Home › Forums › Discussion Forum › Conspiracy Theorists, Why is Westminster Lifting All COVID Restrictions? › Reply To: Conspiracy Theorists, Why is Westminster Lifting All COVID Restrictions?
You haven’t seen the majority of the data, nor the argument and aren’t fit to comment, hence the innadequecy of your critique and the bizarre nature of your line of attack as though you had the full context of the argument from a few minutes.
You say “It takes no account of the context, the serious and rapidly spreading pandemic, as if the only danger to be considered was vaccination.“
Several studies proving the efficacy of a number of treatments, as attested to by the WHO’s own work in India using Doxycycline and Ivermectin: https://www.who.int/india/news/feature-stories/detail/uttar-pradesh-going-the-last-mile-to-stop-covid-19
Within five weeks of this WHO trial, cases dropped to just 22 in Uttar-Pradesh and nearly zero deaths despite 5% vaccination, compared to thirty thousand cases and two hundred deaths a day at the same time in Kerala, with 20% vaccinated.
Your argument serves to illustrate that those who prevented treatment until cases were acute and specifically denied access to treatments like Ivermectin, those people actually condemned almost everyone suffering with Covid19 to death. Those who run interference for these authorities are also complicit in my opinion.
You say: “it is notably frantic advocacy against covid-19 vaccination, interspersed with finger-pointing and accusations”
As though this were the only criteria discussed or of relevance. Masses of studies and surveys are quoted, all of which can obtained, showing that not only are the so called vaccines demonstrated definitively to be unsafe, they are more or less ineffective, because these so called vaccines are driving mutation and rapidly become worse than useless. McCullough shows how these vaccines are the only possible candidate for having created the dominance of the Delta Strain in the USA for example. The data is persuasive.
Presumably, you are arguing that having presided over such a disastrous policy, no attempt should be made to prosecute all of those responsible, against the advice of experienced scientists, epidemiologists and doctors around the world from day one. This advice was given and what came to pass was predicted from the begining. Best practice was ignored.
There are several doctors notable for the fact that they ignored unreasonable guidelines and continued with best practice throughout the so called emergency, and did not lose a single Covid patient or did not lose one once a method of treatment was available. Several studies including those by WHO have shown the effectiveness of Vitamin C, Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin and Doxycycline.
How does this fact not assume prevalence above all other facts in your narrative diatribe? Is it simply because health authorities and media (for their own reasons) are not only ignoring the community of doctors to have successfully treated large numbers of their patients without expensive and unsafe vaccines, but also ignoring the WHO who have also trialed these drugs and found them to be effective and so you must parrot their anti-science for them?
Does there come a point where automatic resistance to data you cannot integrate becomes part of the block on effective treatment for Covid patients and thus indirectly responsible for the deaths you claim to care about?
By the same token: the documented under reporting of VAERS hides the potential number of Covid Vaccine related deaths in the order of 1,700,000 at the present time, with several million more serious injuries in the USA alone.
If we can expect broadly the same scale of death and injury in the UK (I personally know of three serious Covid related injuries among close friends and family) then we must ask, did those who most loudly exhorted and shamed us into unnecessary ‘vaccinations’ – remember effective treatment was potentially available almost from the beginning – do those people share culpability for those injuries and deaths or are they merely innocents?
You say: “J, can you explain to me why the assertions you help promote gain insufficient approval to make headway among the scientific community at large?“
How would you know what is ‘at large’? Can you show me the figures for doctors who disagree with WHO sponsored treatments? Most of the argument has been censored for over a year and you continue to participate in the censorship. You have skin the game (your strong advocacy of the available Covid Vaccines) and are hardly an unbiased or reliable observer.
Can you make a reasonable estimate from your detailed and comprehensive researches, globally a) how many doctors are treating all or most of their Covid patients successfully without requiring hospitalisation without recourse to the so called vaccines? b) how many patients have been treated with the treatments mentioned above? c) how many patients have been treated only with so called vaccines? d) how many of categories b) and c) have gone on to become a Covid case, require hospitalisation, experience severe symptoms or death?
Do you even have accurate up to date data on percentage of the ‘vaccinated’ who die, are hospitalised or go on to contract Covid with severe symptoms? Do you have accurate up to date data on the percentage treated with the treatments mentioned above who die, are hospitalised or go on to contract Covid with severe symptoms?
Both are addressed in the film you ignored.
You say: “Is it because the scientific community is essentially a conspiracy, consisting of a bunch of socialists, or worse, commies?”
Is this kind of crap worthy of a response?
All your distractionary bluster aside, why do you think that your assessment of character is always the surest way to evaluate hard scientific data?
Why do you feel that you alone can assess a few minutes from a detailed and coherent argument, constructed from many separate but interdependent arguments across a wide area of study, data and clinical experience, and with perfect clairvoyance predict what the argument contains in all of it’s parts? Clearly you can’t. Your characterisation is not only factually wrong, but trite and cynical.
Your refusal to engage with more than a few minutes of contradictory argument suggests that you either do not understand the scientific method or you are happy to ignore science for some temporary ideological gain, even at the risk of continuing to advise people to take a seriously injurious course of action.
If that makes you happy, then you have my profound sympathy as well as my utter contempt.