Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV
- Thread starter AcesHigh
- Start date
- Status
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,108
Say, Emre, do you want to talk about the fact that the article you shared did not support your claim that vaccines are being routinely given to babies in the same dosage as adults?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,108
By the way, it's considered poor form to just post links with no comments. Do it enough and it might be considered spaming.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
If the forum membership ever gets around to discussing trolls and troll-like behaviour, I'd include a criterium that posting content from and links to known pseudo-science, quackery, and conspiracy theory sites in support of one's position—after being given a warning by a mod—be an actionable offense. In my opinion, such posters aren't here to learn; they're here to clutter up the discussion and spam their misguided foolishness.
There are people who respond to Stephen Bustin's debunking, however, but I cannot fight fires on all fronts. I will make a new post and restrict my argument to that.
OK, everyone, both physically and mentally I cannot fight fires on all fronts. So many people reply to me, I simply cannot keep up. As much as I like arguing, it's too much, so what I'd like to do is simply stick to a simple step-by-step approach which follows the science put forward for a pandemic and show that each step is unscientific.
I cannot see a further response from Blue Mountain or anyone else in response to my response stating that the claim that the "cluster" of 44 patients which led to the suspicion of a "novel" virus were tested for all known causes has no foundation but if it's there please let me know:
1. STEP ONE - SUSPICION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS
The grounds for suspicion of a "novel" virus based on a "cluster" of 44 patients with pneumonia of "unknown origin" is unscientific.
44 patients in a highly-polluted city in the country of China which has over 2,000,000 cases of pneumonia per year doesn't make a cluster unless a specific cause can be determined. As pneumonia has many different causes and no further information is provided for why it is specified that the pneumonia is of "unknown origin", the grounds given are unscientific.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2020-DON229
"Pneumonia is one of the leading causes of death in adults and children in China."
"A recent article in the Chinese literature estimated that each year in China there are 2.5 million patients with pneumonia and that 125,000 (5%) of these patients die of pneumonia-related illness."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2909231/
I cannot see a further response from Blue Mountain or anyone else in response to my response stating that the claim that the "cluster" of 44 patients which led to the suspicion of a "novel" virus were tested for all known causes has no foundation but if it's there please let me know:
1. STEP ONE - SUSPICION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS
The grounds for suspicion of a "novel" virus based on a "cluster" of 44 patients with pneumonia of "unknown origin" is unscientific.
44 patients in a highly-polluted city in the country of China which has over 2,000,000 cases of pneumonia per year doesn't make a cluster unless a specific cause can be determined. As pneumonia has many different causes and no further information is provided for why it is specified that the pneumonia is of "unknown origin", the grounds given are unscientific.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2020-DON229
"Pneumonia is one of the leading causes of death in adults and children in China."
"A recent article in the Chinese literature estimated that each year in China there are 2.5 million patients with pneumonia and that 125,000 (5%) of these patients die of pneumonia-related illness."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2909231/
Don't bother with reposting previously debunked propaganda; it will garner no kudos here.
I'll just respond to this question as I'd forgotten I'd seen an answer to this seeming anomaly against the claim of covid fraud at least for Britain.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/04/covid-vaccines-death-rates-higher-than-reported
"Although at first glance the all-cause mortality appeared far lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, on closer inspection they found fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data and that there had been a “systemic miscategorization of deaths between the different categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated” among other factors.
For the period of calendar weeks 1-38, 2021, Figures 8 and 9 show strong peaks in non-Covid mortality for the unvaccinated 60-69 and 70-79 age groups while the mortality among the vaccinated stayed steady."
Graphs in article
"At first glance, this would suggest that the vaccines were functioning well in England and Wales. But the ending is not a happy one.
Disturbing: The peaks did not occur at the same time
Prof. Kuhbandner noted something very unusual was going on and examined the trend also for the 80+ age group as well. The following are the plots for all three age groups. The peaks and deaths were offset.
Graphs in article.
Moreover, the paper’s authors also commented:
“In previous years, each of the 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ groups have mortality peaks at the same time during the year (including 2020 when all suffered the April Covid peak at the same time). Yet in 2021 each age group has non-Covid mortality peaks for the unvaccinated, at a different time, namely the time that vaccination rollout programmes for those cohorts reach a peak.”
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."
So you see Jimbob while statistics can very much seem to support a covid pandemic and an efficacious vaccine, closer inspection can show something very, very different ... alarmingly so.
My apologies in advance if anyone responds to this with a criticism, I'm simply not going to reply at least not for the moment, I want to stick to my step-by-step argument as indicated in my post above and if there is a criticism of this post I will flag it and come back to it after my step-by-step argument.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
This is at least the seventh time Petra has posted this specific nonsense. Many have explained why Petra's allegation of "unscientific" is not only unscientific, but surpassingly witless.
As shown in the spoiler, I myself have responded to this specific nonsense four times.
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.
Petra now says Petra "cannot see" responses. Like the village idiot who began to cry "dragon!" after villagers learned to ignore his cries of "wolf!", Petra has modified her unscientific challenge by adding still more nonsense in bold. That bolded addition is naught but distraction from her fundamental problem: Petra "cannot see" relevant responses because Petra does not want to see relevant responses.
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.
Petra now says Petra "cannot see" responses. Like the village idiot who began to cry "dragon!" after villagers learned to ignore his cries of "wolf!", Petra has modified her unscientific challenge by adding still more nonsense in bold. That bolded addition is naught but distraction from her fundamental problem: Petra "cannot see" relevant responses because Petra does not want to see relevant responses.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps if you have trouble fighting fires on all fronts you should start only one at a time.
You're not really sticking to the argument here. I've dropped the association between covid and pneumonia in my argument (although I think that considering the suspicion was based on pneumonia cases the connection is now much looser than we might expect ... but happy to let it drop as it's both not germane to the argument and also not massively compelling either).
All I'm asking is for a refutation of the claim that the grounds given for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. Millions of subsequent cases has zero to do with the suspicion arrived at initially. Why, initially, before anything else happened would there be a suspicion of a "novel" virus based on 44 cases of pneumonia? Why are these 44 cases being called a "cluster" of "unknown origin" with no further information about those cases when pneumonia is a very common illness in China, especially in a highly-polluted city such as Wuhan.
I'm taking a step-by-step approach as the next thing done I think is also unscientific but I want to get agreement - or at least tacit agreement - that the suspicion of a "novel" virus presented to us is unscientific.
You have not debunked my claim.
You're so right and that's why I shall doggedly from now on stick to my step-by-step approach starting with the unscientificness of the suspicion of a "novel" virus.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
In other words, all we've got to look forward to is you posting that WHO link over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, all the while insisting that no-one has responded to it, and showing yourself to be unwilling or unable to process new information, so that you can keep doggedly insisting on this one thing you thought of a year ago and won't ever let go of.
Oh goody. So glad you're here, Petra.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
To add to that: if that person refuses to even attempt to defend such quackery, or even state if they actually believe it or not, and appears therefore to be posting it with the sole purpose of irritating and winding up the rest of the forum, that should be considered actionable as well.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
It's made no difference at all. She's still posting the same crap- and has stated she won't stop.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Suspicion often proves to be unfounded. The initial suspicion of a novel virus was an example of what scientifically literate people refer to as a conjecture or tentative hypothesis, something to be investigated further. Such suspicions/conjectures/hypotheses often turn out to be wrong. This particular suspicion/conjecture/hypothesis turned out to be correct, as is evident from the millions of subsequent deaths (not just cases) you dismiss as irrelevant, along with mountains of other evidence you dismiss because you prefer to believe crackpot conspiracy theories.
As for why those 44 cases of pneumonia raised suspicion, here are a couple of paragraphs excerpted from a scholarly history of the pandemic's early days:
People who are genuinely interested to learn about the early days of this pandemic and how the causative virus came to be identified might want to read the rest of that paper. (ETA: Although the paper's author is associated with an Australian university, it looks to me as though the author might not be a native speaker of English, which might explain some of the prose I have quoted.)Zaheer Allam said:
What's unscientific here is that sentence of yours. In that sentence, you are (once again) saying you have made up your mind and, in your mind, all that remains is to get the rest of the world to agree with your foregone conclusion. That's pretty much the opposite of allowing actual evidence to guide you to a conclusion.
Your worthless opinion is noted, as is the unscientific nature of your attitude toward evidence.
Last edited:
In other words, all we've got to look forward to is you posting that WHO link over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, all the while insisting that no-one has responded to it, and showing yourself to be unwilling or unable to process new information, so that you can keep doggedly insisting on this one thing you thought of a year ago and won't ever let go of.
Oh goody. So glad you're here, Petra.
Not insisting that no one has responded. They've responded and I've responded back so the status at the moment is that all responses have been dealt with - I dropped part of my argument because it didn't stand strongly and wasn't germane in any case and I refuted the claim that "all known sources of pneumonia had been tested for", justifying the "unknown origin" specification so unless I've missed something all responses have been dealt with.
Thus my claim stands that the "suspicion of a novel virus based on 44 cases of pneumonia of unknown origin" is unscientific. If no one responds by tomorrow morning I shall take this as tacit agreement that the first step in the pandemic narrative, the suspicion of a "novel" virus, is unscientific after which I'll move onto the next step which I will claim is also unscientific.
I find "skeptics" on this thread treat me as if I'm the sort of person who disbelieves authority by default, as if I just argue against the mainstream argument for the sake of it when patently that is not the case. I have done due diligence. I have ensured carefully that there is no case to be made for a pandemic of a "novel" virus infection and I will prove it step by step.
But what's being said here? It's gobbledegook.
"As hospitals continued to receive more patients with unknown “pneumonia-like symptoms,” fear of the outbreak is already spreading, especially among the social media (WeChat) use within China, more so Wuhan (Secon, 2020)."
What are unknown "pneumonia-like symptoms"?
"All the four cases were linked to the Huanan (Southern China) Seafood Wholesale Market, which has been highly linked to have been the source of the virus."
How so? Even if four people had contracted pneumonia and had been at the market so what? It's a common illness.
EDIT:
And why are none of these details even hinted at in the WHO post? Why does the WHO speak simply of "cases of pneumonia of unknown origin" when another document speaks of "unknown 'pneumonia-like' symptoms" as if the patients didn't have pneumonia but something else? Why the lack of consistency? Did the patients have pneumonia or did they have something else? First they thought it came from an animal at the wet market. Why? But then they tested animals and found no trace. Hmmm but couldn't some of the animals that may have infected people already disappeared from the market before they tested them and what at this point did they have as a testing method? It's all so speculative it's ridiculous.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-wet-market.html
I just noticed in the comments on the livescience article above that someone said that they knew all along that the virus hadn't originated in the market because Patient Zero had been admitted to hospital on December 1st and he hadn't been at the wet market ... so I looked up Patient Zero and found a film made in 2018, Patient Zero:
"After an unprecedented global pandemic turns the majority of humankind into violent "Infected," a man gifted with the ability to speak the Infected's new language leads the last survivors on a hunt for Patient Zero and a cure."
Just a coincidence, of course. So I looked further for the Covid Patient Zero and I found this. So someone said Patient Zero wasn't at the market and then someone else said he was. Well, how's them apples?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/origin-covid-19-us-scientist-patient-zero-wuhan-china-evidence-market/
Anyone remotely having their mind open to psyops: they presage the event, often in TV and films, and they give us different versions of the story and then debunk this one or that one ... just to keep us completely bamboozled. I have to admit I didn't follow the story carefully. I guess I should have just to pick up all those psyop clues. Of course, when something big happens in the world not all the details can be confirmed at the outset but ... always with big psyops there are conflicting versions, it's a hallmark.
Last edited:
One of the most important realizations emerging from the fake Ottawa "police" (many of whom turned out to be UN troops with no legal authority whatsoever) is that the globalist cabal doesn't have enough people to carry out their tyranny. They have to recruit mercenaries from other regions and pay them to brutalize the local people under tyrannical authoritarianism.
In a way, this is actually good news since it reveals how thin the globalists' ranks are when it comes to finding minions who will carry out their nefarious plans to crush dissent and enslave humanity. It turns out that most people won't go along with pure evil once they finally recognize it.
Once the critical mass of awakening is achieved, the globalist cabal will be outnumbered 1000 to 1 by informed, courageous, pro-liberty citizens of the world who will dismantle the global prison planet grid and remove the tyrants from power.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-02...the-planet-as-globalist-tyrants-revealed.html
In a way, this is actually good news since it reveals how thin the globalists' ranks are when it comes to finding minions who will carry out their nefarious plans to crush dissent and enslave humanity. It turns out that most people won't go along with pure evil once they finally recognize it.
Once the critical mass of awakening is achieved, the globalist cabal will be outnumbered 1000 to 1 by informed, courageous, pro-liberty citizens of the world who will dismantle the global prison planet grid and remove the tyrants from power.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-02...the-planet-as-globalist-tyrants-revealed.html
- Status