Covid: pick a side

Home Forums Discussion Forum Covid: pick a side

  • This topic has 115 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 months ago by J.
Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 116 total)
  • Author
  • #73155 Reply
    josh R


    “Just for the sake of clarity josh R is presumably not J?”

    One moniker says “josh R” and one says “J”, that ought to be all the “clarity” you need, unless you’re working on some outlandish conspiracy theory.
    [‘rolling eyes’ emoji]

    Regarding “This report shows…”, I commented above how I don’t favour having some self appointed “Truth Nanny” tell me who or what I can consider or engage with.
    I don’t know a lot on the subject, but I imagine there’s a fact checker out there for whichever political or establishment bias you favour.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not someone on-the-line right now, being told that is:

    “an internet blogger who “describes himself as a “journalist in new media”.

    Whatever that may involve” & hosts conspiracy theories debunking firmly established & “fact checked” Skripal narratives”

    An alternative reading of the 4 points you cite could just as easily demolish their validity as reinforce it:


    “absence of moderation”

    I think many, on either side of a political conversation, have been “moderated” out of sight at some point, on pooTube, Twit or the virtual Face. Seeking an alternative does not necessarily infer a penchant for goose-stepping.

    I appreciate that it must be a difficult job to keep threads on some sites, such as this one, civil & navigable, but that unquestionably involves practicing some exclusion & bias.
    That might make sense on a privately run website more so than it does on a universally inclusive & self defined “Free Speech” website.

    “willingness to host hateful content is the unique selling point of the platform”

    Or maybe a “willingness to host all content” is their unique selling point?
    Haven’t gone to the home page to read their “about” page, but I doubt they list their “selling points” in such an inflammatory way.


    “dominated by content and producers….removed from other platforms”

    So if pooTube & the Face have determined something is ‘verboten’ then it must be?


    “Our research has identified 114 videos in support of proscribed terrorist groups” blah blah blah

    114 out of how many videos on their site?

    & I guess “proscribed” would be Hamas & Hezbollah, the Iranian army, let alone the plethora of environmental or domestic ‘terrorists’ being added to the list in increasing numbers.
    And “support” can be?…… well, anything you want really where a statement doesn’t include “they’re the Evil ones!!”

    Saying that, looks like I’m only a ‘hop, skip & a jump’ away from being part of a “proscribed terrorist” group myself:

    ooops! did I cite The Guardian !?! shouldn’t they be consigned to the dustbin for their bias, fake news & conspiracy theories? Let me link to the original & perhaps more ‘politisch korrekt’ source:

    oh, but then what about Greenwald-Biden Laptop?? it’s all sooooo confusing, guess I ought to check with ‘Nanny’, oh, but wait! what’s that grey stuff lurking between my ears? what could that possibly be there for??

    Could I possibly be capable of agreeing with someone on one subject but disagreeing with them on another? or…Must….I…Conform…..??….Must….I…..Inform…..On….Unconformers….???? Do….Not…Interact…Do…….Not……Interact…..
    (said in a Dalek voice) :-)))

    “no sentient human being should ever agree with any other on absolutely everything – if you do, one of you is not actually thinking.”
    — CM


    “…actively promotes conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

    & if you’re unaware, by now, of how those 2 accusations can be politically manipulated, then nothing I can say will be of much interest to you.
    Let alone the undeniable ‘fact’ that too many “mainstream press” sources, with all their “subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not”, are forever promoting more ‘palatable’ & ‘established’ bull sh!t.

    But at the end of the day, aside from my nit-picking & thinly veiled, dismissive contempt of your reasoning, I guess my ideological intransigence precludes our finding very much to agree on with regards to this subject (even where underlying ‘agreements’ may well exist).

    I’m starting to feel a bit old fashioned when the following ideological ‘pillar’ still appeals to me:

    “if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”
    — Noam Chomsky

    “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
    — Voltaire

    Incidentally, all these attacks on those whose opinions you deem despicable are, in the digital age, just a fruitless effort of sticking your thumb in the dyke.

    As an open access progression from the telephone & the telly, the internet is infinitely capable of circumventing authoritarian attempts at censorship & providing a space for everyone.

    The law is fully capable of prosecuting threats of violence, libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc. I don’t think just telling people to “shut up!” is a useful or sensible suggestion, otherwise the police would just do that – stand on the corner telling everyone to shut up & hitting them over the head with a billy club if they don’t…..hmmmmm, reminds me of some less seemly communities I’ve come across around the world….

    And ultimately, if you’re so happy to silence others, don’t be surprised if one day it is you being consigned to the ‘verboten’ dustbin.

    Good luck with the ‘fact checked’ contributions (SA +2….or 3?). It doesn’t go unnoticed & I can see a lot of time & effort goes into it, I’m sure someone appreciates it,,,, somewhere.

    #73168 Reply

    It really doesn’t matter whether it’s on YouTube, BitChute or Stormfront; the important point is that it’s not in the scientific literature.

    Why does this matter? Because the workings of vaccines are a highly technical subject, and therefore claims about them have to be scrutinised and discussed by people with appropriate technical background, knowledge and experience. For instance, you could go to Facebook to investigate whether you can replace a 2005 Citroen 17380 diesel injector pump with a 2003 Peugeot 17014 so long as you adjust the rail pressure up to match the Citroen engine’s greater compression ratio, but you’d get a much higher proportion of informed discussion on a forum frequented by diesel mechanics.

    When a supposedly scientific assertion isn’t in the scientific literature, you need to ask yourself why. It certainly isn’t because it’s being censored on YouTube. YouTube is not a gateway to The Lancet. More likely it’s that the assertion would last about as long as a snowball in hell.

    I find quite amusing the outrage surrounding a few doctors getting “censored” on Facebook etc. This has been happening to critics of Israel for nearly a decade. Private corporate websites never were suitable environments for political advocacy. Nor were they ever suitable for scientific discussion.

    #73169 Reply

    “One moniker says “josh R” and one says “J”, that ought to be all the “clarity” you need…”

    …and it would be, if sock puppetry wasn’t so prevalent among outlandish conspiracy theorists.

    #73171 Reply

    Further to points already raised, Matt Taibbi interviews Bret Weinstein:

    “Consider this bizarre fact. In Sept. 2020, Politifact “fact checked” the lab leak hypothesis and declared it a “pants on fire lie.” Politifact was forced to walk that conclusion back in May 2021. My flow chart had a lab leak at almost 90% as of April 2020. In June of 2021 Politifact “fact checked” the assertion (made on the DarkHorse Podcast by Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology) that “spike protein is cytotoxic.” They declared it false. How did they end up the arbiter of factual authority in this case? Shouldn’t the presumption be with Dr. Malone, and with DarkHorse?”

    But again, this is about moderation policy on large social media websites – the question isn’t whether Weinstein or anyone else should be “censored” by YouTube; Weinstein has his own website which YouTube cannot censor.

    The point is that YouTube makes money for (and from) Weinstein via advertising, but may stop doing so. Ceasing to derive income from media one produces is not the same as censorship. YouTube are not equipped to check Weinstein’s advice; in fact no one is, because the matters under discussion are not well understood yet. However, YouTube are making money by promoting Weinstein’s media, and if that media contains advice that turns out to be lethal, YouTube could rightly get sued for promoting it. YouTube doesn’t promote Weinstein out of altruism. YouTube is corporate media; its intended purpose is to make money by selling audiences to advertisers.

    #73172 Reply

    Capitalism convolutes everything. How am I to “pick a side” on a Möbius loop of communication for the wrong reasons?

    Peter Hammill – The Moebius Loop (song) – YouTube (3m 19s)

    #73177 Reply

    josh R
    Just to put context to why I made my comment on you and J. Just as you started commenting, J stopped. This may just be a coincidence of course but it also followed the fact that J had been issued a warning by the moderators as he resorted to attacking them, and sadly my experience is when this has happened in the past, sock puppetry ensues. Sorry if that has offended you.
    Because of the nature of the internet it is wise to choose sources of information and quotes and links. If you link something then I need to check that it comes from a trustworthy source. I know my personal checks and bias is how I determine trustworthiness, and it is a matter of personal experience ands preferences. I cannot check every link that is posted and then answer your queries in detail, that really is not the purpose of such a forum.

    In the case of BitChute, it is somewhat naïve in my view to think that they are arbiters of free speech and to believe this just on the basis that they take censored material from elsewhere. Bitchute also censor their contents and if you want to also see why it is a bad site, read their Trustpilot reviews. But there are other ways of judging: examine the contents for yourself and please link to me something from BitChute to disprove what I said. In the case of those posted by J, I could quickly determine that they are not trustworthy, again my personal judgement based on my personal knowledge and experience. By the way this is not me claiming any superiority of knowledge, just me filtering what information is useful to me and what is not.
    This question of reliability of any website is also not a fixed parameter. I can give you many examples of websites I used to visit frequently because of their reporting on some issues, that then were completely of views alien to me in others. I will not give specific examples.

    Not every opinion is equal and worthy of debate or consideration. There has to be some base of fact and methodology in order to analyse and inform oneself as to how the information can be useful. You quoted the Guardian in one of your links. Nothing wrong with that, the Guardian does some excellent reporting in some areas but very poor and biased in others. If I want to live in a self confirming echochamber, I could be very proscriptive in what I read, but I read even some conspiracy sites in order to keep tabs of what the current arguments are.

    #73184 Reply

    There’s also an issue here about format. Video and podcasts are essentially best suited to entertainment – in a broad sense that includes documentary films etc. Yes, you can get an overview of an issue from a documentary film, but to really study and discuss issues, you need written material with tabulated and graphed data; “printed” is out of date, but the material needs to be static so that you can consider it in your own time, checking and cross-referencing to other sources. You can study from video, eg. by making notes, pausing when a graph is displayed, and occasionally rewinding a few seconds to check if you really understood the last sentence, but it’s far from convenient.

    Unfortunately, video and podcast are well suited to promoting a particular case in a convincing way; the producer has default control of the viewer or listener’s attention, certain points can be emphasised and others glossed over or not raised at all.

    At the opposite end of the spectrum we have scientific papers, in which a format has been agreed upon and developed specifically to enhance comprehensibility and critical analysis. Overview, methods, results and discussion are all clearly separated, and all citations listed.

    #73189 Reply

    Here is a good synopsis of the data on myocarditis/pericarditis cases amongst vaccinees in the USA. There is comparitive data on those conditions happening mostly amongst vaccinated younger people and the effects of covid on the same group.

    #73214 Reply

    J, I have now followed your second Bitchute link from your original post. I was presented with a video titled “Gilad Atzmon discusses Israel: A Guinea Pig Nation” posted by “Chembuster – Global March against Chemtrails”, reposted from The Unz Review, well known for racism, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. The video’s notes link to a BeforeItsNews article titled “Operation Vaxx-All Deplorables: Codename; Satan’s Poker”. The comments beneath the linked video include:

    22grena – Israel is the Pied Piper. Anyone who believes Covid is a natural event and China had anything to do with it is very naive. Covid was born in Tel Aviv.

    – shlomo_shoahstein – It’s all Jewish lies.

    – Gnosticnihlist – Medical professionals are bought off. Big pharmaceutical and Rockefeller foundation money $$&. Good. Vaxx is working. Depopulation and sterilization is good.
    – – – – – – – –

    J, don’t such things make you cautious? They are red flags for conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism, yet you have linked them at this site without any kind of warning or disclaimer. This could be how I came to accuse you of anti-Semitism on the previous occasion you referred to but omitted linking to.

    Gilad Atzmon’s arguments should also provoke caution. He blurts out lots of Israeli vaccination, infection, hospitalisation and death statistics, but without any graphs against time that are essential for making any sense of them. Instead he goes on about Netanyahu’s election prospects.

    J, Atzmon’s arguments are clearly political. They are neither scientific nor medical. They are not epidemiological, virological nor immunological; such aspects as Atzmon includes are merely to further his political argument. Can you not tell politics from science?

    #73216 Reply

    J, do you not notice when you’re in a dodgy internet neighbourhood? Doesn’t it raise your suspicions and make you more wary?

    For your information, my experience of conspiracy theory is that nearly every claim is also available in a nearly identical anti-Semitic version, because the perpetually undefined “Them” of conspiracy theory acts as a stand-in or code for “Jews”. This is where anti-Semitism differs from most other prejudice – whereas most racism typically depicts non-whites as inferior, eg. stupid, immoral and incapable of social organisation, anti-Semitism depicts Jews as dangerously superior, socially organising (ie. manipulating) the entire world from behind the scenes – eg. cartoons depicting a hook-nosed puppet-master.

    My experience is that anti-Semites surreptitiously use conspiracy theory to promote mythologies which support their hateful ideology. There are multiple examples – the Moon landings were faked (by a Jew; they’re laughing at us), Sandy Hook was staged (by Mossad, like the IDF shoot Palestinian children), the cure for cancer is suppressed (because the Talmud prohibits all Jewish doctors from ever curing any Gentile) – and it is up to each of us to recognise such subterfuge and discredit it.

    #73221 Reply

    josh R

    “& I guess “proscribed” would be Hamas & Hezbollah, the Iranian army, let alone the plethora of environmental or domestic ‘terrorists’ being added to the list in increasing numbers.”

    No your guess is way off the mark. They specifically name extreme Nazi right wing groups:
    “Hope not Hate also documented videos hosted on BitChute supporting or produced by terrorists groups, including ISIS and the neo-Nazi groups National Action and Atomwaffen Division.”

    I guess you feel that for the sake of freedom of speech these recruitment videos should be widely aired.

    #73363 Reply

    The rate at which ‘conspiracy theory’ becomes well established fact has been dizzying lately, despite this, our esteemed gatekeepers feel nary a moment of cognitive dissonance.

    FDA adds warning about rare heart inflammation to Pfizer, Moderna Covid vaccines:
    “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday added a warning to patient and provider fact sheets for the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines to indicate a rare risk of heart inflammation. For each vaccine, the fact sheets were revised to include a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis after the second dose and with the onset of symptoms within a few days after receiving the shot.”

    #73369 Reply

    And I gave a link to all the USA data related to that/those conditon/s, see my last post. What’s your point J? It’s all clearly documented by the CDC. Where is the conspiracy?

    #73375 Reply

    There is a difference between rare unforeseen complications of vaccines and also other medicines, like the pericarditis with the Pfizer and Moderns vaccines and also the rare clotting disorder associated with the AZ and Johnson vaccines and all the anecdotal statements of many people dying of heart attacks that you posted. No attempts were made at denying these and they are now included as known rare complications of these vaccines as ET pointed out. But this does not translate to “thousands of people dying of side effects of vaccines” and the “the spike protein is toxic” in material you linked to. Interestingly the antivaxxer conspiracy theories are now the fear-mongering side, having accused everyone else of fear mongering about the virus. Now everyone who falls ill and who dies after vaccination (a large proportion of people in U.K. now) dies of vaccination whereas anyone who died of covid-19 dies with it. And this sleight of hand translates to vaccinations being the main cause of death now according to these CTs.

    #73407 Reply

    J, why would you rather people got heart damage from infection by SARS-CoV-2 than from a vaccine against it?

    Serious question J. It really doesn’t matter whether I’m on the side of evil or not; the question remains relevant.

    #73416 Reply

    SA, I expect that the spike protein itself is indeed harmful. That’s why pieces of it are excluded from the more traditional vaccines, and from the mRNA of the mRNA vaccines. I remember that early in the pandemic some researchers described SARS-CoV-2 as “booby trapped” for vaccine designers. Maybe this is why some vaccines occasionally cause blood clots whereas others occasionally cause heart inflammation – note that both conditions are very frequently caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself, so they could well be caused by part of the spike protein.

    I have heard that precisely which pieces of genetic material are included or excluded is “proprietary information” and withheld ie. concealed by the drug companies, though feel free to check me on that. But I believe that more transparency would help to prevent proliferation of conspiracy theories. Surely there should be a fully public discussion of every potential danger raised by every researcher. Such concealment seems reckless and highly unethical to me, as if each company is hoping that their competitors’ vaccines will prove less profitable through being less safe. It is entirely rational for suspicions to proliferate in such an atmosphere, especially given the drug companies’ decades long track record.

    #73419 Reply

    The spike protein coded for in both types of vaccine is designed to remain anchored to the cell wall with it’s antigenic bit presented to the outside. It isn’t meant to be released into the extracellular space. This is why people got excited by the research finding picograms of bits of spike protien free in blood post vaccination. 1 pico gram being one trillionth of a gram. Any forgign protein will caise some degree of immune response. Like a blood transfusion reaction. Apart from ABO there are scores of other proteins on red blood cells all of which could cause a transfusion reaction to varying degrees.

    #73435 Reply

    J, you opened this “discussion” over a week ago with very serious preemptive accusations against, presumably, any who would question your claims. Since then, you have evaded every single question I’ve asked you, you have dismissed my opinions as both negligible and harmful, accused all and sundry of bullying, gatekeeping and insensitivity to the cognitive dissonance that they rightly should be feeling.

    After making considerable effort to engage with you I have lost patience, so I hope that the moderators will tolerate my considerably milder counter-accusation that you seem like a couch potato habituated to mindlessly absorbing hours of sensationalist video, too lazy intellectually to actually search out and appraise evidence, but a raging zealot when promoting the nonsense you’ve indulged in.

    In other words, typical conspiracy theorists are really just alt-sheeple, psychologically projecting their own flaws upon the general population.

    But do please, please prove me wrong by engaging in proper, structured, back-and-forth discussion. Like stamping out covid, it’s never too late.

    #73437 Reply

    This article has the answer to many of your questions.

    “The new study, however, is the first to directly show that the spike proteins themselves are able to cause harm, and also confirms that COVID-19 is primarily a vascular disease that damages blood vessel walls.”

    So this study shows neatly that the spike protein is toxic in the conformation it is made mimicking that found in the virus, but without being able to replicate. It also shows what has been suspected, that Covid-19 is a vascular multisystem disease and not limited to the lungs.

    ” The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines produce the full-length spike protein. Pfizer studied several formulations initially, but found that the full length protein vaccine had fewer side effects and was better tolerated than other vaccine candidates, so that is the one they went with.”

    So that answers your other question about what bit of the spike RNA is used, it is the whole length.

    And why therefore is the spike virus protein toxic but not the vaccine generated protein: the answer appears to be that again the conformation of the protein produced by the vaccine is antigenic and and therefore produces antibodies, but is not able to interact with the ACE receptor as that of the virus can and therefore affect the target cells. I also read somewhere else that the amount of free spike protein that is detected in the circulation is tiny and unlikely to cause widespread damage.

    “After the Pfizer vaccine full spike proteins are expressed on the vaccinated cells for presentation to the immune system. But the vaccine-induced proteins do not appear to cause any harmful effects. This may be because the vaccine is administered in the muscle, and so muscle cells are the ones taking up the mRNA and making spike proteins. There is a vigorous immune response which neutralizes the spike proteins before they can cause any harm. This is very different from a virus replicating throughout the body.”

    #73444 Reply

    SA, thanks for the link.

    #73447 Reply

    WHO apparently believes that sending your child to school is automatic consent for them to be injected with a dangerous chemical and biological coctail with unknown long term effects. I imagine some of those here are intensely relaxed about theirs and others children being the guinea pigs of oligarchs. The sickness in our society isn’t any virus.

    “3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.”

    Doctors, Parents Sue HHS Over COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization in Children Under 16

    “We’ve never seen this level of side effects for any vaccine without the FDA taking action,” Dr. Angelina Farella, pediatric medical director for America’s Frontline Doctors, said in a statement. “The Rotavirus vaccine was pulled for 15 cases of non-lethal side effects and the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled for 25 deaths. But now, by the CDC’s own data, we are seeing a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines and they’re still talking about giving this to our kids… According to the CDC’s own medical and scientific data, in the last four months, more than 4,000 deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations were reported, as opposed to 1,500 total deaths in the previous ten years for all vaccines, the statement pointed out.

    Dr. Farella said that children are at statistically zero risk for COVID-19. The data shows that the survivability rate for COVID-19 patients under the age of 20 is 99.997 percent.”

    #73450 Reply

    Your last post is a very good illustration of why some people relish being conspiracy theorists in order to trick others that they are the underdog with the truth feared by the establishment. This is an amazing piece of cherry-picking. So let us see:

    ” WHO apparently believes that sending your child to school is automatic consent for them to be injected with a dangerous chemical and biological coctail with unknown long term effects.”

    You then link to an 8 page WHO document

    Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old.

    This document discusses how consent should be obtained for vaccination of children and how in practice this is done. It then recommends what ideally should happen and encourages that informed consent procedures should be made to comply with local and international human rights law. Your giveaway here is ‘apparently’ – a word well-known to be used to give a skewed interpretation to what is actually being said. If you search ‘automatic consent in that document, there are no returns. So that document never mentions automatic consent.

    By sleight of hand you then quote a passage from the document that you highlight, but then you omit the rest of the paragraph

    “Implied consent procedures are common practice in many countries. However, when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination. Comprehensive data on whether the approach countries use to deal with consent has changed or evolved over the last decades is not available.”

    So what does the WHO actually rather than apparently recommend? Please answer truthfully.

    The document even addresses the question of consent in mandatory vaccination on p4.

    Mandatory vaccination does not always overrule the need for consent

    On p8 the document concludes by outlining country responsibility and there is no “apparently” there. In fact this is an excellent document from which you cherry-picked one sentence to illustrate how awful the WHO is, but this is an extremely well-researched and excellent document that outlines how international standards should be developed in such a complex and sensitive issue.

    J, I am afraid you shot yourself in the foot. After you answer, I shall look at your other link, meanwhile I will go and do something more useful.

    #73452 Reply

    The nice thing is that your allegation is a copy and paste job taken from SOTT and here is the evidence.

    Totally debunked here:

    I found all this after I wrote my answer to you.

    The beauty of this discovery J is that I have here uncovered your sources for supposedly reliable information, even down to your highlighted sentence above.

    #73477 Reply

    J, you have cited a quote:

    …by the CDC’s own data, we are seeing a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines and they’re still talking about giving this to our kids… According to the CDC’s own medical and scientific data, in the last four months, more than 4,000 deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations were reported, as opposed to 1,500 total deaths in the previous ten years for all vaccines. […] The data shows that the survivability rate for COVID-19 patients under the age of 20 is 99.997 percent.

    A quote, but no evidence. I assume your cited quote is based upon evidence, but until you cite that evidence, the poor, deluded sheeple are denied the chance to assess it, to place it in context and thereby evaluate its relevance. Would you correct that please? If you ignore this request, I recommend other readers to interpret your silence as an attempt to keep them in ignorance – still sheeple, but now at least your sheeple.

    Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent.

    This is identical for almost everything that happens in schools. The physical presence of the pupil implies parental consent for attending all the various classes, being subject to school discipline, using the tuck shop, attending assembly and drinking from the school’s water supply. Please explain why vaccination should be an exception.

    J, you wrote:

    “I imagine some of those here are intensely relaxed about theirs and others children being the guinea pigs of oligarchs. The sickness in our society isn’t any virus.”

    Ah, so you do regard the pandemic as a hoax. To save a lot of time and irrelevance, I asked you about this near the beginning of this (attempted) “discussion”, but you evaded answering – again, you seem to be concealing things from other readers, in this case your own motivation.

    #73478 Reply

    Something I find very unpleasant about conspiracy theorists is their manipulative deception. They use the same tricks as the establishment they claim to oppose, but far worse, presumably in their attempt to compensate for their lack of corporate media amplification and state power. Yet strangely (suspiciously?), conspiracy theorists’ and the establishment’s objectives usually converge – in this case, absolving governments from their duty to protect the people from infection. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that covid denialism had been promoted by a corporate PR project, yet among their copious suspicions, conspiracy theorists never find room that one.

    #73481 Reply

    J, in Peru, covid-19 has killed over 0.57% of the entire population. Similar whole-population mortality rates have occurred in Manaus and New York City.

    You’re happy to dismiss this?

    #73482 Reply

    Cue another two days silence followed by concentration upon some different cherry-picked details by J… But again J, do please prove me wrong.

    #73486 Reply

    J can’t prove you wrong because J does not have a coherent theory other than them and us. This is the same approach that George Bush took. The real world is more nuanced, something happens like the virus, people and countries react in different ways and the harm and inconvenience falls asymmetrically but those in power will always manipulate it to their advantage. But instead of seeing the real lies and cheating of the politicians, rulers and media, these conspiracy theories attack science and produce a smokescreen that is harmful and as you say, ends up exonerating our cheating governments. I am not sure it is worth answering J anymore as he his tactics have been exposed and he will continue to distract us with a plethora of pseudoscientific nonsense from well-known conspiracy websites.

    #73490 Reply

    SA, J can prove me wrong at any time just by engaging; discussing properly, as an equal. It is purely a matter of choice. J is wrong about the pandemic and therefore may be unable to answer some of my questions without contradiction, but it is still J’s choice whether to discuss, or to maintain silence so as to avoid exposing the errors in his assertions.

    Such choices are made every day within the scientific community, but certain standards of discussion are compulsory, in that refusal to discuss amounts to leaving the scientific arena. It’s somewhat like sport. You can’t win a championship merely by refusing to play because you claim all your opponents are evil, but you can’t win just by breaking the rules either; you actually need skill and ability, and you need to exercise them.

    It is both a massive shame and a major problem that our politicians and “news” media set such a low bar with their appalling examples.

    #73493 Reply

    Some people perceive no contradiction while delivering extended ad hominem attacks – from attribution of motive to detection of wrong-think and low character, while simultaneously professing to encourage ‘participation in discussion’. I admit, I am most amused by their high self regard.

    #73495 Reply

    C: “Cue another two days silence followed by concentration upon some different cherry-picked details by J […]”

    Isn’t it always the same with these people? I had no great hopes J would come up with an interesting, genuine point – less still defend it. Look how Mystic N_eg came up with such misleading, hysterical claims as “25 elderly people drop dead after receiving vaccine”, when the truth was no such thing.

    This is all they ever do. “What about this, then?” and run. “How about this killer youtube? Watch it if you dare – only 2 hours – it got banned because the authorities cannot stand for people to hear the truth” – and so on.

    Minimal effort for them, a lot more work to debunk, and the lazy buggers will never come back to either counter or acknowledge the debunking. Frankly, given the disruption to effort ratio, it’s little more than trolling.

    As SA dug up just above, and as Clark has eluded to on occasion, there are surprisingly few sources that the denialists and conspiracy nuts go to again and again. This list might be even smaller than imagined:

    12 Influencers Are Behind Most Anti-Vax Hoaxes On Social Media

    The “Disinformation Dozen” produce 65% of the shares of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms, concluded the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate.

    The report, released in March, noted that “living in full view of the public on the internet are a small group of individuals who do not have relevant medical expertise and have their own pockets to line, who are abusing social media platforms to misrepresent the threat of COVID and spread misinformation about the safety of vaccines.”

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by degmod.
    • This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by modbot.
    #73500 Reply

    Myself, 12:32, comment #73482 earlier today:

    “Cue another two days silence…”

    Well, effective silence :/

    J, do feel free to respond to any of the questions I’ve raised, or my requests for evidence etc., or to just fill readers in on your overall beliefs about the pandemic, or pieces of conspiracy theory other than the one you happen to be pushing at present. Flat Earth / the NASA conspiracy, maybe? That lot use a very similar mix of cherry-picking, quote mining, selective omission etc. to all the others. Or if you prefer something more eclectic, try the Great Glasgow Bin-Wagon False Flag – I see that Google has, at long last, stopped listing Chris Spivey at the top of their search results, but he’s even more right wing then the rest of your preferred sources.

    #73501 Reply

    I am sorry we hurt your feelings, sincere apologies. But would you like to comment on the WHO informed consent document that you referred to? Have you read it before you posted a non-representative passage? Do you still stand by your statements about what the WHO did or did not allegedly advocate?

    #73504 Reply

    Glenn_nl, thanks for the link. Twelve prolific posters account for 65% of the shares – reminiscent of modern inequality of wealth.

    But we can’t really blame the twelve. It has been the big internet companies that have promoted such stuff for decades and made obscene amounts of money doing so. It’s such a cynical exploitation of human weakness, much like junk foods loaded with fats and low fructose corn syrup, but far more profitable and they don’t even manufacture it themselves.

    #73514 Reply

    J, do you believe that each person should take responsibility for the effects they have upon others? And do you believe that there is an objective reality, even though people’s opinions about it differ?

    I believe both, and that is why I request that you return to this thread and discuss evidence, in pursuit of as much consensus as we can establish. The matters under discussion are of the highest importance, affecting the health of, and indeed life or death for literally millions of people. People’s decisions need to be based on clear, well documented evidence, not on misleading impressions. My position is that everyone carries personal responsibility for the opinions they promote in society, to avoid clumsy censorship by fallible and partisan authorities, so I request your cooperation.

    #73519 Reply

    “Covid: pick a side”

    I picked. I’m for humans and other animals, and against SARS-CoV-2.

    #73532 Reply
    michael norton

    Clark, I too pick humans to win over SARS-CoV-2

    I guess the U.K. will win, even though we have massive numbers of people catching Delta-covid.
    I doubt South America, Africa or Asia, will be as lucky.

    #73535 Reply

    “Covid: pick a side”

    No. There are no sides.

    In my opinion, it’s a situation where if one country “loses” everyone loses.
    Israel has a million Pfizer vaccines due to expire at end of July and has tried unsuccessfully to swap them with the UK. Palestine also refused the swap. What happens to these vaccines?

    #73545 Reply

    Covid 19 is a good example of how science is misused and distorted for primary commercial gain and prestige and power. It was a chance where all countries producing vaccines worked together and all claims to patents were renounced and all the pharmaceutical industry aim to mass produce vaccines to vaccinate the world as soon as possible. But instead the rich pharmaceutical countries want to hold on to their patents and get as much money as they can. Other political games have also been played with the supplies and licensing of vaccines.

    #73550 Reply

    Michael norton, it’s not so much winning or losing as degree of damage and attrition. If the Great Fire of London had been treated the way most governments treat covid it’d still be burning today, always burning somewhere but with a city-wide flare up every six months or so. “Just contain it enough that we don’t quite fill the hospitals”. Covid is like fire or rat infestation; outbreaks will happen, but the sooner you respond the easier they are to stamp out and the less damage accumulates.

    Vaccination is helping but so far it doesn’t look like a solution. 87% of the UK population now have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 but infections are again going up like a rocket, so Westminster’s initial “herd immunity” (non)plan couldn’t ever have worked. We’ve had a million with long covid; over half are still reporting problems. This could keep grinding us down until we stamp it out.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 116 total)
Reply To: Reply #72754 in Covid: pick a side
Your information: