make a "cluster" unless a special cause is determined and at the stage of SUSPICION no special cause was determined, it was simply claimed the pneumonia cases were of "unknown origin" which seems to imply a special cause but as pneumonia has many causes and it's not necessarily known what has caused pneumonia in particular patients the specification of "unknown origin" makes no sense. AFAIK, there is no statement of testing for all known causes so if you can provide evidence of it then that will change things but I doubt you can.
I will keep arguing this point until I get it agreed that the grounds given for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific because they clearly are.
- Status