- This topic has 127 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Clark, and you are using a double or triple ad hominem disqualification against me based on a superficial reading of a website that I have recommended a couple of times and that you assume my idea of truth is that website.
No comment on social science or on my two lengthy posts….
All very scientific. I’m hardly going to be cured of the conspiranoic virus that way!
Ewan2, you wrote:
– “The reason we are beholden to go to these scientific papers etc is because it is only comprehensible to a tiny part of the population, thus negating many from the discussion.”
I don’t often refer readers to scientific papers. What I have recommended, over and over again, is this:
- Go look at the graph of UK covid infections.
- Note the peaks in that graph.
- Go look at the graph of UK covid deaths.
- Note that peaks in covid deaths follow about two weeks after peaks in infection.
- Go look at graph of deaths-from-all-causes.
- Note that deaths-from-all-causes has peaks at the same time as covid deaths.
Now which part of that is beyond general comprehension? Which part of it is “science as belief” rather than a mode of enquiry? Care to retract your accusations?
Oscar, you have never clearly stated your views on the pandemic (apart from nudges such as that “those above are laughing. And the truth continues to be shipwrecked”), so I have had to infer it from the sources you recommend. Sorry if that seems insulting; it isn’t intended as such.
Conversely, I have no qualms about insulting Wikispooks and Cognitive Liberty Online. They’re pontificating outside their respective fields, namely the secret services and social science, and Cognitive Liberty Online seems hypocritical in that it resorts to arguments from authority so frequently.
You wrote:
– “If you have any other suggestions on what to do or what to read to navigate in these turbulent times I will be happy to read them.”
Just the same as ever – Ben Goldacre’s books. It’s not that Goldacre is an authority; he goes to considerable lengths to avoid preaching from authority. Bad Science in particular is a hoot; thoroughly enjoyable, and essentially a book about the ‘MSM’. Bad Pharma is by comparison dense, technical, and a lot drier, but that’s inevitable when you take on the pharmaceutical industry.
Oscar, sorry to have neglected social science. I know the field has documented bias, but it’s not something I’ve looked into much.
But documenting the roots of bias is one thing, whereas identifying specific biases is another. I’d expect an interdisciplinary approach to be necessary – I’m guessing that you’d need social scientists working with scientists in the field that is being examined for biases.
I find Goldacre quite social-science aware – but then I haven’t studied social science (nor anything else much, come to that). But my favourite of his chapter titles is “Pill Solves Complex Social Problem – or – Will Fish Oil Pills Make My Child a Genius?”, and he frequently points out the medicalisation of social problems.
Agreed. I already got the Spanish translation of Bad Science when you recommended it a few weeks ago. I’ll look for the other one now. Thank you.
I don’t have a static view on the pandemic, because it’s a research process for me. What I can say is that “those at the top” exist and are a proven sociological fact (given enough authors from different perspectives).
I can also affirm that “those at the top”, at the very least, have instrumentalised the pandemic to their ends and at least a group of “them” are directly involved in the origin of it all.
I am working on it, as I say. And in a year or so I hope to be able to publish my unquestionable findings (because of the solid evidence to back them up).
However, as I said, other people have tried this before, and have been fodder for defamation.
Every age has its heretics. We should not be surprised.
I for one have to give up these debates here. They take up more of my time and energy than they give me, and it’s not worth it to me to continue here. (Besides, Clark, I need to try out a new Linux distro ;))
I hope that some author or work or website that I have mentioned over the last few days in these forums will be of use to someone.
I hope you are all in good health, in freedom and in the direction of truth (as an attitude towards life).
See you soon,
Oscar
Oscar:
– “What I can say is that “those at the top” exist and are a proven sociological fact”
I agree. However, they do come and go over time, yet the system persists, so I regard the system as more significant than the individuals; when individuals are somehow removed, the system promotes other suitable candidates to their positions.
– “I can also affirm that “those at the top”, at the very least, have instrumentalised the pandemic to their ends…
I agree, though in my structural understanding, whoever happened to be at the top would have done the same.
– …and at least a group of “them” are directly involved in the origin of it all.”
I haven’t yet seen evidence of this; the closest I have seen is that someone with experience of the pandemic very early in its course tipped off a group of major bankers and money managers, especially regarding covid’s very rapid speed of spread – I posted a comment about this somewhere on these forums, in response to a link, but I can’t remember where.
Of course, “those at the top” have monetary interests in many things and many connections to other powerful people, so being “directly involved in the origin of it all” could merely be coincidence. Given what I know of covid’s medical effects, only self-destructive people would deliberately release it.
I hope your book becomes available in English, and if so I hope I find time to read it.
Good wishes to you too, Oscar.
Dang, my mistake on the last page – apologies. I misread Ewan completely, and agreed with him by mistake. Ewan was – of course – talking complete nonsense, and I disagree with him 100%
This is the most recent compilation article I know of.
Diario16 – Unexplained increase in mortality
In case it is of interest to anyone. The original is in Spanish, forgive Google for its mistakes.
Cheers,
Oscar
Here is another one on anti-vaccine and denialists, both referenced and written by a physicist with expertise in molecular biomedicine.
Despite his studies, I don’t agree that you have to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on the subject, as Clark says. As I said in another post about real science, if you know about a subject and you know how to understand the literature on the subject and handle the sources, you can speak with propriety and rigour. So I don’t accept insults towards Wikispooks or my colleague Germann on the basis that they are not experts.
Also, if we accept the argument that only experts can “pontificating”… isn’t that an argument from authority? And following that criterion, why NOT LISTEN, SIMPLY LISTEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the inventor of the PCR test (he doesn’t look like an idiot), to one of the inventors of mRNA technology (he might know something, perhaps), to the discoverer of the HIV virus, and so many others?
We’d better brand them as crazy denialists and misinformers and ban them from the debate, because real science thrives on debate, and shut them down from social networks and so on. A good example of how sick society is. Yes, being crazy as Glenn called me, is definitely a compliment to me.
And yes, meanwhile, the elites are laughing (if you still see that as a conspiracy theory after having checked the authors I suggested in another post, I think the ones who have lost touch with reality are you).
And yes, the truth is still shipwrecked. The real drama is that with it, we are sinking as a civilisation (in another post I already gave the clues as to why “someone” would want to demolish what was already in freefall).
I haven’t said it, but in addition to being a psychologist, I have a master’s degree in Human Rights and Public Policy. And I am also an activist. This is not an argument of authority, I explain.
There I learned that often when we talk about human rights we do it in a self-interested way and only partially. It is something like… “I want this, I bring up the human rights argument”. We often forget the ultimate meaning of human rights and the achievement of human rights. To trivialise them, as has been done here in the case of cognitive liberty, is despicable.
In any case, my point is that it is the same with science. It is another fetish word that we use at convenience to support what we a priori already believe. And we often forget what it really is: a sincere search for truth following a particular method, albeit flexible according to the object of study.
So go ahead, use sacrosanct science to keep muddying the waters, and when you can’t, resort to purely emotional arguments and personal attack as you have done before. That defines you, not me.
The elites laugh and the truth continues to be shipwrecked.
“All normal and fine’, as my friend Turiel would say.
Here you have more than 2000 studies and/or scientific reports on the hypothetical harmfulness of “vaccines” (I don’t know about there, but in Spain the Real Academia de la Lengua had to modify the definition of “vaccine” to include what was being inoculated to the population).
The blog belongs to an acquaintance, so it goes without saying that I don’t share everything that is said there (I can already see you criticising me for what he says… killing the messenger!) Google refuses to give me other compilation sources and copying and pasting 2021 references here seemed excessive. Anyway, if you are serious you will focus on the studies, i.e. the picture, not the frame. Right?
Since scientific publishing is monopolised by a handful of for-profit companies, if you are asked to pay 40 quid to access an article, you can try Sci-Hub. The .is, .se and .st ccTLDs are currently online.
[Note that I am not including any illegal links and therefore this forum and website cannot be harmed].
I have taken the liberty of browsing through discussions you have had for over 4 years.
So I give up on this forum.
I came here because of Wikispooks censorship. As I said, I have learned that what is obvious to me after 15 years of complete dedication to researching certain issues – issues that you dismiss with disdain from ignorance – is not so obvious to others. Thank you.
I have also learned about Craig Murray, of whom I was unaware. And I like him. I have to admit that the existence of forums like these on personal pages of researchers and activists is rare. So thank you.
I will follow your work. But I will no longer participate in the forum.
I felt I had to make one last defence of Wikispooks and Chris Germann, with all the flaws they may have and have.
I also had to defend myself against personal attacks I have received here. Also, things have been put in my mouth that I have not said and things have been attributed to me that have little or nothing to do with me.
Having said that, I repeat that my only ultimate commitment is to the truth. If you can say the same, I wish you all the best in your investigations.
In the meantime, time spent on all these comments and the work behind them, the wheel of history keeps turning and killing people. Ignorance kills.
The elites are still laughing as they prepare and people debate their sociologically documented existence.
And the truth is still shipwrecked.
Oscar:
– “I don’t agree that you have to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on the subject, as Clark says.”
This is untrue. How often do I have to state and demonstrate my actual position, eg. Sep 24, 13:08, comment #88798 above, that I reason from evidence rather than quoting people with supposed authority, before your statements to the contrary become a lie?
You then go on to present arguments from authority, doing precisely that which you falsely accuse me of, eg. “the inventor of the PCR test (he doesn’t look like an idiot), to one of the inventors of mRNA technology (he might know something, perhaps), to the discoverer of the HIV virus…”. These are arguments about what supposedly authoritative people have said; arguments from authority, not evidence.
But dominating your comments is pure conspiracism, “the powerful are very powerful therefore the argument I present must be true”.
Diario16 was a Spanish tabloid ‘news’paper, but according to Wikipedia it closed in 2001.
Diario16 gives every impression of being ‘MSM’ ie. corporate media, in that it presents a great deal of advertising and pulls in JavaScript from the usual immense list of commercial parasites*.
The Diario16 articles linked by Oscar are sensationalist anti-(covid)-vaxx polemics, misusing genuine scientific articles, distortions of official figures, and quotes from the handful of usual suspects, eg. a foundation consisting of Steve Kirsch (personal fortune estimated at $230 million*), Robert Malone and Peter McCullough.
______
* Conspiracy theorists constantly warn us about the ‘MSM’ and “the Elite”, yet frequently cite the corporate media, and quote as authorities the immensely rich such as Kirsch and buyers-and-sellers of companies such as Yeadon.Oscar, if you can resist whining about being victimised for a few minutes, I’d like you to answer me this.
Why should I listen to the “inventor of the PCR test” saying that its test results are misleading when evidence shows that it works? Why should I listen to claims that are provably wrong?
It’s a simple question; please try to answer without banging on about secret plots by the powerful.
The Moon is made of green cheese. It must be because the MSM controlled by the Elite say it isn’t, except when they say that it is. But don’t ask NASA, ESA or Roscosmos because they’re all controlled by the Elite; don’t look in a scientific journal for the same reason! No, look in Diario16, or you’ll be one of the sheeple who trust the MSM!
Clear as mud.
Oscar:
– “I don’t agree that you have to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on the subject, as Clark says.”
I may have misinterpreted this sentence. It is possible that you meant:
– “I agree with Clark that you don’t need to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on a subject”
in which case I apologise for my misinterpretation.
“Here you have more than 2000 studies and/or scientific reports………..”
Oscar, I hope you have read through each and every one!
I have skimmed through some of them. This one , near the end, caught my eye.
Myocarditis after Covid-19 Vaccination in a Large Health Care Organization
This is perhaps the largest study to date and the reason it caught my eye is because the UK.gov cites the very same study in it’s review of ” Information for healthcare professionals on myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination” Updated 21 March 2022Similar for:
Information for healthcare professionals on blood clotting following COVID-19 vaccinationThey are doing a very poor job of hiding the truth they don’t want you to know. Those damn elites are so confident of their covid vaccines cover up they even make the data public. What bastards!
The incidence of myocarditis is about 2 per 100,000 post vaccination against a population wide incidence of between 30 and 35 per 100,000 (in UK). ALL treatment options have side effects, some serious some not so serious. Even doing nothing as an option can have side effects.
Hey Oscar, instead of repeatedly telling us that you have been researching the “truth” for years, imploring us to “listen” to people whose views we have repeatedly addressed in multiple covid threads, why don’t you summarise your argument, give us some publicly available figures that back up your premise so that we can appraise. Otherwise, please keep the promise you have repeatedly made in multiple posts and just quit posting, wasting everyone’s time.
Oscar, I’m not going to read through 2000 plus individual studies to make your argument for you. I very much doubt you have read through them either. (they are mostly case reports and smaller studies). If you avtually have an argument the make it, it goes something like this:
“I think the covid vaccines are the cause of the excess deaths because of this, this and this” and give a brief explanation and summary of your sources. You say you are a psychologist and have a masters degree in Human Rights and Public Policy. I am assuming that you didn’t get through either of those courses without learning some competency in presenting an argument. Please use what you learned.
- Regarding the issue of national and/or transnational elites: your reactions to my references to the subject have only shown your ignorance and what is really worrying, your reluctance to learn anything about something crucial to understanding the world. I talk about social psychology and the sociology of power, and you talk about conspiracies… You’re on your own.
- As for the hypothetical causal relationship between COVID vaccines and serious and/or fatal adverse effects that are not well documented, I sincerely hope I am wrong in my suspicion. I have no personal or financial interest in being right in my suspicions. I also hope that if confirmed, your egos will allow you to react appropriately as citizens, subjects of rights and duties. Although, given the history of mankind, nothing makes me think so flatteringly.
- If you want these forums to retain the vitality and freshness of a true forum for debate and not become a nest of single-mindedness and sectarianism… well, I came here in good spirits and have been bitten and personally attacked when you ran out of arguments. Again, you will see what you do.
Goodbye!
In fact you are conspiracy theorists to the extent that everything that is not cool you lump into conspiracy theory and dedicate yourselves to debunking it – even whole branches of psychology and sociology! Conspirativism could not survive without defenders and detractors. So you are encouraging that kind of thinking.
One wonders if all of us here share the same purpose. In one reply I said that there were professional disinformers (I know that even if it is true you will think in conspiracist terms). When one looks at your replies one cannot help but be struck by doubts.
I hope Mr Murray knows what is really going on in the forums, the identities of those who participate and moderate and their real motivations.
Just for the record, I did not intend for you to analyse all 2021 articles. But you have asked for scientific papers and I have given them to you. And you don’t seem to have liked it.
And as usual you resort to attacks on the media or on me. You use conspiratorial arguments to discredit well-established facts in the social sciences. And in the process evade what you have asked for and what I have sent you.
While there are people who suffer professional and even personal ostracism for seeking the hard and fast facts, and one comes across people like you. Sometimes one ends up feeling uneasy and wondering if in the end we won’t get exactly what we deserve…
I’m glad I didn’t give my real name here. I wish GDPR applied here….
By the way Clark, how about not interpreting articles giving false information and let people think for themselves?
Oscar, the topic of this forum is:
Concerns about the contents of the covid vaccines
It is not:
Concerns about national and/or transnational elites
and quite honestly, the only connection you have made between the two is suspicion, as in: “there exist national and transnational elites, therefore the covid vaccines are probably the cause in the current rise in excess deaths”. But you could make a similar argument about anything, as in: “there exist national and transnational elites, which is why the vast majority of toothpastes are mint flavoured”.
You have never really put your cards on the table; I strongly suspect that you are promoting the “UN Agenda 21 Depopulation plot”.
The word “theory” is used in two different ways. In common language it is used to mean “unproven assertion”, but in academic contexts it means “framework for understanding”. As a social scientist you should understand that this ambiguity is exploited by pressure groups, who will say “oh that’s merely a theory”, for instance religious creationists claim that “evolution is merely a theory”. But gravitation is a theory, yet no one expects their teapot to just float away sometimes; they expect it to accelerate downwards at around 9.8m/s/s if they drop it.
I have been writing “conspirology” to mean “conspiracy theory”, using “theory” in the academic sense of meaning “framework for understanding”. Conspiracy theorists resort to conspiracy as their primary method for attempting to understand things. You just demonstrated this above, when you wrote:
– “One wonders if all of us here share the same purpose. In one reply I said that there were professional disinformers (I know that even if it is true you will think in conspiracist terms). When one looks at your replies one cannot help but be struck by doubts. […] I hope Mr Murray knows what is really going on in the forums, the identities of those who participate and moderate and their real motivations.”
To answer you, yes, Craig knows me quite well, we usually meet a few times each year and have spent considerable time together. I moderated here for a long time. I have met and spoken to some of the moderators, whom Craig knows personally too.
So your framework for thought misled you. This is probably also why you ignore questions, such as mine at 14:47, comment #88856 above:
– “Why should I listen to the “inventor of the PCR test” saying that its test results are misleading when evidence shows that it works? Why should I listen to claims that are provably wrong?”
So instead of assuming that anyone who challenges your position might be a “professional disinformer”, as you put it, try assuming they’re your equal, and attempt to answer their questions 🙂
Congratulations. You did it.
I hope you can look your children in the face when you realise the immensity of your mistake.
Although “hopefully” you will end up being happy fools as Aldous Huxley predicted in New Brave World.
You are the naysayers. And the worst thing is that your attitude discourages those of us who seek the truth in this crazy world.
I would like to see your contribution: “not that, not that, not that”; and along the way you leave a trail of people who throw in the towel because of the accumulation of people like you.
Congratulations. I hope it doesn’t happen to you like Tolstoy’s Ivan Illich.
See you never.
If you had read me properly, you would have seen that I was pointing out a contradiction in your argument from authority. I said:
“Also, if we accept the argument that only experts can “pontificating”… isn’t that an argument from authority? And following that criterion, why NOT LISTEN, SIMPLY LISTEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the inventor of the PCR (…)”
I wanted to point out your contradictions.
And I could have pointed out glaring errors in your arguments and assertions from the beginning but I didn’t mean to rubbish anyone or provoke bad reactions.
But you haven’t read anything. And you do what I said you would do a few posts ago: put things in my mouth, distort my words and muddy the field.
You should have seen where I posted when I first came here….
Unlike you, I don’t enjoy personal attacks or getting on each other’s nerves.
In a cult forum, I am a loser no matter what I contribute, not even 2000 articles, I am answered ad hominem. Stay in your sect.
To the moderator: I wish you to delete ALL my posts, I want nothing to do with this place. If you meet my demands I will use legal means. Thank you.
Oscar – just a bit of kindly advice.
If you stomp your foot, give an angry “I’m outta here” speech and flounce off, it makes you look a bit silly to come back to say “And another thing!” a few more times before flouncing off again. And then repeating that sorry show yet again.
Just saying.
If you’ve got a case you feel up to making, make it. Otherwise, at least have the grace to bugger off while retaining some dignity.
What exactly was it that Kary B. Mullis said that is relevant to “concerns about the content of covid vaccines?”
I want the exact quote, printed out in a post that has got you so concerned. Don’t link me to somewhere else to read it, I expect YOU to quote it and explain what you infer from that quote and why.Oscar, have you even considered my reasons for regarding PCR as reliable? I have posted my reasoning repeatedly; before vaccination reduced covid’s death rate, PCR testing predicted the peaks in the general mortality curve. It doesn’t matter what anyone says about PCR; it obviously works reliably enough or it couldn’t do that. False positives can’t make people drop dead two weeks later.
And what basis do you have to assume the objectives of the “transnational elites”?
I don’t think you’re in any position to order the mods around, Oscar. Legally threatening them with really poor sentence structure too – “If you meet my demands I will use legal means”!! ??
But if you think you’ve made a comprehensive fool of yourself here (and who am I to disagree?) you could try asking them VERY politely.
Can’t think of any reason why they should, though. This represents the work of more than one person, why should their demonstration of the takedown of a flighty conspiracy nut be denied to others, who might well appreciate the entertainment?
Clark, when have I ever said anything about PCRs except to cite Mullis as an example of a disgraced scientist? See what I mean?
It would be nice if an outside observer could see this whole show… and how I started, how my words were misrepresented and how I was said to have said what I had not said… and so much for that. I would look like a person with thin skin, but you would look like thugs without arguments and provocateurs… not to say ignorant and sectarian, who neither read my arguments nor the sources I provide. And you scoff at the harsh reality.
Oscar – Your (no doubt very high powered) lawyers would probably advise you that your demands for your posts to be deleted are somewhat weakened if you continue posting. Jeez!
___
O:
“I hope you can look your children in the face when you realise the immensity of your mistake.“
Ok, so now we’re getting somewhere. You assert a conclusion, your own great knowledge of it, and the collective culpability of anyone doubting your momentous conclusions.
Somehow, medical statisticians have all failed to uncover the plot. All governments, worldwide, all coroners, and so on and so on. Or they’re in on the plot – ALL of them – and covering it up. Everyone except you and a handful of sensationalist attention seekers on YouTube. Typical conspiracy theory BS in other words.
But we’re the guilty ones for not immediately jumping to your conclusions.
No offence, but you’re a lot more silly than you think.
You are a pain in the ass, I have said nothing about PCRs or Mullis except indirectly that I cited him along with Malone and Montagnier as top scientists who had fallen very low. Can you read?
But what a plot Glenn! I have done wrong by talking about sociology of power in this thread, NOT ANYTHING ELSE!!! What plot? What conspiracy? I haven’t even established any causality between vaccines and problems, I’ve only criticised it being dismissed a priori, like other things in relation to the pandemic. NOTHING ELSE!!!
The one who can’t read is you, dear. ignorance or bad faith?
Oskar, given your last few posts, I confess that I haven’t a clue what you were trying to argue. What the hell do these few contrarian scientists you kept drawing our attention to have to do with transnational elites? Were you arguing that elites were trying to silence these scientists (but not doing a very good job of it), or just that the scientists had gone a bit wonky? If you weren’t arguing that elites are trying to trick us with a fake pandemic into killing ourselves with fake vaccines, then what is the supposed significance of this handful of contrarians? I’m genuinely mystified.
*** MODS *** since Oskar claims not to have been arguing anything he seemed to be arguing, I suggest you break all his links to anti-vax material; they reflect badly on Craig’s site and might cause down-ranking on search engines, social media, factuality ratings etc.
- The topic ‘Concerns about the contents of the covid vaccines’ is closed to new replies.