[Continuation] Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part V

[Bubba]

Continued from here. You may freely quote from previous threads in this series.

Posted By: Agatha

I can't devote my whole day to sneering at you and your lame sources, sorry.

Oh sure, right....of course you were not cherry picking. I understand your point.

Rare Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome Detected in Vaccinated Young: Lancet Study


https://www.theepochtimes.com/rare-m...9ffnvON7XXBaCi

 

[carlitos]

I'm not a media expert, but I am quite certain the the Lancet website is not spelled "epoch times dot com."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lancet commentary on multi system inflammatory syndrome in children

The Lancet had a commentary article about this syndrome. "To date, no direct evidence exists that neutralising anti-spike antibodies contribute to MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children] pathogenesis. The exceeding rarity of MIS-C after COVID-19 vaccination reported by Yousaf and colleagues should further alleviate these fears and bolster vaccine uptake in children."

 

[Petra]

OK, so I will take up where I left off. My goal is to go step by step through the science put forward for a pandemic and show that it is fraudulent.

STEP 1: SUSPICION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS
Suspicion of a "novel" virus is based on an alleged "cluster" of 44 cases of pneumonia of "unknown origin" in the highly-polluted city of Wuhan in a country of over 2,000,000 cases of pneumonia per year.
Unscientific: No data has been presented for reason to believe that the 44 cases of pneumonia had anything special about them.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2020-DON229

Debunked so far:
--- Tests were done that indicated an abnormal cause of pneumonia - no data
--- Literature outside the WHO article above giving more detail, eg, 'unknown "pneumonia-like" symptoms' which is simply gobbledygook.

Additionally, there is undermining of credibility in constant changes in what we are told without any solid foundation for any of it. We are told that Patient Zero was found in the wet markets which was contradicted by the claim that there was an earlier Patient Zero who hadn't been to the wet markets and animals tested at the wet markets were not found to harbour the virus. In turn though this claim was contradicted and we were told that, indeed, Patient Zero was at the wet markets.

From the "not at wet markets" article in livescience.com
'A number of early cases of the outbreak in Wuhan were tied to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Later, researchers took environmental samples that suggested the virus had landed on surfaces in the market. But in the period since, tissue samples from the market's animals have revealed no trace of the virus. For the virus to jump from animals to humans, the animals have to actually be carrying it.

"None of the animals tested positive. So since January, this has not actually been particularly conclusive. But this has developed into a narrative," he said.

Carlson said his colleagues in China have been careful and precise in their work, publishing data according to international regulations that any scientist anywhere in the world can examine, and that strongly supports the conclusion that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market wasn't the source of the virus.'

It's difficult enough to make a link FOR infection of one creature by another but to EXCLUDE infection on the basis of "tissue samples from the market's animals have revealed no trace of the virus" is wild beyond imagining. How do you know if you got the right animals? And what animals are we talking about here? Why the complete lack of specificity? Careful and precise in their work? If they were careful and precise in their work why is the reporting of this careful and precise work on a scientific site so imprecise?

If there are no further challenges to my claim that the grounds for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific I will proceed to Step 2. Just to say if there are no further challenges to Step 1 the glaring question arises: how does the pandemic narrative train get onto onto scientific tracks if it starts way off them?

Any further challenges to my claim?

 

[Resume]

Any further challenges to my claim?

Nope. your claim has already been show to be insufficient; you have not met your burden of proof. SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and sequenced, and demonstrated to cause COVID-19; your refusal to accept this is likely due to the manipulative propaganda you consume.

 

[Petra]

You can repost the same crap a hundred more times, and it still merely shows how ignorant you are on the topic.

Your "STEP 1" is denied. It's been debunked more than once already.

No it hasn't. Attempts have been made but they have been counter-refuted. The reason I keep repeating is that I want to establish my claims step by step without intrusion of attempts at debunking and thus avoid going round and round in circles. How many pages have been written on this subject and still the argument persists. I wish to establish my argument as water-tight and that is why I repeat it until attempts at debunking have stopped.

If you wish to say that my Step 1 has been debunked you'll need to say how, not simply make the assertion.

 

[Petra]

Nope. your claim has already been show to be insufficient; you have not met your burden of proof. The SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and sequenced, and demonstrated to cause COVID-19; your refusal to accept this is likely due to the manipulative propaganda you consume.

Insufficient? I only wish to establish at this point that the grounds given for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. Grounds are given, they are not scientific. Whatever happens later is something else. By some miracle perhaps the pandemic narrative gets itself onto scientific rails with isolation and genomic sequencing. I'm just establishing that the grounds given for a "novel" virus are unscientific that is all. I think that has been achieved unless further challenges to this claim are made.

 

[Resume]

Insufficient?

Yes, insufficient to overturn the depth and breadth of scientific evidence establishing SARS-CoV-2 as a novel virus leading to the disease COVID-19.

You have failed and will continue to fail as long as you attempt to rehabilitate debunked CTs, and you will be called on it as long as you attempt to reset.

 

[MBDK]

OK, so I will take up where I left off. My goal is to go step by step through the science put forward for a pandemic and show that it is fraudulent.

STEP 1: SUSPICION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS
<supersnip>

Any further challenges to my claim?

I and others gave you plenty of valid challenges, which you basically handwaved away, didn't understand due to a complete detachment from reality, or pretended to not understand in order to troll on.

Once again, despite the other compelling evidence you ignored, you have yet to explain how ex vivo studies fail to prove unique and isolatable viral pathogens. I know you can't, and I suspect you realize this, too. I suggest you give up your childish games and get on with something constructive, but that could be too big of a one-shot leap. Start with slowing down on the BS, at least.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, so I will take up where I left off. My goal is to go step by step through the science put forward for a pandemic and show that it is fraudulent.

Claim dismissed, because none of this........

STEP 1: SUSPICION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS
Suspicion of a "novel" virus is based on an alleged "cluster" of 44 cases of pneumonia of "unknown origin" in the highly-polluted city of Wuhan in a country of over 2,000,000 cases of pneumonia per year.
Unscientific: No data has been presented for reason to believe that the 44 cases of pneumonia had anything special about them.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2020-DON229

Debunked so far:
--- Tests were done that indicated an abnormal cause of pneumonia - no data
--- Literature outside the WHO article above giving more detail, eg, 'unknown "pneumonia-like" symptoms' which is simply gobbledygook.

Additionally, there is undermining of credibility in constant changes in what we are told without any solid foundation for any of it. We are told that Patient Zero was found in the wet markets which was contradicted by the claim that there was an earlier Patient Zero who hadn't been to the wet markets and animals tested at the wet markets were not found to harbour the virus. In turn though this claim was contradicted and we were told that, indeed, Patient Zero was at the wet markets.

From the "not at wet markets" article in livescience.com
'A number of early cases of the outbreak in Wuhan were tied to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Later, researchers took environmental samples that suggested the virus had landed on surfaces in the market. But in the period since, tissue samples from the market's animals have revealed no trace of the virus. For the virus to jump from animals to humans, the animals have to actually be carrying it.

"None of the animals tested positive. So since January, this has not actually been particularly conclusive. But this has developed into a narrative," he said.

Carlson said his colleagues in China have been careful and precise in their work, publishing data according to international regulations that any scientist anywhere in the world can examine, and that strongly supports the conclusion that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market wasn't the source of the virus.'

It's difficult enough to make a link FOR infection of one creature by another but to EXCLUDE infection on the basis of "tissue samples from the market's animals have revealed no trace of the virus" is wild beyond imagining. How do you know if you got the right animals? And what animals are we talking about here? Why the complete lack of specificity? Careful and precise in their work? If they were careful and precise in their work why is the reporting of this careful and precise work on a scientific site so imprecise?

If there are no further challenges to my claim that the grounds for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific I will proceed to Step 2. Just to say if there are no further challenges to Step 1 the glaring question arises: how does the pandemic narrative train get onto onto scientific tracks if it starts way off them?

Any further challenges to my claim?

... is evidence of anything other than your inability to understand what you read.

It is also not evidence that in any way refutes overwhelming scientific evidence from literally tens of thousands of highly qualified virologists and other medical research scientists; evidence which conclusively proves that SARS-CoV-2 is in fact the novel virus that was the disease which became COVID-19.

.
.

 

[Paul2]

Any further challenges to my claim?

You're missing a basic point of logic.

Even granting the accuracy of what you wrote, for the sake of argument, all you're doing is laying out how a novel virus could not have been identified, but that doesn't falsify how the virus actually *was* identified and verified (the isolation, sequencing, etc., that others have shown you).

 

[eerok]

No it hasn't. Attempts have been made but they have been counter-refuted. The reason I keep repeating is that I want to establish my claims step by step without intrusion of attempts at debunking and thus avoid going round and round in circles. How many pages have been written on this subject and still the argument persists. I wish to establish my argument as water-tight and that is why I repeat it until attempts at debunking have stopped.

If you wish to say that my Step 1 has been debunked you'll need to say how, not simply make the assertion.

Yeah, I'll still have to dismiss your ignorant nonsense and provisionally accept the consensus view of the vast majority of qualified medical researchers. It's up to you to support your claims, and you haven't even approached that.

You're welcome to continue your role-playing game where you pretend to be someone worth taking seriously, but I doubt you'll get much traction on that around here.

 

[smartcooky]

No it hasn't. Attempts have been made but they have been counter-refuted.

You have counter-refuted nothing. All you have ever done is to dismiss evidence provided by calling it "gobbledygook" or "wrong" or "scaremongering propaganda" or "unscientific" without giving any reasons why you think that. We call this "handwaving".

The reason I keep repeating is that I want to establish my claims step by step without intrusion of attempts at debunking

Translation: You don't want us to question your claims, you want us to accept your claims and discuss them as if they were facts. That is never going to happen here -skepticism does not even remotely begin to work that way.

and thus avoid going round and round in circles

Its you who keeps sending us around in circles.

#1. You make a ridiculous claim
#2. We debunk your ridiculous claim and point out the flaws in your arguments
#3. You hand-wave away the arguments and go back to 1.

Stop doing #3 and we stop going around in circles.

How many pages have been written on this subject and still the argument persists.

Not, it persists only in your mind. No-one here accepts any of your arguments because those arguments are clearly, obviously and demonstrably wrong. They are BS, and you have been repeatedly shown that they are BS.

I wish to establish my argument as water-tight and that is why I repeat it until attempts at debunking have stopped.

Its doesn't matter how much you refine, restate and polish the turds you call your claims. At the end of the day, they are still turds.

Again, you do not understand how skepticism works. Your arguments are not immune from being debunked or refuted.

If you wish to say that my Step 1 has been debunked you'll need to say how, not simply make the assertion.

Your Step 1 has been refuted, with evidence and facts, multiple times by multiple posters....

Here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13739867#post13739867

and here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739117&postcount=3554
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739158&postcount=3556

repeated here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739921&postcount=3606

here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13739790#post13739790

and here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739751&postcount=3590

and here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739115&postcount=3553

and here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739012&postcount=3534

and here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13737971&postcount=3481

Once it has been debunked, it ends there. You don't get to simply repeat it, and you don't get to move on to Step 2.

 

[MBDK]

I think that is a valid summary of Petra's input so far. No intention of assessing evidence, just looking to bolster her feelings of superiority to the world of science, and to direct traffic to her bonkers blog.
As I say, I'm not bothering with her any more: there is absolutely no point in engaging with someone who simply repeats themselves ad infinitum and won't actually address, or even acknowledge, responses and rebuttals to her vacuous claims.

A wise decision, I must say.

Although I pop in and out at my leisure, I almost always do read all the posts in the threads I comment on, and observe a relatively small number of posters similar to Petra. Most of the other posters here do an exemplary job of deconstructing their conspiratorial fallacies and misinformation, and although I do try to refrain from feeding the mythological cave-dwellers, I cannot always resist the temptation to throw my own couple of coppers (well copper-zinc alloy anyway) into the bog.

 

[Petra]

I refer to smartcooky's post 0021 for the links to the alleged debunkings of my claim.

OK, so it seems you insist on making this go round and round in circles. I will do my best to stop it.

What I request:

1. Please don't post anything that says my claim has been refuted unless you give a link to refutation where counter-refutation has not been provided and is not the final word on the matter. I recognise of course that refutations of my claim have been put forward. I think I've shown clearly that they have not been successful in refuting my claim. You need to follow the debunking trail to the end. Who has the last word? Obviously, you need to put your links to the last word on the subject.

2. My only claim in the first instance is that the grounds provided for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. I am not claiming anything more than that, OK? I want to do this in a step by step process so please do not refer to the millions who have died, etc. That is a strawman argument, I'm not claiming anything about the millions who have died at this stage.
This is all I'm saying:

The grounds provided for suspicion of a "novel" virus based on a "cluster" of 44 cases of pneumonia of "unknown origin" are unscientific.

Please limit the argument to whether or not the grounds provided for suspicion are scientific or not. Of course, I have argument for the rest of the narrative. I'm not going to argue just this point, of course, and make this point my argument - I've already put forward different arguments for different elements. Of course, I have a response to the rest of the narrative I just want to establish my argument point by point ... a seemingly impossible task.

Helpfully, smartcooky has provided the links to the refutations put forward while carefully ignoring my later word on the matter in most cases. I respond to those refutations and unless you can put forward a debunking of that debunking you have no argument.

In summary, most of the links below refer to posts that are not related to the claim that the grounds provided for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. I will put my responses to the two links that refer to that argument at the top and my responses to the unrelated ones at the bottom.

Your Step 1 has been refuted, with evidence and facts, multiple times by multiple posters....

EDIT: I will give a heading to these items and number them for future reference:

DEBUNKINGS REFUTED WITH REGARD TO UNSCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION OF NEW VIRUS

1. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13739867#post13739867
This is link to a post by Planigale where he makes certain claims about tests showing anomalies seen in CT scans and hypoxaemia without breathlessness.
RESPONSE: I asked Planigale for evidence relating to the 44 patients of the above. None was forthcoming. Did you miss my post for that request of information, smartcooky? From now on I'll keep a log of all my refutations so I can find them easily.

2. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13739790#post13739790
RESPONSE: I responded that 'unknown “pneumonia-like symptoms,”' is gobbledygook. If you wish to say it isn't then please say what it means. What is being referred to exactly and if nothing specific is being referred to then how can we infer anything scientific from this statement?

Also, lack of clear consistency:
-- with what the WHO page says because there they refer to pneumonia cases while these words would suggest something other than pneumonia.
-- with the post by Planigale where he says hypoxaemia WITHOUT breathlessness was a feature whereas this article talks about "shortness of breath" - of course, those suffering shortness of breath may not have exhibited hypoxaemia, however, it's interesting that both conditions would feature - shortness of breath without hypoxaemia and hypoxaemia without shortness of breath or possibly we have both shortness of breath with and without hypoxaemia - yes, that is a possibility I suppose, but that is not said, of course. In the one case hypoxaemia without shortness of breath is referred to while in another simply shortness of breath is referred to. If both were a feature, we'd expect them to be mentioned together.

There is nothing particularly scientific in this post. It is just words without any particular evidence of anything.

3. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739117&postcount=3554
RESPONSE: Blue Mountain does not argue about my claim, he addresses items later in the narrative. Strawman (not Blue Mountain's, smartcooky's in putting it forward against the "unscientific grounds" argument) - I'm ONLY arguing whether the grounds given for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific or not.

4. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739921&postcount=3606
RESPONSE: Strawman (smartcooky's not BM's) but also not the latest item in the argument - I responded: Nothing to do with grounds for suspicion of "novel" virus and the point is that the ABC article about the Australian nurse being overwhelmed in the UK of itself is not especially convincing. While the timing of the tiktok video means no obvious contradiction of the article there is also nothing convincing favouring nurses being "blindsided" either and I further posted a BBC video which clearly looks like a drill and which commenters on the article including the video state themselves. I can provide further evidence of unconvincing hospital footage but I don't want to go there at this stage. I'm simply trying to establish that the grounds given for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. My goodness, what a Herculean endeavour.

for all the the following links
RESPONSE: Strawman: nothing to do with grounds for suspicion for "novel" virus
Numbers 5 to 8

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739751&postcount=3590

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739115&postcount=3553

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739012&postcount=3534

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13737971&postcount=3481

Once it has been debunked, it ends there. You don't get to simply repeat it, and you don't get to move on to Step 2.

I assert again that my claim has not been debunked. As I request, please ONLY refer to my claim, nothing beyond it and ensure that if you refer to debunking of my claim, it is the last word on the matter.

 

[smartcooky]

I refer to smartcooky's post 0021 for the links to the alleged debunkings of my claim.

OK, so it seems you insist on making this go round and round in circles. I will do my best to stop it.

What I request:

1. Please don't post anything that says my claim has been refuted unless you give a link to refutation where counter-refutation has not been provided and is not the final word on the matter. I recognise of course that refutations of my claim have been put forward. I think I've shown clearly that they have not been successful in refuting my claim. You need to follow the debunking trail to the end. Who has the last word? Obviously, you need to put your links to the last word on the subject.

2. My only claim in the first instance is that the grounds provided for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. I am not claiming anything more than that, OK? I want to do this in a step by step process so please do not refer to the millions who have died, etc. That is a strawman argument, I'm not claiming anything about the millions who have died at this stage.
This is all I'm saying:

The grounds provided for suspicion of a "novel" virus based on a "cluster" of 44 cases of pneumonia of "unknown origin" are unscientific.

Please limit the argument to whether or not the grounds provided for suspicion are scientific or not. Of course, I have argument for the rest of the narrative. I'm not going to argue just this point, of course, and make this point my argument - I've already put forward different arguments for different elements. Of course, I have a response to the rest of the narrative I just want to establish my argument point by point ... a seemingly impossible task.

Helpfully, smartcooky has provided the links to the refutations put forward while carefully ignoring my later word on the matter in most cases. I respond to those refutations and unless you can put forward a debunking of that debunking you have no argument.

In summary, most of the links below refer to posts that are not related to the claim that the grounds provided for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. I will put my responses to the two links that refer to that argument at the top and my responses to the unrelated ones at the bottom.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13739867#post13739867
This is link to a post by Planigale where he makes certain claims about tests showing anomalies seen in CT scans and hypoxaemia without breathlessness.
RESPONSE: I asked Planigale for evidence relating to the 44 patients of the above. None was forthcoming. Did you miss my post for that request of information, smartcooky? From now on I'll keep a log of all my refutations so I can find them easily.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13739790#post13739790
RESPONSE: I responded that 'unknown “pneumonia-like symptoms,”' is gobbledygook. If you wish to say it isn't then please say what it means. What is being referred to exactly and if nothing specific is being referred to then how can we infer anything scientific from this statement?

Also, lack of clear consistency:
-- with what the WHO page says because there they refer to pneumonia cases while these words would suggest something other than pneumonia.
-- with the post by Planigale where he says hypoxaemia WITHOUT breathlessness was a feature whereas this article talks about "shortness of breath" - of course, those suffering shortness of breath may not have exhibited hypoxaemia, however, it's interesting that both conditions would feature - shortness of breath without hypoxaemia and hypoxaemia without shortness of breath or possibly we have both shortness of breath with and without hypoxaemia - yes, that is a possibility I suppose, but that is not said, of course. In the one case hypoxaemia without shortness of breath is referred to while in another simply shortness of breath is referred to. If both were a feature, we'd expect them to be mentioned together.

There is nothing particularly scientific in this post. It is just words without any particular evidence of anything.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739117&postcount=3554
RESPONSE: Blue Mountain does not argue about my claim, he addresses items later in the narrative. Strawman (not Blue Mountain's, smartcooky's in putting it forward against the "unscientific grounds" argument) - I'm ONLY arguing whether the grounds given for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific or not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739921&postcount=3606
RESPONSE: Strawman (smartcooky's not BM's) but also not the latest item in the argument - I responded: Nothing to do with grounds for suspicion of "novel" virus and the point is that the ABC article about the Australian nurse being overwhelmed in the UK of itself is not especially convincing. While the timing of the tiktok video means no obvious contradiction of the article there is also nothing convincing favouring nurses being "blindsided" either and I further posted a BBC video which clearly looks like a drill and which commenters on the article including the video state themselves. I can provide further evidence of unconvincing hospital footage but I don't want to go there at this stage. I'm simply trying to establish that the grounds given for suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific. My goodness, what a Herculean endeavour.

for all the the following links
RESPONSE: Strawman: nothing to do with grounds for suspicion for "novel" virus

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739751&postcount=3590

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739115&postcount=3553

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13739012&postcount=3534

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13737971&postcount=3481



I assert again that my claim has not been debunked. As I request, please ONLY refer to my claim, nothing beyond it and ensure that if you refer to debunking of my claim, it is the last word on the matter.

As we say in these here parts... "Meh, whatever"

 

[eerok]

blah blah blah

You must be paid by the word.

This is not a high school debate, and you don't get to propose any rules.

Can you give objective evidence to contradict the consensus of the vast majority of medical researchers who have been studying this virus? We all know that you cannot. Your menagerie of scammers, crackpots, and propagandists are pathetic and wrong, so why do you parrot them?

Your ridiculous and unsupported claims have once again been dismissed.

 

[Bubba]

You guys think it could be true?

My homeopath sent me this, but she did not provide a link. You guys think it could be true?

Last week, a scientific paper was released which showed that, in Vitro (in the lab), the Pfizer vaccine’s man made, unnatural mRNA can penetrate the nucleus of human cells and become transcribed into the DNA there within 6 hours. This is very disturbing. It means that the genetic code may be permanently altered by the Covid shots and maybe it could continue to code for foreign protein production into the future.

But that is not the only scary thing. Another study, again in Vitro, has shown that the man made, unnatural Spike Protein produced by the mRNA shots can also penetrate the nucleus of the cell and interfere with some of the key DNA repair mechanisms that keep our DNA in tip-top shape. If that happens, then many cancers and other serious diseases can be expected to possibly occur over time from such interference.

Many governments and their advisers now want to give this unproven technology that can possibly interfere with the all important genetic code as an injectable to children as young as 6 months age. Dr Mengele and Dr Frankenstein could not have imagined such potential for harm.

 

[Bubba]

Apparently it is true, according to a published study.

Is there a test which vaccinated people can get to determine if it affected them?

Would it be only Pfizer, or all the vaccines?

 

[Bubba]

It says the vaccine RNA becomes DNA in liver cells

Apparently it is an accepted and published Swedish Study. They are concerned the 'new ' DNA cells can be carcinogenic, but they dont know if it will actually cause cancer.

They say it appears that the vaccine RNA can also cross the placenta.

 

[Resume]

It says . . . burble.

CANE.

Nearly 1 million U.S. deaths and 6 million worldwide due to COVID-19, plus multi-millions more with long-term pulmonary and neurological issues.

Only a complete utter moron would discount this reality; you'd have to be cement-headed stupid to ignore this in favor of some CT that gulled you.

Sadly, credulity is rampant among CT-ers.

 

[MBDK]

It says the vaccine RNA becomes DNA in liver cells

Apparently it is an accepted and published Swedish Study. They are concerned the 'new ' DNA cells can be carcinogenic, but they dont know if it will actually cause cancer.

They say it appears that the vaccine RNA can also cross the placenta.

Nope. They are saying what SARS-CoV-2 RNA could do (per study referenced below) can also be done by the vaccine (per their study). FYI, this is also KNOWN to done by the HIV and other viruses.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118

Title : Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues

Entire Abstract:

Abstract
Prolonged detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and recurrence of PCR-positive tests have been widely reported in patients after recovery from COVID-19, but some of these patients do not appear to shed infectious virus. We investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the DNA of human cells in culture and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for some of the positive PCR tests seen in patients. In support of this hypothesis, we found that DNA copies of SARS-CoV-2 sequences can be integrated into the genome of infected human cells. We found target site duplications flanking the viral sequences and consensus LINE1 endonuclease recognition sequences at the integration sites, consistent with a LINE1 retrotransposon-mediated, target-primed reverse transcription and retroposition mechanism. We also found, in some patient-derived tissues, evidence suggesting that a large fraction of the viral sequences is transcribed from integrated DNA copies of viral sequences, generating viral–host chimeric transcripts. The integration and transcription of viral sequences may thus contribute to the detection of viral RNA by PCR in patients after infection and clinical recovery. Because we have detected only subgenomic sequences derived mainly from the 3′ end of the viral genome integrated into the DNA of the host cell, infectious virus cannot be produced from the integrated subgenomic SARS-CoV-2 sequences.

ETA: Please note the lack of doom and gloom conjectured by this study.

 

[Resume]

Why again do you keep repeating it?

Because credules keep denying the impact and severity of the pandemic. It's almost as if they are too cement-headed to learn. As I've said before, and reality demonstrates, you can lead a credule to evidence, but you can't make them think. I mean, there are thick-headed idiots who are dying due to COVID-19, refuse to admit it, and tell their survivors to attempt to get their death certificates to reflect a different cause of death. What kind of idiotic morons think of such things? I guess when you've been gulled by manipulative media into such stupid beliefs, it's sunk cost and ego, even though it's obvious you've been conned.

 

[Bubba]

Snicker.

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line


https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

 

[Resume]

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line


https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

And?

Please, your scholarship regarding this paper: it's implications and ramifications regarding . . . whatever it is you're on about.

Start with your understanding of in vitro versus in vivo, then expand on . . . whatever it is you're on about.

Please, your words; we all know how you are not averse to pretending other's are your own.

 

[Bubba]

What it is saying is: lab studies show that mRNA vaccine DOES integrate itself into human cellular DNA. This means that a shot of the Pfizer vaccine, taken even once, permanently changes the DNA of affected cells. It was Not Supposed to Happen.

For over a year, our trusted “health experts and fact-checkers” kept telling us the opposite:


https://weliveinamadworld.com/new-s...oes-integrate-itself-into-human-cellular-dna/

 

[Petra]

Yep, your hot air has been debunked since your first few posts, and you've been re-inflating your hot air tank and exhaling and resetting since. There is no value in jumping through your hoops again. Sorry, you've lost; bye-bye, good luck, and I hope you find your way clear of the disinformation, CTs, and manipulative propaganda that so obviously gull you.

I'm not going anywhere just yet ... No, I've made a claim which hasn't been debunked. It's very simple. Attempted debunkings have been made and cited without reference to their counter-debunking. It's you who spouts hot air.

The "consensus of scientists" mantra is utterly nauseating. It's very interesting that even when I had no inkling whatsoever about how fraudulent science could be, was completely aligned with man-made climate change from my own thoughts on the matter and with what I read of the science put forward and suspected that most denial/"skepticism" was driven by fossil fuel funding I still looked at the opposition argument and what the response to it was.

The consensus is one thing and the quality of the opposition to the consensus is another thing. To think that you can judge by the consensus alone without feeling the need to show that the opposition argument doesn't stand up is unscientific in the extreme.

To cite mainstream labelling of mavericks as "discredited" is also mindlessness of the highest order. You need to look at their argument and just because it's opposite to what the consensus is doesn't automatically discredit it. You need to analyse it.

What you display so obviously in the main part is a mindless devotion to the "consensus of scientists"/"peer reviewed" mantra without any real thought put into the subject. You accuse me of waving away arguments. I NEVER wave away arguments, I might "park" them and I might say I have no response to them with an argument that my inability to respond does not mean that they contradict my basic thesis but I never wave them away while you guys on the other hand have completely glossed over the exposure of fraud - incredibly serious fraud - where statistics put forward to indicate covid is responsible for mortality and/or vaccines are saving people, on closer examination show that:

--- in one instance aggressive drug trials were responsible (Solidarity in Europe and Recovery in the UK)
https://www.francesoir.fr/politique...verdosage-two-clinical-trials-acts-considered

--- vaccines were responsible (by applying "vaccinated" status only to those who'd received the second jab two weeks before so that those who died shortly after either of the jabs were counted as unvaccinated)
Professor Martin Neil, Queen Mary University, London
https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814347762671628
http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~martin/

 

[Bubba]

I'd rather hear from the experts. Wouldnt you?

In vitro vs in vivo, and your understanding of the difference. In your own words as we know you like to pretend other's are your own.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I refer to smartcooky's post 0021 for the links to the alleged debunkings of my claim.

OK, so it seems you insist on making this go round and round in circles. I will do my best to stop it.

Petra, even if everyone else in this thread suddenly agreed that this particular claim of yours is accurate, it doesn't make a bloody bit of difference! Just because the very first notice from the WHO is clouded in uncertainty, there's no doubt that later reports have conclusively confirmed the existence of the virus and the disease it causes.

The initial report is simply that—a report! "Here's something interesting and maybe we should keep an eye on it." Well, they did, and the rest of the world now knows what was brewing in Wuhan in November and December of 2019.

You're acting like a middle school kid saying all of mathematics is wrong because a textbook says pi is 3.141 and not 3.142 due to a rounding error on 3.14159265358979323846.

As just in case you skipped my previous post, what's your opinion on my debunking of MCAS in post #16?

 

[Resume]

I'd rather hear from the experts. Wouldnt you?

I'd rather read your understanding of what you think in vitro* means, because I don't think you know, especially in this circumstance. Also, what you think the implications are. You know, in your own words, because we all know how you like to . . . well, you know.





*Hint

Researchers who conduct in vitro studies commonly remind that results that emerge from laboratories and test tubes often differ from results which are derived in living, fully intact organisms. And the Huh7, itself, has limitations that could introduce errors or anomalies into laboratory results . . .

“At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome,” the authors wrote. “Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects** who received BNT162b2 vaccination.”

** HINT-HINT!

 

[MBDK]

Nope. They are saying what SARS-CoV-2 RNA could do (per study referenced below) can also be done by the vaccine (per their study). FYI, this is also KNOWN to done by the HIV and other viruses.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118

She says it's not that study, and the one she saw just came out a week or two ago, Swedish, I think it was, about vaccine RNA converting liver cells to DNA. I will ask her to send it

I suggest you pay attention to the highlights. My post was, and is, spot on.

 

[MBDK]

Also, as you show no penchant for observing the obvious, allow me to explicitly point out the following:

The title of the study YOU referenced -

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

The title of the study I referenced -

Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues

Same mechanisms. Same lack of serious consequence.

 

[Bubba]

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...1HL&cid=20220227&mid=DM1123407&rid=1419905997

Story at-a-glance

A key concern that vaccine passports bring to the fore is related to privacy. If implemented, they will strip us of most of the privacy we’re used to, as they are a precursor to digital identity and a far more invasive digital surveillance apparatus.

Another key concern is that vaccine passports and digital IDs can force compliance in any area of life The vaccine passport is a platform to which they can add a digital ID and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

This would give them near-total control over your life, as they can “cancel” your existence and ability to live if you dissent If we accept vaccine passports, we’re basically giving our consent to everything that comes after.

Another global economic crisis is a mathematical inevitability, so work on improving your resiliency, food security and self-reliance through community.

In this interview, we take a deep dive into vaccine passports with Nick Corbishley, author of “Scanned: Why Vaccine Passports and Digital IDs Will Mean the End of Privacy and Personal Freedom.”

Edited by sarge: 

without content from the poster, these drop and go quotes do little to further discussion and are often rules violations. Please refrain from this type of drive-by

 

[EaglePuncher]

Another key concern is that vaccine passports and digital IDs can force compliance in any area of life

lol, no.

The vaccine passport is a platform to which they can add a digital ID and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

lol

This would give them near-total control over your life, as they can “cancel” your existence and ability to live if you dissent If we accept vaccine passports, we’re basically giving our consent to everything that comes after.

lol, no.

Btw, I don't know where you live, but vaccine passports are issued at birth in any country I know of. Sooo, another big juicy nothingburger.

 

[MBDK]

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...1HL&cid=20220227&mid=DM1123407&rid=1419905997

Story at-a-glance

Actual story at a glance:

We will use wild conjecture to scare gullible and ignorant readers, while we ourselves ignore facts, such as SSN's, driver's licenses, passports, bar ID checks, etc. have been in effect for many decades without advancing the enslavement of the people - that is accomplished by first disseminating misinformation as seen by the fear-mongering stooges that promote this crap.

 

[MBDK]

Any further challenges to my claim?

Just another nail in your self-fabricated coffin -

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-safel...&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

Title: Safely studying dangerous infections just got a lot easier

Pertinent quotes:

Now, researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and Heidelberg University in Germany have cranked up the speed of imaging infected cells using soft X-ray tomography, a microscopic imaging technique that can generate incredibly detailed, three-dimensional scans.

and

"Prior to our imaging technique, if one wanted to know what was going on inside a cell, and to learn what changes had occurred upon an infection, they'd have to go through the process of fixing, slicing, and staining the cells in order to analyze them by electron microscopy. With all the steps involved, it would take weeks to get the answer. We can do it in a day," said project co-lead Carolyn Larabell, a Berkeley Lab faculty scientist in the Biosciences Area. "So, it really speeds up the process of examining cells, the consequences to infection, and the consequences of treating a patient with a drug that may or may not cure or prevent the disease."

 

[eerok]

There is no content in your argument.

If you want to argue science and build a logic trap, you have to know something about science and logic. I don't expect that will ever happen, so you get what you get, even disdain and mockery.

You've not shown that there's anything unscientific about the identification and classification of Sars-Cov-2, so your "STEP 1" fails. It doesn't matter if Sars-Cov-2 was identified and classified on day one or day one-hundred-and-fifty-seven; it was done, so you have no point in this respect.

You can tell yourself that science is merely a "narrative" for which you can substitute your own fairy story, but this exists only in your own head. What you want is for someone to take you seriously, but that's not likely to happen here as long as you cling to your conspiracist beliefs.

 

[Craig4]

lol, no.



lol



lol, no.

Btw, I don't know where you live, but vaccine passports are issued at birth in any country I know of. Sooo, another big juicy nothingburger.

I've kept mine paper-clipped to the back page of my passport for years.

 

[Bubba]

Please explain to the class how one staples a digital vaccine passport to a paper passport.

Digital passport is at issue, not paper.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[Bubba]

Adorable how you guys conflate old fashioned paper vaccine passports with digital ones when responding to a claim about digital passports.

Do you manage to convince yourselves it is relevant and winning?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk