Continuation Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part V

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Petra

What's highlighted is speculation. We can work out ourselves, Blue Mountain, that taking a sample from a single pneumonia patient who hasn't been shown to be suffering the ill effects of a "novel" virus is not the way to construct a genome sequence. And they decided on this sequence BEFORE any other samples were looked at.

I can supply informed speculation from my career as a computer programmer. A programmer's job is to use something called a programming language to write programs and get a computer to do something the programmer wants it to do (known as output.) For example, here's a little program that implements the Fizz Buzz game for values 1 through 100:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
foreach my $n (1 .. 100) {
    my $sw = 0;
    # Print "Fizz" if n is divisible by 3
    $sw = 1, print "Fizz " if ! ($n % 3);
    # Print "Buzz" if n is divisible by 5
    $sw = 1, print "Buzz " if ! ($n % 5);
    # Print the number if n isn't divisible by 3 or 5
    print "$n " if ! $sw;
    print "\n";
}

This code is then put into a special class of program known as an interpreter to run it, or to a compiler to produce an intermediate object that will be used to create the final program.

The point I'm trying to make here is you can't just take any random sequence of characters and words and feed them to an interpreter or compiler: all you'll get back is a bunch of errors. As we say in the trade, "Garbage in, garbage out."

Ditto for a genome. The ATGC base-pair sequences in the genome comprise source code. These are fed into a cell, where the sequences tell the cell to create messenger RNA (mRNA—where have we seen that before?) that's read by a ribosome (akin to a computer interpreter) that eventually creates a protein (output.) Feed a bunch of garbage DNA sequences into this process and you won't get any usable proteins out of it.

Quote:

It's all smoke'n'mirrors, it's all computer fabrication, based on the hypothetical not the real.

Most certainly not. As I've just shown, feed garbage into a computer and you get garbage out. Feed garbage DNA into a cell and you'll probably get nothing. The SARS-Cov-2 virus does things, namely taking over the cell's reproductive machinery to produce more viruses.

Quote:

What we know is that covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms and some people who test positive have no symptoms at all.

People who come down with COVID are indeed ill, and to date about 5 million people have died from it. While it's true there isn't a distinctive (dare I say, definitive) set of symptoms—it resembles influenza and even a bad cold—people are getting sick and are dying from it. We use things like PCR testing to determine exactly what it is that people who present with symptoms are sick with.

Quote:

How do we know that the genome they've come up with is for a "novel" coronavirus, it could be any old virus.

We have the genomes of other viruses, and can compare a virus found in the wild against this database of known viruses. This is how we know SARS-Cov-2 similar to the original SARS virus: a lot of the base pairs line up, but there are sufficient differences to give it a new name. In addition, the disease caused by the new virus isn't as harsh as the original SARS was, which had a tendency to kill its host before it had a chance to be transmitted to a new one. That's why it died out so quickly.

You appear to know nothing about genetics, DNA, RNA, or molecular biology, which probably accounts for why you entertain such crazy ideas about SARS-Cov-2 and COVID-19.

Quote:

From paper by Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith

I'll see your paper and raise you 148,000 papers on SARS-Cov-2 and 233,000 papers on COVID-19. After you've acquired at least an M.Sc. in virology, genomics, or molecular biology and can show that more than a handful of these papers are materially incorrect, I'll consider that perhaps Baily and Bevan-Smith are on to something. Until then, I'll side with the massive consensus among scientists in the appropriate disciplines that this virus exists, is making people sick, and is killing them.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

As I've just shown, feed garbage into a computer and you get garbage out.

I may have also seen this in some member's footer, but it bears reminding and makes me wonder if Petra's ancestry includes a member or two of Parliament at the time.

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

You appear to know nothing about genetics, DNA, RNA, or molecular biology, which probably accounts for why you entertain such crazy ideas about SARS-Cov-2 and COVID-19.

IMHO, I've never seen such undeceptive appearance.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

I can supply informed speculation from my career as a computer programmer. A programmer's job is to use something called a programming language to write programs and get a computer to do something the programmer wants it to do (known as output.) For example, here's a little program that implements the Fizz Buzz game for values 1 through 100:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
foreach my $n (1 .. 100) {
    my $sw = 0;
    # Print "Fizz" if n is divisible by 3
    $sw = 1, print "Fizz " if ! ($n % 3);
    # Print "Buzz" if n is divisible by 5
    $sw = 1, print "Buzz " if ! ($n % 5);
    # Print the number if n isn't divisible by 3 or 5
    print "$n " if ! $sw;
    print "\n";
}

This code is then put into a special class of program known as an interpreter to run it, or to a compiler to produce an intermediate object that will be used to create the final program.

The point I'm trying to make here is you can't just take any random sequence of characters and words and feed them to an interpreter or compiler: all you'll get back is a bunch of errors. As we say in the trade, "Garbage in, garbage out."

Ditto for a genome. The ATGC base-pair sequences in the genome comprise source code. These are fed into a cell, where the sequences tell the cell to create messenger RNA (mRNA—where have we seen that before?) that's read by a ribosome (akin to a computer interpreter) that eventually creates a protein (output.) Feed a bunch of garbage DNA sequences into this process and you won't get any usable proteins out of it.



Most certainly not. As I've just shown, feed garbage into a computer and you get garbage out. Feed garbage DNA into a cell and you'll probably get nothing. The SARS-Cov-2 virus does things, namely taking over the cell's reproductive machinery to produce more viruses.


People who come down with COVID are indeed ill, and to date about 5 million people have died from it. While it's true there isn't a distinctive (dare I say, definitive) set of symptoms—it resembles influenza and even a bad cold—people are getting sick and are dying from it. We use things like PCR testing to determine exactly what it is that people who present with symptoms are sick with.


We have the genomes of other viruses, and can compare a virus found in the wild against this database of known viruses. This is how we know SARS-Cov-2 similar to the original SARS virus: a lot of the base pairs line up, but there are sufficient differences to give it a new name. In addition, the disease caused by the new virus isn't as harsh as the original SARS was, which had a tendency to kill its host before it had a chance to be transmitted to a new one. That's why it died out so quickly.

You appear to know nothing about genetics, DNA, RNA, or molecular biology, which probably accounts for why you entertain such crazy ideas about SARS-Cov-2 and COVID-19.


I'll see your paper and raise you 148,000 papers on SARS-Cov-2 and 233,000 papers on COVID-19. After you've acquired at least an M.Sc. in virology, genomics, or molecular biology and can show that more than a handful of these papers are materially incorrect, I'll consider that perhaps Baily and Bevan-Smith are on to something. Until then, I'll side with the massive consensus among scientists in the appropriate disciplines that this virus exists, is making people sick, and is killing them.

Blue Mountain, as 16th century Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno said:
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

I really understand nothing about genomic sequencing but the bit I can understand is going from a virus to a genome sequence. To create a genome sequence I believe the claims by the critics of the mainstream narrative that you need an identified virus and we don't see that.

There is no one debunking the paper done by these two guys. Why not? What they put forward sounds authoritative, doesn't it? It doesn't sound like nonsense. Anything put forward that at least seems authoritative needs to be debunked otherwise we have a grave risk of people being misled by "dangerous misinformation". Why do we only see debunking of stuff I could debunk myself?

I follow the debunking trail, I have no interest in how many thousands of papers have been produced. I only "trust" when I'm forced to such as going into surgery. Otherwise, I only accept information as given because I feel I have no reason to doubt it or I'm not really bothered. When I am bothered I don't "trust" because of numbers of people saying something, I follow the debunking trail because I think that's a far better method than relying on "scientific consensus" or similar. Power influences everything and it's well-known that Big Pharma influences scientific studies - if you don't get that you are very, very naive. Even when I believe the scientific consensus I still follow the debunking trail because I think we must always look at both sides.

Microbiologist, Christine Massey, has organised a FOI campaign to health authorities and governments about isolation of the virus and according to the specified criteria, all health authorities and governments have admitted they are not in possession of such proof of isolation. In that case, what needs to happen is that those supporting the mainstream narrative must argue that isolation according to the specified criteria is not required for isolation to occur. No one has done that.
https://truthcomestolight.com/the-no...istine-massey/

Please do not keep throwing at me numbers of papers or anything to do with numbers indicating something must be true. Numbers mean nothing to me, OK? Absolutely nothing. And nor does numbers of people who've allegedly died from covid. I've already pointed out that the excess mortality spike in April 2020 in continental Europe and the UK with inexplicable variations according to covid hypothesis between neighbouring countries very much favours the hypothesis that the excess spike was caused by aggressive drug trials. We also see that mortality of alleged covid sufferers tends to be greatly concentrated in very old people suffering co-morbidities. We also see that statistics that seem to support efficacy of the jab actually support both lack of efficacy and danger by making the status of "vaccinated" refer only to those who had their second jab at least 2 weeks before. Statistics need to be analysed carefully. Without careful analysis numbers can be made to show the complete opposite of reality ... apart from other problems with "numbers" produced such as validity of the test used to produce them.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by MBDK

In reality, you have provided no "grounds" to debunk. You have merely provided incredulous opinion that you and other contrarians don't approve of the original method for suspecting a novel virus, for what IS a novel virus. Your "opinion" can only be self-debunked. Scientifically, ANYTHING out of the ordinary CAN be considered suspect, so your "opinion" is extremely prejudiced against facts, but it is nevertheless your ignorant opinion.

But where's the evidence of anything out of the ordinary? They told us there was a "cluster" of 44 patients with pneumonia of "unknown origin" but they provide nothing to say there was anything unusual about these pneumonia patients.

Quote:

And you read that exactly how Bailey wanted you to - ignorantly. The Chinese source cited is a periodical synopsis of current events (at the time). I guess Bailey correctly assumed people like you wouldn't notice that the article's title begins with "Notes from the Field:". Do I need to explain what that means regarding the intricacies and specifics that are involved with the topics discussed?

Please provide the scientific paper that shows that a new virus has emerged that uses material from the alleged cluster of 44 patients. Please provide that scientific paper. If you are going to refer to papers that use different patients then there's a big question mark, isn't there? Why and how would they be using OTHER patients, not the patients that they say gave rise to the suspicion of a "novel" virus.

Quote:

Relying on your unquestioning gullibility, Bailey makes her claims unchallenged, as the cited article contains nothing to refute them. To spell it out for you - that's because THE ARTICLE IS JUST A SNIPPET TO UPDATE - not the actual study. The Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing, are all clinically precise, controlled and executed via laboratory procedures to ensure accuracy and validity of information. "Crude" samples are not used at these points, but once again, Bailey relies on your devoted mindlessness to accept her misinformation. Well done!

How do they get from the crude samples to the refined samples? Where's the data?

Quote:

The only circular reasoning is Bailey's - hoping you continue your endless cycle of accepting garbage as gold. Once the sequencing was determined, other cases needed to match that sequencing in order to be considered identical cases. It is no coincidence that everyone that was similarly ill with no other identified pathogen had that sequence, nor that people identified to NOT have that sequence of a pathogen, also did not have that illness. That part is basic deductive reasoning. Perhaps you should begin there.

It is arriving at the sequencing that is completely under question. The steps have not been shown to do it.

[Resume]

So anyway, the SARS-CoV-2 genome has been isolated and sequenced, and has been demonstrated to cause COVID-19.

[/thread]

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by Petra

<snip>

Rinse.

Repeat.

Sorry, my educationally challenged accuser of witches, but you must provide the answers I requested, before I provide any more answers to you. The fact is, once you can provide correct answers to my request, you will have gleaned the knowledge to understand what your misconceptions currently are.

Furthermore, you have told Blue Mountain that

Quote:

I really understand nothing about genomic sequencing but the bit I can understand is going from a virus to a genome sequence.

Those are not mutually exclusive subjects. Regardless, please explain what you understand about going from a virus to a genome sequence, as I don't believe you actually understand it at all. Once you do THAT correctly, you need to explain why you think laboratories all over the world have not done it properly. You also need to explain how the data from China, even if it WERE inconsistent with the rest of the consistent worldwide data, would invalidate that worldwide data. HINT: It wouldn't (but China would have some questions to answer).


You also told Blue Mountain:

Quote:

Why do we only see debunking of stuff I could debunk myself?

You are speaking only for yourself. Why you refuse to see what is obvious to others is not their problem.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Petra

Blue Mountain, as 16th century Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno said:
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

There is also danger in ignoring a scientific consensus. To quote the twentieth century scientist and philosopher Carl Sagan, “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

Quote:

I really understand nothing about genomic sequencing but the bit I can understand is going from a virus to a genome sequence. To create a genome sequence I believe the claims by the critics of the mainstream narrative that you need an identified virus and we don't see that.

No, you don't see that! Just because you refuse to believe something exists in no way means it doesn't. And thanks for admitting you know nothing about genomic sequencing. Your ignorance is leading you profoundly astray.

Quote:

There is no one debunking the paper done by these two guys. Why not? What they put forward sounds authoritative, doesn't it? It doesn't sound like nonsense. Anything put forward that at least seems authoritative needs to be debunked otherwise we have a grave risk of people being misled by "dangerous misinformation". Why do we only see debunking of stuff I could debunk myself?

The paper is the summation of the entire conspiracy theorists' thinking on the SARS-Cov-2 virus and the COVID-19 pandemic. It starts with the conclusion that the virus is fake and the pandemic is a fraud, that the entire study of virology has been fooled by a fake virus, and that virology itself is not scientific.

Despite the fact it sounds authoritative, the paper, which has not been published in any journal whatsoever, starts out parroting the conspiracy theory that there's a "globalist agenda" (quote taken directly from the paper) involving Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and the Great Reset to destroy democracy. It continually puts "pandemic" and "novel" into scare quotes because it questions their existence. It makes the assumption that because there were meetings prior to the outbreak to increase world preparedness for such an event, they were actually planning meetings to spring a fake pandemic on the world. It also touches on nanoparticles in vaccines.

The paper is littered with unscientific terms such as "globalist," "fraud," "preposterous," "song," "hype," and "so-called."

It also include such howlers as "Most would be surprised to learn that the “virus” has never been found inside a single human or shown to be the cause of any disease."

As for the debunking trail, if I publish a sciency-sounding paper on academia.edu that concludes 2+2=a potato, do you think there would be much interest in debunking it? Same here; I get the impression that most scientists, even if they're aware of this paper, simply don't think it's worth their time addressing it. I may at some point sign up for this site and see if there have been papers added to it addressing this pair's claims.

Quote:

I follow the debunking trail, I have no interest in how many thousands of papers have been produced.

And that is where you fail. On one side you have two cranks with a paper published on a for-profit site with no standards for peer review. On the other side are hundreds of thousands of papers that you seem to think are irrelevant.

Quote:

I only "trust" when I'm forced to such as going into surgery. Otherwise, I only accept information as given because I feel I have no reason to doubt it or I'm not really bothered. When I am bothered I don't "trust" because of numbers of people saying something, I follow the debunking trail because I think that's a far better method than relying on "scientific consensus" or similar. Power influences everything and it's well-known that Big Pharma influences scientific studies - if you don't get that you are very, very naive. Even when I believe the scientific consensus I still follow the debunking trail because I think we must always look at both sides.

Yes, science is messy and can be influenced by outside factors. This is where consensus comes in: if 95% of scientists in a field say X and 5% say Y, I'll side with the X until Y can come up with really good evidence their side has the correct interpretation.

Quote:

Microbiologist, Christine Massey, has organised a FOI campaign to health authorities and governments about isolation of the virus and according to the specified criteria, all health authorities and governments have admitted they are not in possession of such proof of isolation. In that case, what needs to happen is that those supporting the mainstream narrative must argue that isolation according to the specified criteria is not required for isolation to occur. No one has done that.
The non-existent Virus: an Explosive Interview with Christine Massey

The home page of truthcomestolight.com features a quote by David Icke. Not a good start. It links heavily to other COVID-19 conspiracy sites, climate change denial sites, and fawning articles about the trucker convoys. Basically it's an echo chamber telling you what you want to hear.

I may at some point look at the article to see if there's any substance to it.

Quote:

Please do not keep throwing at me numbers of papers or anything to do with numbers indicating something must be true. Numbers mean nothing to me, OK? Absolutely nothing.

If fifteen doctors tell you you have tendonitis and one tells you it's cancer, do you go in for cancer treatment? At some point you need to give weight to the numbers.

Quote:

And nor does numbers of people who've allegedly died from covid. I've already pointed out that the excess mortality spike in April 2020 in continental Europe and the UK with inexplicable variations according to covid hypothesis between neighbouring countries very much favours the hypothesis that the excess spike was caused by aggressive drug trials. We also see that mortality of alleged covid sufferers tends to be greatly concentrated in very old people suffering co-morbidities. We also see that statistics that seem to support efficacy of the jab actually support both lack of efficacy and danger by making the status of "vaccinated" refer only to those who had their second jab at least 2 weeks before. Statistics need to be analysed carefully. Without careful analysis numbers can be made to show the complete opposite of reality ... apart from other problems with "numbers" produced such as validity of the test used to produce them.

Planigale is addressing your "aggressive drug trials" claim. Also, were these drug trials being conducted all over Asia and Europe in the time frame you're talking about?

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Petra

But where's the evidence of anything out of the ordinary? They told us there was a "cluster" of 44 patients with pneumonia of "unknown origin" but they provide nothing to say there was anything unusual about these pneumonia patients.

You mean, aside from the fact they couldn't figure out why the patients had pneumonia in the first place. "Unknown origin" and all that.

Quote:

Please provide the scientific paper that shows that a new virus has emerged that uses material from the alleged cluster of 44 patients. Please provide that scientific paper. If you are going to refer to papers that use different patients then there's a big question mark, isn't there? Why and how would they be using OTHER patients, not the patients that they say gave rise to the suspicion of a "novel" virus.

How do they get from the crude samples to the refined samples? Where's the data?

It is arriving at the sequencing that is completely under question. The steps have not been shown to do it.

The information you seek is in the hundreds of thousand of scientific papers that you refuse to accept because you instead believe one paper produced by a pair of conspiracy theorists.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Petra

I really understand nothing about genomic sequencing but the bit I can understand is going from a virus to a genome sequence. To create a genome sequence I believe the claims by the critics of the mainstream narrative that you need an identified virus and we don't see that.

As you say you do not understand gene sequencing. Your first error is that you do not need an identified organism to create a gene sequence. Gene sequencing is now a standard method for identifying unknown bacteria and viruses, some of which are not possible to grow in pure culture. So that is one conceptual error that is causing you problems.

https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcent...859-017-1901-8

Originally Posted by Petra

Microbiologist, Christine Massey, has organised a FOI campaign to health authorities and governments about isolation of the virus and according to the specified criteria, all health authorities and governments have admitted they are not in possession of such proof of isolation. In that case, what needs to happen is that those supporting the mainstream narrative must argue that isolation according to the specified criteria is not required for isolation to occur. No one has done that.
https://truthcomestolight.com/the-no...istine-massey/

Christine Massey is not a microbiologist.
If you want to find scientific evidence you read the scientific literature, not send out FOI requests. The place where the work would be done is not public health departments or health ministries. She specified her own criteria, which she made up and are not those agreed by others. At least one organisation responded that they had isolated the virus in pure culture from patient material. Christine Massey just refused to accept this. It appears that unless she saw the virus with her own eyes she would not accept this.

Every standard of proof that applies to every other infection has been met for Covid-19. If you deny the existence of Covid-19, you might equally deny HIV, Ebola, Influenza (remember most viruses were 'identified' with less evidence than there is for covid-19.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/

This paper reports the isolation of the virus from a patient including into pure culture. Including electron microscopy showing the novel corona virus.

So another assumption of yours that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Petra

Please do not keep throwing at me numbers of papers or anything to do with numbers indicating something must be true. Numbers mean nothing to me, OK? Absolutely nothing. And nor does numbers of people who've allegedly died from covid. I've already pointed out that the excess mortality spike in April 2020 in continental Europe and the UK with inexplicable variations according to covid hypothesis between neighbouring countries very much favours the hypothesis that the excess spike was caused by aggressive drug trials.

I have previously asked you to give the definition of an aggressive drug trial and how it differs from other drug trials. I have also pointed out the trial included a control arm who received no trial drugs so it would be clear if the drugs caused excessive deaths (ir reduced deaths). You arbitrarily dismiss the excess of deaths seen at the time the virus was surging, and there was a surge of admissions to hospitals with an acute respiratory syndrome, with deaths from acute respiratory failure. Instead attributing the deaths to drug trials, but with no evidence (and the trial results are published) that there was any excess mortality associated with the trials or that the number of excess deaths was smaller than the number of people recruited into trials.

Originally Posted by Petra

We also see that mortality of alleged covid sufferers tends to be greatly concentrated in very old people suffering co-morbidities. We also see that statistics that seem to support efficacy of the jab actually support both lack of efficacy and danger by making the status of "vaccinated" refer only to those who had their second jab at least 2 weeks before. Statistics need to be analysed carefully. Without careful analysis numbers can be made to show the complete opposite of reality ... apart from other problems with "numbers" produced such as validity of the test used to produce them.

If you want to actually reference the statistics, then the numbers can be discussed, but since you dismiss numbers, I think the reality is whatever the numbers actually showed you would ignore them and stick to your prejudice.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Petra

Microbiologist, Christine Massey, has organised a FOI campaign to health authorities and governments about isolation of the virus and according to the specified criteria, all health authorities and governments have admitted they are not in possession of such proof of isolation. In that case, what needs to happen is that those supporting the mainstream narrative must argue that isolation according to the specified criteria is not required for isolation to occur. No one has done that.
https://truthcomestolight.com/the-no...istine-massey/

Christine Massey is NOT a microbiologist! She holds an undergraduate degree (B.A.) from the University of Ottawa and a Master’s degree (M.A.) from Simon Fraser University... in psychology!

If you can't tell the difference between a microbiologist and a psychologist, then its no wonder you have trouble understanding anything. Planigale is better qualified to pontificate on microbiology than Massey!

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Resume

So anyway, the SARS-CoV-2 genome has been isolated and sequenced, and has been demonstrated to cause COVID-19.

[/thread]

It's also been imaged. There are SEM images of the virus attacking human cells. And if it wasn't Covid, then there is some other unknown killer that has been targeting those who test positive for SARS-COV-2 and show the symptoms of COVID-19. In numbers that haven't been seen for about a century.



Look at the 2020 plot in particular. And similar plots are around for other countries.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Petra

Blue Mountain, as 16th century Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno said:
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

It is proof of gross ignorance to think that an overwhelming consensus of scientists, arrived at by rigorous use of the scientific method, is analogous to the religious dogma of the 16th Century Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

I really understand nothing about genomic sequencing but the bit I can understand is going from a virus to a genome sequence.

So explain that mechanism, in your own words.

Quote:

To create a genome sequence I believe the claims by the critics of the mainstream narrative [scientific consensus] that you need an identified virus and we don't see that.

Fixed part of that for you.

You're just another conspiracy theorist, no different than any flat earther or Apollo denier, who wants everyone to think you're special because you know more than everyone else about a subject of which you have no meaningful comprehension.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by Petra

Please do not keep throwing at me numbers of papers or anything to do with numbers indicating something must be true. Numbers mean nothing to me, OK? Absolutely nothing.

Thanks for confirming that you did not put much thought in any of your posts. I am unsure who is wasting more time: We, reading your completely worthless posts or you writing them....

[arthwollipot]

Thanks, idjits.

Quote:

Taxpayers are set to foot an almost $2m bill for the police response to widespread anti-vaccination protests that shut down parts of Canberra earlier this year, AAP reports.

ACT Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan said policing efforts cost $1.9m so far and the demonstrations are continuing.

Gaughan said the protests were expected to take place each weekend in the lead up to the federal budget on 29 March.

“We’ve been having protests since 12 December in the territory, and they really haven’t stopped,” he told ABC radio on Wednesday.

“With the continuance of the protests, I anticipate numbers to increase.”

Discussions on whether the costs would be covered by Canberra taxpayers or nationally was yet to be determined.

Talks are set to take place between the ACT and federal governments on how costs would be handled.

Gaughan said about 500 protesters were still in Canberra and the surrounding region.

ACT police along with their NSW counterparts are monitoring the protests.

While police have described the demonstrations as largely peaceful, 23 arrests have been made.

The largest protest took place in February, when more than 10,000 people marched on Parliament House, demonstrating against Covid-19 vaccines and vaccination mandates.

Gaughan said it was not known whether upcoming demonstrations would be similar, but big gatherings are expected on federal budget night.

“The thing that aggrieves me the most, we haven’t had the ability or the opportunity or the resources to do what I consider to be normal policing,” he said.

“It doesn’t just affect me, it affects my national colleagues, who have given me substantial resources to deal with these protests over the two-month period.”

Protesters shut down major roads in Canberra during the demonstrations, targeting media organisations, along with Parliament House and city centres.

Large numbers camped out on the lawns outside the National Library before they were kicked out and moved to a campground in Canberra’s north, which became a makeshift headquarters.

A stand-off then ensued between protesters and police when they were told to leave because the site was needed for the Canberra Show.

source

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

You mean, aside from the fact they couldn't figure out why the patients had pneumonia in the first place. "Unknown origin" and all that.

Petra’s objection seems to be that because they didn’t know what caused the pneumonia, investigating the cause was “unscientific”.

[Blue Mountain]

At the core of Petra's assertions here is the paper by Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith: THE COVID-19 FRAUD & WAR ON HUMANITY. (The original is at academia.edu, but requires one to sign up to the site before it allows downloads.) It's fairly recent, having been published in November last year (2021.)

I'm asking for assistance in reviewing (or at least looking at) this paper. I simply don't have the time to learn enough about DNA, RNA, genomics, microbiology, virology, PCR, and pandemic modelling to say what they got right and where they may have gone wrong. Certainly I disagree with the conspiracy parts, and it appears that the publication of thousands of papers on the virus and COVID-19 make their conclusions incorrect. But at the moment I can't conclusively say, "Here's what you got wrong, and here are papers that show that."

Dr Mark Bailey describes himself as "a microbiology, medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades." He holds Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degrees (equivalent to an MD in North America,) a Postgraduate Diploma in Musculoskeletal Medicine from the University of Otago in Christchurch, and a Master of Health Sciences degree. While I note none of those degrees show a specialty in microbiology, he may have studied it as part of his master of health sciences degree.

The other author, Dr. John Bevan-Smith, describes himself as "a business owner, author and researcher, who has undertaken research for the Waitangi Tribunal Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Ministry of Justice Te Tāhū o te Ture." Searching further, I found here that he "holds a PhD in English and a First Class Honours degree in History from the University of Auckland. His particular interests include deconstruction and the discursive formation of meaning." In this context, he can provide input on how the media reports on things, and perhaps even how scientific papers can be truthful or misleading.

Part One of the paper is straight-up conspiracy thinking. It has a few footnotes that I haven't taken time to investigate more closely. The tail end of Part One and all of Part Two take a deeper dive into their ideas that the isolation of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, genomic sequencing, PCR. and the pandemic outbreak are all based on bad or fraudulent science, and as a result they conclude the entire pandemic is a massive scientific blunder and political fraud.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

At the core of Petra's assertions here is the paper by Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith: THE COVID-19 FRAUD & WAR ON HUMANITY. (The original is at academia.edu, but requires one to sign up to the site before it allows downloads.) It's fairly recent, having been published in November last year (2021.)

I'm asking for assistance in reviewing (or at least looking at) this paper. I simply don't have the time to learn enough about DNA, RNA, genomics, microbiology, virology, PCR, and pandemic modelling to say what they got right and where they may have gone wrong. Certainly I disagree with the conspiracy parts, and it appears that the publication of thousands of papers on the virus and COVID-19 make their conclusions incorrect. But at the moment I can't conclusively say, "Here's what you got wrong, and here are papers that show that."

Dr Mark Bailey describes himself as "a microbiology, medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades." He holds Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degrees (equivalent to an MD in North America,) a Postgraduate Diploma in Musculoskeletal Medicine from the University of Otago in Christchurch, and a Master of Health Sciences degree. While I note none of those degrees show a specialty in microbiology, he may have studied it as part of his master of health sciences degree.

The other author, Dr. John Bevan-Smith, describes himself as "a business owner, author and researcher, who has undertaken research for the Waitangi Tribunal Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Ministry of Justice Te Tāhū o te Ture." Searching further, I found here that he "holds a PhD in English and a First Class Honours degree in History from the University of Auckland. His particular interests include deconstruction and the discursive formation of meaning." In this context, he can provide input on how the media reports on things, and perhaps even how scientific papers can be truthful or misleading.

Part One of the paper is straight-up conspiracy thinking. It has a few footnotes that I haven't taken time to investigate more closely. The tail end of Part One and all of Part Two take a deeper dive into their ideas that the isolation of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, genomic sequencing, PCR. and the pandemic outbreak are all based on bad or fraudulent science, and as a result they conclude the entire pandemic is a massive scientific blunder and political fraud.

This

Quote:

P A R T O N E

THE GLOBALIST AGENDA

Make no mistake, we are currently being assailed by a worldwide fraud of such scale
and malevolence that it threatens our very existence as we know it on this planet.

should be reason enough to instantly stop reading this heap of bile.

In the end, most covidiots are also hateful brownshirts or even full fledged neo-nazis.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Petra

Please do not keep throwing at me numbers of papers or anything to do with numbers indicating something must be true. Numbers mean nothing to me, OK? Absolutely nothing.

They may mean nothing to you, but that says more about your ignorance of metrics, collation and statistical analysis than it does about the value of measurement, believe me.

Take the claim that MMR vaccines cause autism spectrum disorder. When a Danish study examined the medical records of a quarter million people who had had the MMR vaccines, and a quarter million who had not, and compared the rates of autism diagnosis between the two groups, they found that the rates of diagnosis were statistically identical. In other words, there was zero evidence for the claim that MMR vaccines cause autism. If the MMR shots had even a small influence on autism, it would have shown as an increase in diagnosis rate for the vaccinated group. But there was no difference. Whatever the cause or causes of autism, the MMR vaccines have **** all to do with it.

The response of one prominent anti-vaccine activist, when confronted with the results of the study, was to angrily say, "I don't give a ****!". That was a pathetic, but unsurprising response consistent with his unwillingness to even consider that he could be wrong. But the numbers utterly disproved his claims. He rejected them, however, because the construct he had built around himself made him feel special and important. Within it, he knew that he was smarter than everyone else and an heroic crusader against a cartoonish evil empire. When evidence took that away, he saw it as a personal attack against his ego - his feeling of superiority. What's most pathetic is that he obviously couldn't give less of a **** about finding what really causes autism unless it makes him feel special.

Whether you reject numbers because you suffer from dyscalculia or simply because they don't tell you what you want to hear, the data is no less real.

[Purple Pangolin]

Originally Posted by Petra

I really understand nothing about genomic sequencing but the bit I can understand is going from a virus to a genome sequence. To create a genome sequence I believe the claims by the critics of the mainstream narrative that you need an identified virus and we don't see that.

Not really, but that's beside the point. A lot of coronaviruses have been sequenced, and while the virus that causes Covid19 was clearly some kind of coronavirus, it was different enough to be classified as something new. Novel means new.

Now that you know that, you can stop putting "novel" in scare quotes.

Quote:

Numbers mean nothing to me, OK? Absolutely nothing.

Obviously.

However, since understanding numbers (particularly used statistically) are important for understanding science, then you are going to have a hard time determining whether any papers/studies are scientific or not.

Now that you know that, you can stop claiming that one paper is more scientific than another. Or you could seek some education. It's up to you.

[Resume]

Seen on a bumper sticker . . .

But Did You Die?

Now we've seem some stupid anti-vax memes and tweets and facebook idiocy, but this struck me as cement-headed as it gets. Many who view this stupidity likely know someone who has died, is suffering from long COVID, or the various pulmonary, neurological and organ issues associated with contracting the virus.

So, is this person merely stupid, willfully ignorant, mentally ill, or just trolling? Or maybe all of these?

[Emre_1974tr]

Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA -permanent chromosomal change

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_ap...m_campaign=CFP

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr

Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA -permanent chromosomal change

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_ap...m_campaign=CFP

See post#30.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr

Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA -permanent chromosomal change

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-goes-into-liver-cells-and-is-converted-to-dna-study_4307594.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign =CFP

I have highlighted the problem with this story.

As long as you you keep letting yourself be gulled by what you read in conspiracy theorist websites, you will never get anywhere near the facts.

As long as you you keep uncritically parroting what you read in conspiracy theorist websites, you will always be laughed at on this forum

[Emre_1974tr]

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr

Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA -permanent chromosomal change

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_ap...m_campaign=CFP

The news needs to be corrected in the form of experimental gene therapy, not a vaccine.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr

The news needs to be corrected in the form of experimental gene therapy, not a vaccine.

Nope.

[Resume]

Plague rat governor bullies students.

Quote:

POLITICS
'This is ridiculous': DeSantis asks students to take off their face masks
The governor, who called the students' mask-wearing "COVID theater," shook his head.

Author: Courtney Holland
Published: 2:34 PM EST March 2, 2022
Updated: 3:40 PM EST March 2, 2022
Facebook Twitter
TAMPA, Fla. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis let a group of students know how frustrated he is with people wearing face masks.

DeSantis was at the University of South Florida to announce a $20 million award for cybersecurity education during a news conference Wednesday and as he approached the podium, he looked to the group and told them to take off their masks.


"You do not have to wear those masks. I mean, please take them off," he was heard saying. "Honestly, it's not doing anything, and we've gotta stop with this COVID theater.

**** off, Shemp.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Petra

I've provided you with fraudulent science related to the making of the alleged genome sequence of sars-cov-2.

Petra has provided us with many fraudulent claims, which she chooses to believe despite all evidence to the contrary, but I don't recall any examples of Petra providing us with science. To be overly generous, however, I suppose some of her fraudulent claims could be construed as "fraudulent science".

Originally Posted by Petra

You provide with me with the kosher science ... or not as you choose ... but if you don't provide the kosher science you can hardly claim to have debunked what I say ... or you can if you choose but I certainly won't accept it.

Petra persistently fails to recognize the genuine science that has been provided. Here are a few recent examples, heavily edited for brevity.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

The National Center for Biotechnology Information currently has 309,063 samples of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in its database.

It's like different chess sets. Although are lots of variants on the pieces and the colours of the squares on the board, they're all recognizable as chess sets (although some might be a bit tricky!) They won't be mistaken for a game of checkers, backgammon, Go, or Monopoly, even though they're all board games.

Originally Posted by Planigale

1) Covid-19 due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 presents as a pneumonic illness that differs in clinical features from other pneumonias such that a clinical diagnosis can be made. There is sufficient difference that it would make clinicians think that this is different from other pneumonias.
2) Post mortem appearances of those that died were different from those of other pneumonias, sufficient to make the pathologists think they were dealing with a novel infection.
3) Post mortem lungs examined under electron microscopy showed the presence of coronaviruses.
4) A novel corona virus was isolated from bronchoscopy sampling of the lungs and was grown in human cell cultures.
5) Antibodies from patients with the novel coronavirus infection were specific for the novel coronavirus.
6) Sequencing of the novel coronavirus seen under the microscope and isolated in cell culture matched PCR testing from patients. Who then developed neutralising antibodies.
7) Transmission experiments have shown the virus causes pneumonia in animal models.
8) infection experiments in humans have shown that the virus replicates in humans, and neutralising antibodies subsequently develop.

This is as much and probably more evidence than we have for any other infection. You might as well deny any other infection exists.

Isolation and sequencing and culture of the virus has been done in many places and many countries.

This reminds me of the arguments that were made by some HIV denialists who claimed that the HIV virus did not really exist.

The highlighted are unsurprising, inasmuch as Petra's most oft-cited sources include several HIV denialists along with Sam Bailey of New Zealand, who insists no disease has ever been caused by a virus.

Referring to the scribbling of Mark Bailey and John Bevan-Smith, Petra wrote:

Originally Posted by Petra

There is no one debunking the paper done by these two guys. Why not? What they put forward sounds authoritative, doesn't it? It doesn't sound like nonsense.

So you don't understand why "UFOs found in vaccines" counts as something wrong with the Bailey and Bevan-Smith paper?

Sounds like nonsense to me.

Originally Posted by Petra

Microbiologist, Christine Massey,

No:

Originally Posted by Planigale

Christine Massey is not a microbiologist.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Christine Massey is NOT a microbiologist! She holds an undergraduate degree (B.A.) from the University of Ottawa and a Master’s degree (M.A.) from Simon Fraser University... in psychology!

If you can't tell the difference between a microbiologist and a psychologist, then its no wonder you have trouble understanding anything. Planigale is better qualified to pontificate on microbiology than Massey!

Then there's this profession of innumeracy:

Originally Posted by Petra

Please do not keep throwing at me numbers of papers or anything to do with numbers indicating something must be true. Numbers mean nothing to me, OK? Absolutely nothing.

Followed, in the very same post, by this:

Originally Posted by Petra

Statistics need to be analysed carefully.

Numbers "mean nothing to" Petra, so Petra is unable to analyze statistics with any care at all.

Originally Posted by Planigale

Every standard of proof that applies to every other infection has been met for Covid-19. If you deny the existence of Covid-19, you might equally deny HIV, Ebola, Influenza (remember most viruses were 'identified' with less evidence than there is for covid-19.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/

This paper reports the isolation of the virus from a patient including into pure culture. Including electron microscopy showing the novel corona virus.

[smartcooky]

wrong thread

[Bubba]

MSM and Pharma guys:

Re prostate cancer claims against Zantac, Maybe there is a better search term, or a better search engine, because no msm pages were seen on google for the search term


Zantac linked to prostate cancer on abc, cbs, nbc..


Maybe there is something to the claim that MSM favors big pharma?

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Bubba

MSM and Pharma guys:

Re prostate cancer claims against Zantac, Maybe there is a better search term, or a better search engine, because no msm pages were seen on google for the search term


Zantac linked to prostate cancer on abc, cbs, nbc..


Maybe there is something to the claim that MSM favors big pharma?

Or more probably....ok let's say more precisely, there is absolutely nothing to your claim whatsoever...

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by Bubba

MSM and Pharma guys:

Re prostate cancer claims against Zantac, Maybe there is a better search term, or a better search engine, because no msm pages were seen on google for the search term


Zantac linked to prostate cancer on abc, cbs, nbc..


Maybe there is something to the claim that MSM favors big pharma?

Or maybe the algorithm just doesn't support your input.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zantac-...e-cancer-link/

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...ac-68915781738

Using Bing, I found those on the first page of individual searches for "Zantac linked to prostate cancer on ___"

ABC was harder, but under the same criteria, I found this:

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-...re-litigation/

Which acknowledged this:

Quote:

ABC News reported that NDMA has been labeled a probable carcinogen with the Environmental Protection (EPA),

Seems as though you haven't been very thorough in your investigation. Color me nonplussed (either old or new definitions work, with the old to be considered sarcasm).

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Susheel

Or more probably....ok let's say more precisely, there is absolutely nothing to your claim whatsoever...

To be fair to Bubba ranitidine (zantac) has been withdrawn due to a theoretical risk of cancer, although long term studies have shown no effect (this will not stop court cases of course). A breakdown product of ranitidine that accumulates with long term storage is mutagenic in studies which means it is a potential carcinogen. Since there are alternatives which do not have this breakdown product it has been withdrawn. Prostate cancer is unlikely to be caused by ranitidine. Ranitidine reduces testosterone levels, which is the objective of most treatments for prostate cancer.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicin...cinal-products

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10750671/

ETA ranitidine is long off patent so really isn't of interest to 'Big Pharma'.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr

The news needs to be corrected in the form of experimental gene therapy, not a vaccine.

This is a lie and you know it.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Bubba

MSM and Pharma guys:

Re prostate cancer claims against Zantac, Maybe there is a better search term, or a better search engine, because no msm pages were seen on google for the search term


Zantac linked to prostate cancer on abc, cbs, nbc..


Maybe there is something to the claim that MSM favors big pharma?

Perhaps if you actually searched the websites of the media channels you name here, you would have better results.
I did, and the story was covered by all of them.
There is, therefore, nothing of substance to this claim that 'MSM favours big pharma'.
NEXT!

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by MBDK

Or maybe the algorithm just doesn't support your input.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zantac-...e-cancer-link/

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...ac-68915781738

Using Bing, I found those on the first page of individual searches for "Zantac linked to prostate cancer on ___"

ABC was harder, but under the same criteria, I found this:

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-...re-litigation/

Which acknowledged this:



Seems as though you haven't been very thorough in your investigation. Color me nonplussed (either old or new definitions work, with the old to be considered sarcasm).

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Perhaps if you actually searched the websites of the media channels you name here, you would have better results.
I did, and the story was covered by all of them.
There is, therefore, nothing of substance to this claim that 'MSM favours big pharma'.
NEXT!

So Bubba was wrong again. Well I certainly didn't expect that.

No matter. He's about to redeem himself in the GNIS Search thread... Any moment now.

[Emre_1974tr]

Originally Posted by Craig4

This is a lie and you know it.

No, on the contrary, it is real. and you know it too. But you will not accept this bitter truth as you are sheep giving your mind to others. By the way, you had an interesting conspiracy theory about my knowledge of Turkish, open a separate thread for it ahahaha

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr

No, on the contrary, it is real. and you know it too. But you will not accept this bitter truth as you are sheep giving your mind to others. By the way, you had an interesting conspiracy theory about my knowledge of Turkish, open a separate thread for it ahahaha

No, its a lie.... and you know it

[Emre_1974tr]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No, its a...

I know you're mad at me for not warning you earlier. It's too late for you now. But you have to make the effort to remove the poison from your body, there is always hope, my friend.

[MarkCorrigan]

Absolutely certifiable gibberish from a known liar and coward.

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by Planigale

To be fair to Bubba ranitidine (zantac) has been withdrawn due to a theoretical risk of cancer, although long term studies have shown no effect (this will not stop court cases of course).

As I understood it, it's not ranitidine that's causing the cancer risk it's that the chemicals used to make ranitidine were contaminated thus contaminating the ranitidine. Didn't even have to go search for that, I just asked a Pharmacist.

If they ever get back to making it then they'll be able to compare the data