IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Coronavirus , Coronavirus conspiracies , diseases , medical conspiracies

Reply
Old 27th February 2022, 10:43 PM   #41
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,771
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post

(pifflesnip)

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.”
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Scotland ends the need for vaccine passports:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-60546409

In England, they are no longer mandatory, and in Wales and Northern Ireland, their use is being restricted and wound down.
Bubba, are you linking to mercola as a serious source? You still haven't answered my question.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 01:06 AM   #42
Bubba
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,387
Bill Gates Sad About Natural Immunity

Bill Gates Sad About Natural Immunity

Next to last item (currently) on this page:

https://realclimatescience.com/
Bubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 01:49 AM   #43
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
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
Curiously you were only born because of this phenomenon.

There is actually quite a lot of viral DNA in the human genome. We are actually a viral chimera (and of course that ignores the bacterial DNA in mitochondria). There is not a pure human genome!

One viral gene is essential for placental formation. Literally if this virus had not infected a distant ancestor and a bit of the virus DNA not been integrated in to our DNA you could not have been born.

This phenomenon occurs naturally with natural virus infections - indeed this paper references this occurring natural Covid-19 infections.

Last edited by Planigale; 28th February 2022 at 01:50 AM.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 02:16 AM   #44
Bubba
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Alternatively, you could just address the question. Dodging yet another point just adds to the dismal track record you've built up here.

Whoa. You are serious ! You think there is no difference: paper/digital vaccine passports. Where to begin ?
.

Considering the breadth and depth of the chasm between the significance (paper vs digital) most anyplace will do, to begin.......here is one:



The Plandemic Enters Final Stage, Real Purpose Exposed

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1420852470
Bubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 02:53 AM   #45
Bubba
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,387
Now more than ever in the age of coerced universal injection.

Statists always agree with state authority.

(they dont know they are statists)

Their feathers get ruffled (91) when they notice it.
Bubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 03:59 AM   #46
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,977
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Bill Gates Sad About Natural Immunity

Next to last item (currently) on this page:

https://realclimatescience.com/
Yet another "quality" source:

Originally Posted by Media Bias Fact Check
Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change.

Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Source
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 07:44 AM   #47
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,771
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Whoa. You are serious ! You think there is no difference: paper/digital vaccine passports. Where to begin ?
.

Considering the breadth and depth of the chasm between the significance (paper vs digital) most anyplace will do, to begin.......here is one:



The Plandemic Enters Final Stage, Real Purpose Exposed

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1420852470
That article, as well as being complete bilge, does not answer the question.
Care to try again? Preferably in your own words: just parroting the loons you rely on doesn't add credence to your claim to be thinking for yourself.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 05:28 PM   #48
Petra
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 262
I cannot help being amused by the perps in the way that they never provide a single piece of evidence that the believers of their story can brandish in defence of it. You have to hand it to them for how meticulous they are in making it a completely smoke'n'mirrors story or to a great degree at least. Most unfortunately, the pandemic psyop is not just a psyop, people's lives have been dramatically affected: our livelihoods, our lifestyles and our health in unimaginable ways.
They say it's rare
https://twitter.com/theysayitsrare

So as I repeat endlessly - only in response to the endless repetition of false claims about my own - my STEP ONE - The grounds provided for the suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific - has not been debunked. I have to say I'm little surprised at the dearth of material that might have been reasonably expected to be found to at least attempt to debunk it - I mean, there's absolutely nuthin' judging by what you guys have come up with: claims about hypoxaemia without shortness of breath with no data and gobbledygook such as "unknown pneumonia-like symptoms". I thought they'd be something slightly more convincing for a reason to suspect that 44 cases of pneumonia in a highly-polluted city in a country of over 2,000,000 cases a year indicated a "novel" virus. But no, the perps are good in their own way. They are scrupulous about not faking evidence for their narrative in such a way that it can be used to defend their nonsense.

So STEP ONE still open to debunking. I request though that when you attempt to debunk it, do NOT simply provide links that are supposed to do that job - we can see where smartcooky seemingly diligently but, in fact, with breathtaking dishonesty, listed a load of links that - either:
--- linked to an unrelated comment
--- didn't link to the last comment in the conversation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=26

Ensure that your attempts at debunking are not just a link but contain words and please ensure they do not ignore my latest comment in the conversation.

STEP 2 - THE DETERMINATION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS IS UNSCIENTIFIC
China CDC tells us:
https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/articl...e-4253b453d10c

"On January 3, 2020, the first complete genome of the novel β genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoVs) was identified in samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient from Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC) through a combination of Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing."

Yes, you read that right. A complete genome was constructed from bronchoalveolar fluid containing billions of particles taken from a single patient with pneumonia of the "cluster" of 44 (Dr Sam says 41 - not sure what happened to the other 3).

From Dr Sam Bailey's video, Once Upon a Time in Wuhan
"Although this might sound like some high-tech wizardry this complete genome is a fabrication. It was never shown that the sequence came from any virus let alone a new virus. The sequences were obtained from crude bronchoalveolar fluid samples obtained from a single designated case not from purified viral particles. From this crude sample containing billions of genetic fragments computer software was used to analyse potential combinations and then organise them into a hypothetical genome."

"The original sequences came from a single case who was said to have covid-19 because --- they had detected some genetic sequences and --- these sequences mean the person has covid-19. Welcome to the circular reasoning of modern virology."

Last edited by Petra; 28th February 2022 at 05:32 PM.
Petra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 05:45 PM   #49
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,441
Bump for Petra.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
Any further challenges to my claim?
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
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).
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 05:48 PM   #50
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
I cannot help being amused by the perps in the way that they never provide a single piece of evidence that the believers of their story can brandish in defence of it. You have to hand it to them for how meticulous they are in making it a completely smoke'n'mirrors story or to a great degree at least. Most unfortunately, the pandemic psyop is not just a psyop, people's lives have been dramatically affected: our livelihoods, our lifestyles and our health in unimaginable ways.
They say it's rare
https://twitter.com/theysayitsrare

So as I repeat endlessly - only in response to the endless repetition of false claims about my own - my STEP ONE - The grounds provided for the suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific - has not been debunked. I have to say I'm little surprised at the dearth of material that might have been reasonably expected to be found to at least attempt to debunk it - I mean, there's absolutely nuthin' judging by what you guys have come up with: claims about hypoxaemia without shortness of breath with no data and gobbledygook such as "unknown pneumonia-like symptoms". I thought they'd be something slightly more convincing for a reason to suspect that 44 cases of pneumonia in a highly-polluted city in a country of over 2,000,000 cases a year indicated a "novel" virus. But no, the perps are good in their own way. They are scrupulous about not faking evidence for their narrative in such a way that it can be used to defend their nonsense.

So STEP ONE still open to debunking. I request though that when you attempt to debunk it, do NOT simply provide links that are supposed to do that job - we can see where smartcooky seemingly diligently but, in fact, with breathtaking dishonesty, listed a load of links that - either:
--- linked to an unrelated comment
--- didn't link to the last comment in the conversation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=26

Ensure that your attempts at debunking are not just a link but contain words and please ensure they do not ignore my latest comment in the conversation.

STEP 2 - THE DETERMINATION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS IS UNSCIENTIFIC
China CDC tells us:
https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/articl...e-4253b453d10c

"On January 3, 2020, the first complete genome of the novel β genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoVs) was identified in samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient from Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC) through a combination of Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing."

Yes, you read that right. A complete genome was constructed from bronchoalveolar fluid containing billions of particles taken from a single patient with pneumonia of the "cluster" of 44 (Dr Sam says 41 - not sure what happened to the other 3).

From Dr Sam Bailey's video, Once Upon a Time in Wuhan
"Although this might sound like some high-tech wizardry this complete genome is a fabrication. It was never shown that the sequence came from any virus let alone a new virus. The sequences were obtained from crude bronchoalveolar fluid samples obtained from a single designated case not from purified viral particles. From this crude sample containing billions of genetic fragments computer software was used to analyse potential combinations and then organise them into a hypothetical genome."

"The original sequences came from a single case who was said to have covid-19 because --- they had detected some genetic sequences and --- these sequences mean the person has covid-19. Welcome to the circular reasoning of modern virology."
Ya mean Sam Bailey who is not allowed to practice as a doctor? Samantha Bailey who has no licence? That one?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 05:49 PM   #51
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 4,907
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
[... same old nonsense...]
Sam Bailey is not a scientist. Sars-cov-2 has been sequenced many times. You are wasting your time. Go read some real science.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 06:04 PM   #52
junkshop
Muse
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Where the gin was.
Posts: 939
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
I cannot help being amused by the perps in the way that they never provide a single piece of evidence that the believers of their story can brandish in defence of it...
'Perps'? I would be interested to know what you think 'perps' means.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
I cannot help being amused by the perps in the way that they never provide a single piece of evidence that the believers of their story can brandish in defence of it...
Syntax error. ETA: on re-reading, not so much a syntax error, as clumsy use of language. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
...Most unfortunately, the pandemic psyop is not just a psyop, people's lives have been dramatically affected: our livelihoods, our lifestyles and our health in unimaginable provable ways.
Much as I hate to use this dirty little meme, FIFY.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
...They say it's rare
https://twitter.com/theysayitsrare...
Random twitter account posting unverified, unevidenced and anecdotal scat. Worthless.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
...So as I repeat endlessly...
Indeed you do.
I was planning to go through your whole post but what's the point? You're just going to vomit the same old crap all over the board, no matter what anyone says.
__________________
Not a Cockney.

Last edited by junkshop; 28th February 2022 at 06:28 PM.
junkshop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 06:05 PM   #53
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
She is comprehensively bonkers.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/doctor...OPQMOLADVRMQM/
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 07:33 PM   #54
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,977
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
... Blitherage snipped ...
Again, it doesn't matter how many times you post this, it makes no difference whatsoever to the existence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus or COVID-19.

At this point you've stopped engaging and are simply spamming. Do it again and I'll report the post as such,
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 07:43 PM   #55
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,977
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
(same old, same old) ...

STEP 2 - THE DETERMINATION OF A "NOVEL" VIRUS IS UNSCIENTIFIC
China CDC tells us:
https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/articl...e-4253b453d10c

"On January 3, 2020, the first complete genome of the novel β genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoVs) was identified in samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient from Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC) through a combination of Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing."

Yes, you read that right. A complete genome was constructed from bronchoalveolar fluid containing billions of particles taken from a single patient with pneumonia of the "cluster" of 44 (Dr Sam says 41 - not sure what happened to the other 3).

From Dr Sam Bailey's video, Once Upon a Time in Wuhan
"Although this might sound like some high-tech wizardry this complete genome is a fabrication. It was never shown that the sequence came from any virus let alone a new virus. The sequences were obtained from crude bronchoalveolar fluid samples obtained from a single designated case not from purified viral particles. From this crude sample containing billions of genetic fragments computer software was used to analyse potential combinations and then organise them into a hypothetical genome."

"The original sequences came from a single case who was said to have covid-19 because --- they had detected some genetic sequences and --- these sequences mean the person has covid-19. Welcome to the circular reasoning of modern virology."
You do realize, don't you, that since 3 January 2020 we've collected a lot more than one sample of the virus? Calling into question the existence of a virus for which we have literally millions of samples is beyond ridiculous and borders on insanity,
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 09:09 PM   #56
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 313
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
The grounds provided for the suspicion of a "novel" virus are unscientific - has not been debunked.
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.


Originally Posted by Petra View Post
Ensure that your attempts at debunking are not just a link but contain words and please ensure they do not ignore my latest comment in the conversation.
FYI, my links DO contain words. If you bothered to read them, you would notice. And, in general, your last comment is usually predicated on your laughable assumption that the rest of your post validated it. That rarely happens, so get used to such drivel being ignored.


Originally Posted by Petra View Post
Yes, you read that right. A complete genome was constructed from bronchoalveolar fluid containing billions of particles taken from a single patient with pneumonia of the "cluster" of 44 (Dr Sam says 41 - not sure what happened to the other 3).
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?

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!


Originally Posted by Petra View Post
"The original sequences came from a single case who was said to have covid-19 because --- they had detected some genetic sequences and --- these sequences mean the person has covid-19. Welcome to the circular reasoning of modern virology."
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.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 11:35 PM   #57
Petra
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
You do realize, don't you, that since 3 January 2020 we've collected a lot more than one sample of the virus? Calling into question the existence of a virus for which we have literally millions of samples is beyond ridiculous and borders on insanity,
Yes, of course, but they fabricated a genome sequence from that sample. Can you not see the fraud? What do the subsequent "samples" mean? How do they know the subsequent samples they obtained contain the virus and how did they identify the virus in those samples?
Petra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2022, 11:37 PM   #58
Petra
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
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.




FYI, my links DO contain words. If you bothered to read them, you would notice. And, in general, your last comment is usually predicated on your laughable assumption that the rest of your post validated it. That rarely happens, so get used to such drivel being ignored.




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?

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!




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.
Please refer me to the source for the original finding of the virus and how the genome sequence was constructed.
Petra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 12:31 AM   #59
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 313
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
Please refer me to the source for the original finding of the virus and how the genome sequence was constructed.
Do your own homework. You provided a side source that was claimed by your hero to be adequate (and obviously isn't, nor was it meant to be) to critique. Do you at least retract her reference as evidence of...well..no evidence?

Also, the notes of that side source DID mention that Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing were all used to sequence the genome. Do you have a problem with those methods?

Additionally, remember this is merely to point out how poorly YOU have done at researching the validity of your claims. This is the testing YOU called out. If YOU think it is bad, YOU have to explain exactly why. You have been provided with other studies, well documented, that prove the existence and construct of this virus, but ignore those to rail about the study you have no material for. This backwards attempt of yours to claim something you have no evidence for is easily recognized for what it is - an ignorant wail of frustration at your own impotence. YOU claim the vurus wasn't proven to exist. YOU have been given legitimate evidence it does. YOU have provided nothing, save that red herring of Bailey's. YOU can make all the ridiculous demands you want, but the logical and intellectual burden of proof is yours. You can continue to demand all the silly sideshow theatrics you wish others to perform, but that is a fool's irrelevant obfuscation.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 01:29 AM   #60
Petra
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
Do your own homework. You provided a side source that was claimed by your hero to be adequate (and obviously isn't, nor was it meant to be) to critique. Do you at least retract her reference as evidence of...well..no evidence?
A side note. Where's the main source then? Why isn't there a link to the scientific paper?

Quote:
Also, the notes of that side source DID mention that Sanger sequencing, Illumina sequencing, and nanopore sequencing were all used to sequence the genome. Do you have a problem with those methods?
I know nothing about them but what I do know is that you can't take a bronchoalveolar lavage sample containing billions of particles from a single patient and construct a genome of a virus from it without first identifying that virus. Surely, that's self-evident isn't it?
How do we know this patient has the alleged virus and how would they identify it from this bronchoalveolar lavage sample?

Quote:
Additionally, remember this is merely to point out how poorly YOU have done at researching the validity of your claims. This is the testing YOU called out. If YOU think it is bad, YOU have to explain exactly why. You have been provided with other studies, well documented, that prove the existence and construct of this virus, but ignore those to rail about the study you have no material for. This backwards attempt of yours to claim something you have no evidence for is easily recognized for what it is - an ignorant wail of frustration at your own impotence. YOU claim the vurus wasn't proven to exist. YOU have been given legitimate evidence it does. YOU have provided nothing, save that red herring of Bailey's. YOU can make all the ridiculous demands you want, but the logical and intellectual burden of proof is yours. You can continue to demand all the silly sideshow theatrics you wish others to perform, but that is a fool's irrelevant obfuscation.
Explain exactly why?

I think it's self-evident but OK. There is zero evidence provided for this patient suffering from the effects of a "novel" virus (STEP 1) and taking a sample of her lung fluid will not allow you to construct a genome sequence as you don't know what you've got. You've simply got a sample containing billions of particles and there is no way to determine of those particles those that belong to a "novel" virus that is infecting people and having a particular effect on them.

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

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.

The debunking of what I say necessitates presentation of isolation of the virus and the creation of the genome sequence shown to be done in a scientific manner.

Last edited by Petra; 1st March 2022 at 01:31 AM.
Petra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 01:32 AM   #61
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,977
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
Yes, of course, but they fabricated a genome sequence from that sample.
This comment is mind-boggling stupid. While it's possible to fabricate a fake genome sequence, it's quite another to fabricate a plausible, working genome that stands up to the scrutiny of everyone on the planet who's familiar with viruses and how RNA/DNA works. If the genome was fabricated or faked, it would become apparent very quickly as scientists working on it found things things in it that didn't add up.

And it's more than just one genome from China. The virus for which that genome applies as since been found in humans all over the world as it spread in something called a pandemic.

Quote:
Can you not see the fraud?
No, for as far as I am concerned there is no fraud.

Quote:
What do the subsequent "samples" mean?
It means virus samples obtained from from several million people who subsequently came down with COVID-19. Worldometer reports some 437,400,000 cases to date, and about almost 6 million deaths.

Quote:
How do they know the subsequent samples they obtained contain the virus and how did they identify the virus in those samples?
By analysing the genome of the samples obtained from several million people who came down sick with COVID-19. Scientists can match up various ACGT base pair sequences in the original sample provided by the Chinese with similar sequences in samples from patients. When enough sequences in enough places line up, it's a match. Areas where there are differences constitute variants. There are dozens of programs available that can do this type of analysis.

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.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 01:57 AM   #62
Petra
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
This comment is mind-boggling stupid. While it's possible to fabricate a fake genome sequence, it's quite another to fabricate a plausible, working genome that stands up to the scrutiny of everyone on the planet who's familiar with viruses and how RNA/DNA works. If the genome was fabricated or faked, it would become apparent very quickly as scientists working on it found things things in it that didn't add up.

And it's more than just one genome from China. The virus for which that genome applies as since been found in humans all over the world as it spread in something called a pandemic.
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.

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

Quote:
No, for as far as I am concerned there is no fraud.

It means virus samples obtained from from several million people who subsequently came down with COVID-19. Worldometer reports some 437,400,000 cases to date, and about almost 6 million deaths.

By analysing the genome of the samples obtained from several million people who came down sick with COVID-19. Scientists can match up various ACGT base pair sequences in the original sample provided by the Chinese with similar sequences in samples from patients. When enough sequences in enough places line up, it's a match. Areas where there are differences constitute variants. There are dozens of programs available that can do this type of analysis.

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

From paper by Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith
https://www.academia.edu/62145171/Th...ar_On_Humanity
Edited by sarge:  edited to remove rule 4 violation

Last edited by sarge; 1st March 2022 at 05:37 AM.
Petra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 02:25 AM   #63
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 313
Deleted due to accidental early posting.

Last edited by MBDK; 1st March 2022 at 02:52 AM.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 02:48 AM   #64
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 313
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
A side note. Where's the main source then? Why isn't there a link to the scientific paper?
Not my source, not my burden. It was YOUR source; therefor, your burden. Go, ahead, ask the same question again, as is your entire childish forte, it's been answered several times. Each time you do, you expose your ineptitude.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
I know nothing about them
Obviously, or you wouldn't write:
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
but what I do know is that you can't take a bronchoalveolar lavage sample containing billions of particles from a single patient and construct a genome of a virus from it without first identifying that virus. Surely, that's self-evident isn't it?
Your ignorance is what is self-evident. How do YOU think a virus is identified? What led you to believe that the virus wasn't already identified (just not sequenced)? These are questions YOU need to have answers for.


Originally Posted by Petra View Post
How do we know this patient has the alleged virus and how would they identify it from this bronchoalveolar lavage sample?
This is YOUR source, and lacks that particular information, because it was never intended to provide it. Your whining that it should is not my fault, or that of the weekly periodical's authors, who were just providing updates. This will not change. Do your own homework. That will not change.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
taking a sample of her lung fluid will not allow you to construct a genome sequence as you don't know what you've got.
Really? Then tell me how a novel genome IS sequenced.


Originally Posted by Petra View Post
I've provided you with fraudulent science related to the making of the alleged genome sequence of sars-cov-2.
No, you have provided me with statement after statement of your ignorance regarding virology, and made that false claim, based on nothing but incredulity. That mental fart gas only impresses you.


Originally Posted by Petra View Post
I certainly won't accept it.
You have shown no ability to accept anything scientifically sound, as evidenced by your continued championing of a source you can't even recognize as irrelevant to your claim. Such pig-headed stubbornness does not impress me.

Originally Posted by Petra View Post
The debunking of what I say necessitates presentation of isolation of the virus and the creation of the genome sequence shown to be done in a scientific manner.?
And what would YOU find to be an acceptable manner? Here is the problem. You have been given several scientifically valid methods in other posts, but have shown no ability in the least to recognize them. You must answer the questions I put forth in this post to indicate you CAN understand what is required to isolate and sequence a virus' genome, or you are unquestionably so far over your head on the subject, any further discourse at this level is futile.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 02:54 AM   #65
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,351
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Havent read it.


What y'all think of it?


https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1421753825
I haven't read it either.

I think that Mercola is a lying liar who lies.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 03:28 AM   #66
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 313
Hmmmm... Petra's latest reference is:
Quote:
From paper by Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith
https://www.academia.edu/62145171/Th...ar_On_Humanity
Both authors are based in New Zealand, as is Dr. Sam Bailey. Husband/wife? Incestuous relatives? Both? The mind doesn't even want to ponder any further...
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 03:32 AM   #67
Carrot Flower King
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 2,377
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
"He [Bailey's lawyer] argued that she was not practising medicine online and she is presenting herself as a doctor in a personal capacity."

So, is that like playing one on TV?
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 05:28 AM   #68
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Havent read it.


What y'all think of it?


https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1421753825




Recent data analysis shows the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80. For younger adults and children, there’s no benefit, only risk
All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of dying after receiving a COVID jab than an unvaccinated person is at risk of dying from COVID-19
For those under 18, the COVID jab increases their risk of dying from COVID-19. They’re also 51 times more likely to die from the jab than they are to die from COVID if not vaccinated
Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection become about even. In the 60 to 69 age group, the shot will kill one person for every person it saves from dying of COVID, so it’s a tossup as to whether it might be worth it for any given person
Data suggest U.S. deaths reported to VAERS are underreported by a factor of 20
Why would any thinking person pay any attention to the demonstrated crank Mercola?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 05:31 AM   #69
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King View Post
"He [Bailey's lawyer] argued that she was not practising medicine online and she is presenting herself as a doctor in a personal capacity."

So, is that like playing one on TV?
Nope. Bailey is a nutjob pure and simple. Luring in the gullible just generates money.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 06:12 AM   #70
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,771
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Havent read it.


What y'all think of it?
Bubba, you still haven't answered my question.

Are you linking to mercola as a serious source?

Come on, it's a very simple question.
Yes or no, Bubba: are you saying mercola is a serious source?

I didn't read your latest mercolaspam either.
All of the previous recent ones have been disproven in literally seconds of searching, so I see no reason to read any more from the same source.

How about you read it and say, in your own words, what you think of it?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 06:15 AM   #71
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,771
Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King View Post
"He [Bailey's lawyer] argued that she was not practising medicine online and she is presenting herself as a doctor in a personal capacity."

So, is that like playing one on TV?
I pointed this out the first time Petra started spamming Bailey's nonsense.
Petra's reaction was to double down on Bailey's nonsense, on the grounds that, if the entire New Zealand medical establishment said she was wrong, she must be right, and, if she wasn't actually a doctor, then her medical opinion must be more valid than those of actual doctors.

No, I don't understand that either. One of the many reasons I'm not engaging with Petra any more.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 06:22 AM   #72
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,220
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Just look at Bubba. He was totally unaware that Samantha Bailey is not even a certified doctor. Bubba merely swallowed the crap he was fed.

Now that the facts of the matter are pointed out, he doubles down for reasons unexplained.
Reasons explained: a desperate and unreasonable need to feel superior to persons who actually know what they are talking about.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 06:28 AM   #73
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25,564
https://twitter.com/klharlow/status/..._EAQUIavWHI-qg

Quote:
Just a super normal grassroots movement of definitely real truckers who just want to get back to normal.

🧐
Example for the #FreedomConvoy hashtag

FMunNz1X0AEdRgL.jpg

Lots of antivax activity stopped for 30 hours when Russia restricted access to social media

The thread is worth a read.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 07:31 AM   #74
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 4,907
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Lots of antivax activity stopped for 30 hours when Russia restricted access to social media
This has not been a well-kept secret. Most of the really stupid and destructive disinfo, not just nonsense about covid, comes from Russian bots. Then the crackpots and idiots spread it.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 07:33 AM   #75
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25,564
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
This has not been a well-kept secret. Most of the really stupid and destructive disinfo, not just nonsense about covid, comes from Russian bots. Then the crackpots and idiots spread it.
True, but that graph is *striking*
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 07:48 AM   #76
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 4,907
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
True, but that graph is *striking*
Yes it is. It's confirmation of Russian disinfo for any who doubted it.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 09:38 AM   #77
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25,564
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Yes it is. It's confirmation of Russian disinfo for any who doubted it.
It looks like problem with the source analysis, as I have just used hoaxy to search for "Ukraine" with a similar pattern


https://hoaxy.osome.iu.edu/#query=uk...=Twitter&lang=

Hoaxy normally doesn't have that type of timeline
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 10:44 AM   #78
sarge
Philosopher
Moderator
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 8,123
Mod WarningIve split 72 posts to AAH as they were OT/rule 0/12 or rule 11 breaches. Now I’ll go thru them and decide which merit infractions. That’s a lot of work, so please stick to the topic and attack the arguments and not the poster. Please
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:sarge
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 11:53 AM   #79
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by Petra View Post
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/dise...em/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?
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.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2022, 12:04 PM   #80
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by Petra View Post

--- in one instance aggressive drug trials were responsible (Solidarity in Europe and Recovery in the UK)
https://www.francesoir.fr/politique-...cts-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/stat...14347762671628
http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~martin/
I have asked you before. what is an aggressive drug trial? What is the definition of aggression for a drug trial? Given that these included control arms where patients received no treatment for the virus we would know if any of the drugs trialed significantly increased or decreased mortality.

Martin Neil is an engineer with little understanding of epidemiology or infections. One problem is that he fails to understand why non covid deaths should be lower in the vaccinated. This paper has been shown to based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the statistics.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.