Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[catsmate]

It's a question of getting down to the nitty-gritty.

Oh look, more "Off Guardian" drivel.

 

[Lithrael]

The trial you mention has included less than 50 thousand participants total. Even if it killed all of them it still wouldn’t iron out that spike in excess deaths.

Ah here we go. Your French article accuses the trial of creating mortality via massive HCQ overdose. Recovery says “A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.”

So even if we called all deaths in the HCQ arm of the study due to gross malpractice and not Covid, that’s fewer than 400 people and not much of a dent in that excess deaths graph.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, but who posts it?

According to Swiss Propaganda Research an active and influential English Wikipedia administrator called “Slim Virgin” was, in fact, a former British intelligence informer.

No evidence I see. How typical for you and the "sources" you parrot.

 

[catsmate]

The "legitimate scientific studies" have been debunked in a way I find completely compelling.

Meanwhile, back in the Real World, those of us with actual skills and knowledge utterly reject your parroted lies.

 

[jimbob]

The trial you mention has included less than 50 thousand participants total. Even if it killed all of them it still wouldn’t iron out that spike in excess deaths.

Nor would it have explained the excess deaths in New York in spring of 2020, or Italy in March 2020. To name just two places

 

[catsmate]

" Matthew Best View Post
So, out of the 10 billion doses of corona virus vaccine that have been administered, how many have caused problems for the recipients?"

You're spouting lies, as usual.

 

[catsmate]

You are both a liar and a slanderer.

Pathetic.

 

[catsmate]

You fell for that too, huh? Ahahahahaha

Do be quiet, the grown-ups are talking.

 

[Disbelief]

So when Kary Mullis asked for the paper that showed HIV caused AIDS and couldn't find it, what was the problem? You mean it was there but he just didn't find it?

What is your explanation for AIDS seeming to have disappeared? Everyone's on AZT, everyone's practising safe sex?

So around 1 million global deaths per year and you say AIDS has disappeared. Of course over time, the deaths have decreased because science has understood it much better and ways to combat it.

 

[Steve]

Daniels is fond of pontificating on matters he's utterly unqualified to speak about.

Even though he is fluent in over 6 million forms of communication?

 

[Steve]

The "legitimate scientific studies" have been debunked in a way I find completely compelling.https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless

I don't find debunking of climate science compelling and I don't find debunking of the moon landings compelling. I'm not some mindless conspiracy theorist, OK? I look at what's presented and try to work it out with an open mind.

Here's a site for you to get your teeth stuck into - WARNING: NOT A VIROLOGIST and whose grammar and spelling are not perfect, just someone who's studied:
ViroLIEgy.com - Exposing the lies of Germ Theory and virology using their own sources.

Have they been "debunked" by other legitimate scientific studies? Or by a few people pulling unconfirmed ideas out of their nether regions?

 

[Lithrael]

Nor would it have explained the excess deaths in New York in spring of 2020, or Italy in March 2020. To name just two places

One step at a time. I’m just trying to point out to the guy that his first guesses for ‘what did kill all these people then?’ are a trial that at max proposed mortality could be responsible for 400 deaths, and the toll of isolation. Someone remind me, for comparison, what did the numbers look like in countries where they didn’t emphasize isolation in elder care situations?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So when Kary Mullis asked for the paper that showed HIV caused AIDS and couldn't find it, what was the problem? You mean it was there but he just didn't find it?

According to you, Kary Mullis was unable to find the following paper:

Montagnier L, Chermann JC, Barré-Sinoussi F, Klatzmann D, Wain-Hobson S, Alizon M, Clavel F, Brun-Vezinet F, Vilmer E, Rouzioux C, et al. Lymphadenopathy associated virus and its etiological role in AIDS. Princess Takamatsu Symp. 1984;15:319-31. PMID: 6100650. Online at PubMed.​

A competent researcher would have been able to find that paper. According to you, however, Kary Mullis was unable to find that paper. That means at least one of the following statements is true:

• Kary Mullis was not a competent researcher.
• Petra has been misrepresenting Kary Mullis's research abilities.

Which is it, Petra?

What is your explanation for AIDS seeming to have disappeared? Everyone's on AZT, everyone's practising safe sex?

As several people (including myself) have explained to you in this thread, the discovery that HIV causes AIDS eventually led to the development of retroviral drugs that control the virus well enough so most of the million-plus people in the United States who are infected with HIV can lead normal lives. Increased awareness of the link between HIV and AIDS has also contributed to safer sex practices. CDC estimates show new HIV infections declined 8% from 37,800 in 2015 to 34,800 in 2019, after a period of general stability.

Sam Bailey qualified as an MD and she was a co-presenter of the medical myth-busting series, The Checkup. She was also a pioneering provider of tele-health services pre-covid.

She was generally highly regarded (and still is by a number of people) until she went rogue on covid.

Similarly, for Dr David Rasnick.

They are qualified people. Please don't simply push out the 100% expected rejection by mainstream sources.

Sam Bailey and David Rasnick are regarded as qualified by those who insist viruses do not even exist and by those who insist there is no link between retroviruses and AIDS.

"Generally highly regarded" by idiots and conspiracy theorists is not the same as being generally highly regarded.

In reality, Sam Bailey and David Rasnick are generally regarded as crackpots whose denials of links between viruses and disease have contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

So how do you refute the claim that the suspicion of a "novel" various based on 44 cases of pneumonia of "unknown origin" in the highly-polluted city of Wuhan is unscientific?

I only want people to agree on a clear fact but if you can show how it isn't a clear fact, I'm all ears.

This is at least the sixth time you have asked that question after ignoring at least that many clear answers to your question. Ignoring clear answers is not consistent with your claim that you are "all ears".

I myself have already answered your question three times:

The sentence I highlighted is objectively and indisputably untrue. I myself have replied to that at least twice (see quotations below), and others have replied as well. Petra doesn't like those replies, but to say no one has even replied is either (1) a lie or (2) symptomatic of losing all touch with reality.

Here is the relevant portion of my first reply to that:

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

Here is the relevant portion of my second reply:

Here's what I did say when you asked that same question earlier:

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

If you had paid attention and responded honestly, I would not have had to repeat that.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that "the association between pneumonia and the novel virus" has never been lost.

Petra is still asking the same thing while claiming no one has even replied to it. Here, therefore, is my third reply:

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

If you had paid attention and responded honestly, I would not have had to repeat that.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that "the association between pneumonia and the novel virus" has never been lost.

I note also that Petra's obviously false claim that no one has replied to Petra's statement reflects poorly on Petra's credibility.​

Here is my fourth reply:

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

If you had paid attention and responded honestly, I would not have had to repeat that.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that "the association between pneumonia and the novel virus" has never been lost.

I note also that Petra's obviously false claim that no one has replied to Petra's statement reflects poorly on Petra's credibility.

In particular, Petra is lying when Petra claims to be open-minded, "all ears", even as Petra pretends no one has answered Petra's question.​

 

[Blue Mountain]

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.

Here's a shocker for you: after all this typing, I agree the initial report was not scientific. It was vague; they didn't have a causative agent; it was winter, a time when pneumonia cases are common; and the WHO had no recommendations beyond "be careful out there."

Here's what I disagree with: it appears to be your contention that because that one initial report was vague and unscientific, it brings the entire narrative of the SARS-Cov-2 virus and the COVID-19 pandemic into disrepute. As far as I'm concerned that's an extremely naive conclusion. Within days of that report, the Chinese has isolated the virus, sequenced its genome, and shared it with the world. It was a novel virus, subsequently named SARS-Cov-2, and it has caused a worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 disease that's killed millions over the last couple of years.

Oh, you still haven't given me your comment or opinion on the WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020, when the WHO declared a global pandemic.

 

[Resume]

The SARS-Cov-2 genome has been isolated and sequenced; it has been demonstrated to cause COVID-19. These are facts, no matter how many words this interlocutor types, no matter how much disinformation they paraphrase, no matter how they choose to ignore facts and attempt to reset.

 

[Blue Mountain]

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 ...

Ditto for me, actually.

(some snippage)

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

I took a look at this, and here's what I discovered:

1. The video was posted on 16 May 2020. At the time, the UK was seeing somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 new cases a day. Keeping in mind that only a small percentage of cases end up in the hospital, the hospital wasn't really alarmed at the projected caseload. That's reflected in the video's message: "We'll be here for you through this."
2. Then something happened they didn't expect. Starting in October 2020 and going though to February 2021, there was a huge surge in the number of cases. At the height of it in January 2021 the UK was seeing 62,000 new cases a day—18 times the number it had seen back when the video was produced a few months earlier.
3. Remember, that surge started in October 2020 and carried on through November and December, peaked in January 2021, and didn't break until February. Of course Chelsea and Westminster didn't care for every single COVID patient in the UK, but the hospital is in the heart of London, and London was very badly hit.
4. The ABC article was posted at the end of July 2021. Obviously the time frame it's referring to is the five month surge when resources were stretched to their limits and beyond.

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.

That I can't say. I'm inclined to take the ABC's story at face value,. If you have questions or concerns about it, you can contact the ABC. Unfortunately they don't publish contact information for Catherine Taylor, the article's author.

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.

Sorry, I can't address this one. I don't know if nurses in the UK are expected to assist with putting the deceased into body bags, or if it's a bit of literary license on the part of the writer. There are a couple of (former) UK nurses on this forum; maybe they can give us some insight.

 

[Resume]

What is your explanation for AIDS seeming to have disappeared? Everyone's on AZT, everyone's practising safe sex?

It hasn't disappeared; a simple search will tell you about 700,000 deaths per year for the last several. A decline is not a disappearance.

 

[sackett]

Everybody who agrees with a CTist is automatically, even axiomatically, right. When the CTist agrees with them, that's independent confirmation, aka a double whammy.

Further, because a CTist can only borrow his beliefs (creative thinking? sorry, not his department), he will unerringly choose sources that caress and stimulate his gullibility, causing it to swell, redden, and harden until

Jesus, I'm sorry. The imagery arrives unbidden. I only wanted to observe that CT sources can be silly to the edge of madness, but as long as they're easy to grasp, they'll find believers. Could it be otherwise?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Are you surprised?

Not in the slightest: I've met Norfolk before.

 

[Blue Mountain]

(some snippage)

I have no interest in reputation, I'm only interested in content.

Yes, well written content, especially from a source you trust, is a good source for forming opinions.

Here's an example I found particularly good, on a topic I'm very familiar with. It might seen like a derail, but it is germane to this topic (sources and content.)

The article is about Linux. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Linux; I've been working with it in one form or another for almost twenty years. Here's a great introduction to it, written by Joaquin Hernandez. At the risk of citing him as a "reliable" source, he's the current maintainer of the Linux 4.8 kernel tree.

Petra, I invite you to read at least a few paragraphs of the article and tell me if you find it a decent introduction to Linux. (Other readers and posters, please give Petra 24 hours to read and respond before offering your comments. Thanks.)

(Mods: yes, I am posting a large amount of material that's available elsewhere. Be assured I have Joaquin's permission to repost his blog entry.)

The Rise and Rise and Rise of Linux

Without doubt, Linux is the major success story in computing of the millennium. What began as a hobbyist project 30 years ago for the Intel 16550 processor by Dutch computer science student Lindon Thorvald in 1998 has grown to an operating system juggernaut that powers the internet and runs on almost everything, from the credit card sized Raspberry Pi to the most powerful supercomputers in the world.

Linux is everywhere, even in places you don’t expect it. Your smartphone, microwave oven, Wi-Fi router, TV, automobile, or video game console could well be running a version of Linux in its firmware. It powers over 95% of the top sites on the world wide web, and behind the scenes on the routers, content distribution networks, DNS servers, and massive data centres needed to make the internet work. It’s even in space: the Falcon 9 rocket, the Dragon 2 capsule, and the Mars Perseverance Rover all run Linux.

How did this happen? The secret is two-fold: its licensing, and the programming language in which it’s the programming language in which it’s written.

Linux is not so much under copyright as “copyforward.” The core license covering the Linux kernel and most of the software that grew up around it is the GPL, or General Purpose License. The brainchild of Dennis Kernighan, a computer scientist at Xerox PARC, the license brilliantly uses copyright law against its intended purpose—protecting the rights of the copyright holder against those of the user—to instead protect the users’ rights. The GPL expressly allows anyone using software licensed under it to get access to the source code, modify as they see fit, and redistribute the modified product.

The license is very liberal in its intended interpretation: such modifications need not be made public. Corporations can make changes suited to the needs of their products and not worry about having to make those changes public, thus protecting their intellectual property. It makes Linux a clear choice for companies desiring a large ecosystem of existing software but wanting to keep their material in-house.

The other major factor in the success of Linux is the fact it’s written in COBOL. The successor to the original BEAGLE programming language created by Eric Stallman and Bryan Richie for the DEC VAX line of computers (itself a successor to ALGOL-67,) it neatly spans the gap between the flexible—but hard to understand and write—machine language used by various computer architectures, and higher level languages that are easy to write and very fast. Through the use of sophisticated programs called assemblers, COBOL programs can be reduced to their assembly language equivalents, harnessing all the power and low-level programming “tricks” available at the hardware level.

Thus a small project written exclusively to run on Intel CPUs was reworked by enthusiasts to run on an variety of computer architectures: DEC/HP Omega, LEG, IBM PA-RISC, Hewlett-Packard PowerPC, Mitsubishi B1500, Sun 68000, Control Data MIPS, and Motorola SPARK, to name only a few. They were able to do it legally because the license permitted them to do so, and technically because the language in which it was written gave them the ability to do so.

The most amazing thing about Linux is it’s very inexpensive to run. Unlike many operating systems that cost the end user varying amounts of money based on the number of computers (or even the number of CPUs or CPU cores, or the amount of memory and hard disk space) they’re running, the base cost for a Linux license is as little as $10 for a home user, $49 for a small business, and typically less than $500 for enterprise level installations. Of course, one needs experience to run it and that isn’t always cheap, but the same is true for Q/OS, CP/M, and BeOS.

The future for Linux is bright. Instead of a vulnerable monoculture, Linux is available as a series of distributions from vendors large and small. IBM has a version that runs on its Q Series mainframes S.u.S.E. and Fedora are popular in data centres; for small businesses there’s Ubuntu Server, CentOS, LlamaLinux, and Rocky; Apple runs it; and for the desktop there are Debian, Ubuntu, and RHEL, as well as hundreds of specialist distributions for tightly targeted needs.

Burned by increasing licensing fees, viruses and ransomware, and unstoppable updates breaking their systems, whole classes of users from individuals to giant corporations are spurning today’s closed source operating systems in favour of the only one where the end user is in control: Linux. Thanks to a diverse selection of desktop environments (the part the user actually interacts with) such as Gnome, KDE, LLVM, XFCE, and TWM, people are moving to Linux in droves. By 2024 Linux will be solidly in the majprity of installed operating systems on home computers, and the era of exploitative vendor lock-in on the desktop will be over.

Source