Anti-vaxxer playbook

Latest News Forums Discussion Forum Anti-vaxxer playbook

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 51 through 75 (of 115 total)
  • Author
  • #66204 Reply

      “It was a very interesting speech by Dr Simone Gold, but immediately illegally deleted by Corporate U-tube.”

      I disagree and immediately understood it was a political not scientific presentation when she refers to not calling it wuhan virus and references naming 1918 flu pandemic Spanish flu as an argument. The 1918 flu didn’t originate in Spain. And who the hell cares what it’s named.

      ” Illegal because they are meant to be a platform/notice board not a publisher”

      That maybe what you want them to be. Google is an advertising company, your attention is the product they sell to advertisers. They can do what they want in regards to what they will and will not post. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you were you to say it shouldn’t be like that but ( a whole other discussion), for now, that is the situation.

      “there was nothing in the speech that merited deletion”

      Their guidelines are available to read.

      #66216 Reply

        “It was a very interesting speech by Dr Simone Gold, but immediately illegally deleted by Corporate U-tube.”

        Maybe they were under pressure and it showed up on their manometer (geek joke).

        #66217 Reply

          They, sorry I meant them, whoever them are! Who owns the company, or is that immaterial? Dr Gold highlighted how Lancet (very important scientific literature) carried a fake report, later removed, about an hydroxychloroquine effective therapeutic. Why would them do that?

          #66218 Reply

            The Lancet deservedly got much criticism for that nonsense. They did however withdraw the article when made to see what had happened. Still doesn’t prove there is a world wide cabal of black turtle neck sweatered Dr.No’s stroking white fluffy cats calling the shots. In fact rather the opposite, peer review and scrutiny works.

            #66219 Reply

              Google owns YouTube.

              As best I remember, the Lancet published a paper by a drug company that was marketing a treatment for covid, purporting to show that a competing compound, hydroxychloroquine, is ineffective and dangerous. Many scientists wrote in complaining of lack of transparency in the sources of the data in that paper. Authors of the paper started to remove their names from it, and the Lancet retracted it, complaining of corporate interference with science.

              That’s why scientific claims should be published in scientific journals like the Lancet. The scientific process of publication, scientific scrutiny, challenge and if necessary retraction worked; a false claim was prevented from proliferating, and the company’s reputation was tarnished.

              #66220 Reply

                Scientists are actually busy doing science (and the bureaucracy that surrounds it), especially medical / epidemiological etc. scientists at this time of crisis – contrary to the impression given by conspiracy theory, they don’t just sit around for decades waiting for Mr Big to walk in one day and demand “create me a false pandemic”.

                It would be entirely impractical for the scientific community to examine every claim on every blog and YouTube channel. The places that attract a lot of appropriate critical expert scrutiny are the appropriate scientific journals for each field, so those are the places to publish serious scientific claims.

                #66229 Reply

                  A ET

                  “In fact rather the opposite, peer review and scrutiny works”.

                  Corrections are made, but timing is vital, when dealing with political science. The fake report, as Dr Gold made clear, halted moves to use effective therapeutics, that would have halted the virus terrorism and excuse for mass medication of experimental drugs.

                  #66235 Reply

                    But Dave, it doesn’t matter what Dr. Gold points out. She “points out” her findings to people who are not equipped to understand the flaws in her analysis – like yourself, for instance.

                    She does not want to subject herself to questioning by people who do understand and will ask the right questions, that’s why she steers away from the proper channels for such things.

                    Clark has explained this to you again and again. Why are you so keen to not understand this particularly inconvenient, basic, obvious fact?

                    #66244 Reply

                      Timing? A company make complete fools of themselves by publishing in the world’s foremost medical science journal, thus drawing criticism from a host of scientific professionals, provoking disownership by major authors of the study, retraction by the journal and incandescent criticism from the editor – the scientific equivalent of a major firework display – and thereby draw worldwide attention to the generic alternative to their fancy expensive drug, resulting in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of said generic, and you’re complaining about timing, Dave?

                      Do I hear the bottom of a barrel being scraped?

                      #66249 Reply

                        Dave, there are so many areas where Big Pharma can be legitimately criticised. I don’t think anyone here is a fan of Big Pharma. Opaque lobbying, revolving doors between regulatory agencies and big pharma, non-disclosure of trial data, price fixing, price gouging, ghost writing, funding patient action groups to advocate for expensive but not effective drugs to be made available on NHS and many other tactics.
                        It’s a money making business. Boards and top management are not directly accountable. Legislation and trade agreements almost mandate that making profit for investors is their over arching duty. Those are the things that need addressing. The duty of candour within the NHS is not that long a thing. Prior to that, lawyers advised against disclosure of information that might look bad for an NHS Trust in litigation and it was their duty to do so. These are tangiable things that can be addressed.

                        #66268 Reply

                          The other big pharma, a thirty billion dollar enterprise is the vitamin industry which produces completely unregulated products like vitamins and supplements of dubious benefit except in selective cases and which constantly make false claims. Yet the covid deniers criticise big pharma but not realise this other big moment spinner which they often support.

                          #66271 Reply

                            The basic misunderstanding in this discussion is that what is going on is a political rather than a scientific opinion that is being discussed. Science is based on facts and their verification. Untrained individuals have a limited capacity to interpret or to challenge scientific findings. What can be questioned is the political decisions based on the science and this is a different matter altogether.
                            I am not saying that science is fixed or infallible as new findings can change what was previously thought to be true, but the process has to be verified and scrutinised by those competent to do so.

                            #66276 Reply

                              “The fake report, as Dr Gold made clear, halted moves to use effective therapeutics”

                              I gave a link above Dave which listed various trials and even tabulated the results for you. The majority showed no difference in outcome using HCQ, some showed some better results and some worse. It hasn’t been proven to be effective in treating those with covid.

                              #66280 Reply

                                @ SA

                                “Yet the covid deniers criticise big pharma but not realise this other big moment spinner which they often support”.

                                I’m not an advocate of supplements, as opposed healthy or even unhealthy eating, as eating provides all the nutrients you need, unless there are reasons you can’t eat, as any excess supplements will just be expelled from the body. So its another straw man, as the only supplement I’ve mentioned is Vitamin D.

                                I’ve mentioned this after becoming aware its vital to the immune system, but is created in the body from exposure to sunshine, which being absent in winter is the reason why many people suffer Vitamin D deficiency in winter. And this deficiency is found in identifiable at risk groups, elderly during winter due to lack of sunshine, fat people as the Vitamin D is under utilised when trapped in fat, and darker skinned people need greater exposure to sunshine to create their Vitamin D.

                                So not advocating a supplement lifestyle just pointing out distributing Vitamin D (or just advice) to people during the winter months (and promoting therapeutics) would have been far more proportionate and effective than destroying health and economy of the country.

                                #66282 Reply

                                  But why re-invent the wheel? This is already being done and did not escape the eyes of the authorities. Next.

                                  #66284 Reply

                                    Dave, that is fair comment and a fair appraisal of Vit-D. There are some dietary sources too, oily fish and eggs. I agree that advice to take supplements is reasonable and I think that that has been the advice before 2020 for a number of years. I don’t agree that it would have been far more effective in reducing cases numbers than lockdowns. You can still go outside and get sun.
                                    Also, other countries where the lack of winter sun isn’t an issue also had significant excess deaths.

                                    For what it’s worth I came across a site dedicated to debunking covid myths. It’s been up since Jan 19.

                                    “dedicated to debunking common Covid Sceptic arguments, and highlighting the track record of some of the most influential and consistently-wrong Covid Sceptics. We mostly focus on UK-based people, since most of this site’s creators are UK-based as well.”

                                    I haven’t read through it all yet but so far it seems to be considered and well thought out.

                                    #66340 Reply


                                      It started very wordy, as if to deceive with quantity over quality, and their very first ‘fact’ was doubtful, as it claimed sceptics say there is a 99.5% recovery rate, and then claiming if not suppressed the 0.5% would kill 300,000 people in UK. I thought the mortality rate was less than 0.1%

                                      But the latest covid-related (inflated) mortality rate is 0.15% (cumulative 100,000 out of 68m). So the figure is increasing, as a cumulative figure will, but far less than 0.5%. However as we know those most at risk are the frail elderly (including those left to die from neglect), they are claiming in effect 300,000 elderly frail would have died without the lockdown.

                                      As there was no question, or shouldn’t have been, of no care being provided, to give a figure of 300,000 frail elderly dying is made up, like the 500,000 figure provided on behalf of the drug cartels to get the ball rolling, albeit they were toying with 1m, but thought it lacked credibility!

                                      #66342 Reply

                                        You seem to have a problem with denominators. The denominator for 100,000 deaths is not the total population of 68 million UK residents but the UK, but the 3 millions who are positive for the virus, which makes it around 2.7% IFR. And that is the reason why the number of deaths keep rising and that and the proportion of positives is also rising more rapidly than the increase in UK population. In Fact according to your false positive PCR hypothesis, as the number of SARS-cov2 positives is overinflated then the IFR must be more than 50%! Have you though that one out?
                                        By the way thank you for this very valuable link.

                                        #66349 Reply

                                          Covid skeptic claim: “The Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) of COVID-19 is very low – 99.5% of people survive it. The entire world is drastically overreacting to what doesn’t kill the vast, vast majority.”

                                          Counter claim: “Let’s assume the “99.5% survival rate” number is correct (although it’s not – see point 5 below). This translates to an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of 0.5%. If we just didn’t suppress the virus, this would kill up to 300,000 people in a country the size of the UK”
                                          The hypothetical case being if everyone in the country were to become infected and 0.5% died. “this would kill up to 300,000 people in a country the size of the UK”

                                          “they are claiming in effect 300,000 elderly frail would have died without the lockdown.”

                                          No they are absolutely not making any claims as to age of people. What they are postulating, and it is very succint, is that if everyone of the UK population was infected then with an IFR of 0.5 % some 300,000 people OF ALL AGES would die.

                                          They do however point out very clearly that the IFR varies with age later in point 3.

                                          #66356 Reply

                                            [ Mod: ‘Onlooker’ posted via TOR, which is being abused by sockpuppets to evade moderation, so that reply has been suspended. ]

                                            Onlooker, there is no doubt that covid-19 is a very serious illness; that it has killed many tens of thousands of people in the UK and millions worldwide; that several times that figure suffer long term effects; that it spreads very fast due to being new and the population therefore having no acquired immunity to it; that social restrictions greatly slow its spread; that without social restrictions it would overwhelm any nation’s health service by a factor of around ten ie. treatment would be unavailable for about 90% of sufferers.

                                            So why are you manufacturing doubt?

                                            Doubt is our product,” Michaels quotes a cigarette executive as saying, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” Michaels argues that, for decades, cigarette manufacturers knew that their product was hazardous to people’s health, but hired mercenary scientists who “manufactured uncertainty by questioning every study, dissecting every method, and disputing every conclusion”. In doing so the tobacco industry waged a campaign that “successfully delayed regulation and victim compensation for decades”.

                                            #66359 Reply

                                              These are the figures for ONS for England and wales from 2010 to 2020. You can see that both the number of deaths and the crude mortality rate has been stable from 2010 till 2019 with a jump of over 100,000 in 2020 and an increase in crude mortality by 123 which is about 14%.


                                              N. Deaths

                                              Population x 1,000

                                              Crude mortality per 100,000













































                                              So in answer to your other questions, yes we do know how many people have tested positive for SARS cov-2, the statistics are widely available, we do know how many are in hospital with Covid-19, something like 37 thousands and the figures are published daily in the Guardian.
                                              It is one thing to say that you or they don’t know, and another to say that nobody knows. The statistics are there but if you start with false assumptions such as that the PCR has a high false positive rate, then the other concepts will be difficult to understand.

                                              #66361 Reply

                                                The above was directed at Onlooker but I see the post has been deleted.

                                                #66364 Reply

                                                  i’m glad to see so much pushback against the covid 19 deniers on this blog. they’ve almost taken over the comment threads on one blog i read regularly, despite yeoman efforts by the host. it’s exhausting.

                                                  #66371 Reply

                                                    “I’m glad to see so much pushback against the covid 19 deniers on this blog”. I think its Covid-20 now!

                                                    #66373 Reply

                                                      Surely Covid-21 with all the new strains around

                                                    Viewing 25 posts - 51 through 75 (of 115 total)
                                                    Reply To: Anti-vaxxer playbook
                                                    Your information: