the court case

[hermeneutika]

Here is a transcript of a court case where it is alleged that pcr cannot prove the existence of a virus!!

http://www.tig.org.za/Parenzee_prosecution_transcripts/Gallo_complete.pdf

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/11/2022 01:02, hermeneutika wrote:

> Here is a transcript of a court case where it is alleged that pcr cannot prove the existence of a virus!!

So?

> http://www.tig.org.za/Parenzee_prosecution_transcripts/Gallo_complete.pdf

Getting your information from a South African website that appears to be
devoted to denying the existence of the AIDS virus and questioning the
value of anti-retro-viral drugs, does not seem a mark of intelligence.
Wasn't it the South African president who believed that eating a lemon a
day (or something else equally stupid) prevented and cured HIV?

Have any double-blind experiments been done to assess the efficacy of
shaking chicken bones in a leather bag while a witchdoctor chants, in
preventing AIDS? They haven't? Aaargh! It's a conspiracy by Big Pharma
to hide the truth from us!!!!!!

The second article on the home page is "Why do President Mebki ... warn
against the use of ... AZT?" To which the answer is, I don't know, but
what are Mbeki's scientific credentials? Why should I care what some
politician says on something that scientists and doctors endorse? Should
I really get hot under the collar about a paper published 23 years ago
when AZT was still a new drug?

Instead of searching for every nutty website in the world and gullibly
accepting anything it says, why not get your scientific information from
- say - New Scientist or Scientific American or similar publications?
Such journals have this in their favour: they can be sued if they
publish false information. This means that they make real efforts to
ensure that what they publish is true and honest and accurate - and
where they make a mistake, they publish an apology and retraction.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:02:31 -0800 (PST), hermeneutika
<hermen...@msn.com> wrote:

>Here is a transcript of a court case where it is alleged
>that pcr cannot prove the existence of a virus!!

Anybody can allege anything when testifying in a court case. But, in any
case, no test ever "proves" anything. It merely provides evidence of
something. Sometimes, it gets it wrong. That doesn't invalidate the test.

The false positive rate of PCR tests is somewhere between 0.8% and 4.3%.
Assuming the highest of those figures, what that means is that if 1,000
people get a positive result from a PCR test, then 957 of them will have the
virus and 43 won't. The fact that those 43 people exist means that the test
doesn't prove the existence of the virus. But it does mean that it's
extremely strong evidence for the existence of the virus.

Mark

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/11/2022 14:27, Mark Goodge wrote:

> The false positive rate of PCR tests is somewhere between 0.8% and 4.3%.

Don't tell me, Mark, that you have been duped by the media, who are all
in the pay of Big Pharma (who likewise are all in the pay of the Elders
of Zion or the Illuminati or - well, take your pick).

And, of course, you wouldn't be trying to confuse a poor anti-vaxxer
with *facts* would you?

Seriously, thanks for a bit of sanity.

[hermeneutika]

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 06:59:35 UTC, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 01:02, hermeneutika wrote:
>
> > Here is a transcript of a court case where it is alleged that pcr cannot prove the existence of a virus!!
> So?
>
> > http://www.tig.org.za/Parenzee_prosecution_transcripts/Gallo_complete.pdf
>
> Getting your information from a South African website that appears to be
> devoted to denying the existence of the AIDS virus and questioning the
> value of anti-retro-viral drugs, does not seem a mark of intelligence.
> Wasn't it the South African president who believed that eating a lemon a
> day (or something else equally stupid) prevented and cured HIV?
>
> Have any double-blind experiments been done to assess the efficacy of
> shaking chicken bones in a leather bag while a witchdoctor chants, in
> preventing AIDS? They haven't? Aaargh! It's a conspiracy by Big Pharma
> to hide the truth from us!!!!!!
>
> The second article on the home page is "Why do President Mebki ... warn
> against the use of ... AZT?" To which the answer is, I don't know, but
> what are Mbeki's scientific credentials? Why should I care what some
> politician says on something that scientists and doctors endorse? Should
> I really get hot under the collar about a paper published 23 years ago
> when AZT was still a new drug?
>
> Instead of searching for every nutty website in the world and gullibly
> accepting anything it says, why not get your scientific information from
> - say - New Scientist or Scientific American or similar publications?

Maybe such journals are ok. But if some websites are not reliable, why should i trust say Scientific American? And then before i accept any data from anywhere, surely i have a right to know how they are funded? If there is no transparency on funding, then how am i to know how objective they really are?

[hermeneutika]

Gets more interesting

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0

[hermeneutika]

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 19:29:36 UTC, Kendall K. Down wrote:

ok thanks for that. What is the false negative rate....? i am about to look it up.

[Stuart]

In article <16c6e372-1d75-4e65...@googlegroups.com>,

hermeneutika <hermen...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Instead of searching for every nutty website in the world and
> > gullibly accepting anything it says, why not get your scientific
> > information from - say - New Scientist or Scientific American or
> > similar publications?

> Maybe such journals are ok. But if some websites are not reliable, why
> should i trust say Scientific American? And then before i accept any
> data from anywhere, surely i have a right to know how they are funded?
> If there is no transparency on funding, then how am i to know how
> objective they really are?

Scientific American and new Scientist, which I take, are highly respected
journals funded by the people who buy them and advertisers such as BMW,
KPMG and Omega, not forgetting many scientific organisation such as The
Science museum (London), Universities and colleges.

New Scientist was founded in 1956 and has gained gained an enviable
reputation for it's accuracy in the articles it publishes, these are
mostly taken from published and peer reviewed scientific papers.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/11/2022 19:32, hermeneutika wrote:

>> Instead of searching for every nutty website in the world and gullibly
>> accepting anything it says, why not get your scientific information from
>> - say - New Scientist or Scientific American or similar publications?

> Maybe such journals are ok. But if some websites are not reliable, why should i trust say Scientific American?

I tell you why in the paragraph after this response from you.

> And then before i accept any data from anywhere, surely i have a right to know how they are funded? If there is no transparency on funding, then how am i to know how objective they really are?

The two journals I mentioned are funded by people buying them. What you
are really saying is, "I want some fake excuse for continuing to get my
info from dodgy websites instead of reputable sources."

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/11/2022 19:34, hermeneutika wrote:

> ok thanks for that. What is the false negative rate....? i am about to look it up.

If you mean, how many false negatives are there, Mark gave you that
information.

If you mean, "What is a false negative?" the answer is, If you take the
test and it says that you do not have Covid, but then it turns out that
really you do have Covid, that is a false negative.

Now, here's a difficult one, but I'm sure that if you try really really
hard you'll get it. "What is a false positive?"

Go on. You have three goes.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/11/2022 20:43, Stuart wrote:

> Scientific American and new Scientist, which I take, are highly respected
> journals funded by the people who buy them and advertisers such as BMW,
> KPMG and Omega, not forgetting many scientific organisation such as The
> Science museum (London), Universities and colleges.

Quite so.

> New Scientist was founded in 1956 and has gained gained an enviable
> reputation for it's accuracy in the articles it publishes, these are
> mostly taken from published and peer reviewed scientific papers.

Which, of course, immediately it rules it out by those who prefer to get
their information from dodgy websites that feed their conspiracy
theories. A pity hermeneutika doesn't exercise the same concern about
funding for his dubious sources.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/11/2022 19:36, hermeneutika wrote:

> Gets more interesting

Yes, I'm sure it does. Perhaps you might look up the relevant rates for
tests for malaria back in 1920, or AIDS in 1970, or just about any
disease you care to mention back in 1782.

The point is that *any* new technology is subject to refinement and
improvement and some new technologies might even be discarded if they
prove to be ineffective. Does that mean that we should flee from new
technology?

Well, if you are the sort of person who wears a tin foil hat "just in
case" there are mind-control beams wafting around, then perhaps the
answer is "Yes". Rational people are grateful for the efforts being made
by doctors and scientists to protect our health and take advantage of
those efforts where necessary.

Have there been cases of fraud or bad behaviour by scientists? Yes,
there have been, but they are rare and when discovered are punished, if
the perpetrators are still around. Should we avoid scientific advances
"just in case" there is fraud or bad behaviour?

If you never leave your flat, refuse to eat any food except what you
have grown yourself, and refrain from listening to any media "just in
case" there are bad people around, then the answer is "Yes". Rational
people find that life is much easier when they trust people around them
- bus and train drivers, supermarket suppliers, mainstream media, and so on.

[hermeneutika]

So you are saying that the above institutions are above and beyond reproach and can be trusted absolutely?

[hermeneutika]

The vexed question of "trust". I refer you to 1 Kings 13:14-18

14 And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, [Art] thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I [am].
15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.
16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:
17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.
18 He said unto him, I [am] a prophet also as thou [art]; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. [But] he lied unto him.

And also 1 Kings 22:22

22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

And finally Ezekiel 13:6

6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made [others] to hope that they would confirm the word.

De 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2Co 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

I believe i have more than 2 or 3 witnesses....trust in the Bible is a uneasy thing. Trust in God, everyone else pays cash.

[Timreason]

I don't think Stuart is claiming they're 'above and beyond reproach',
Michael. Like me, I think he just feels they are far more reliable than
'dodgy' websites!

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/11/2022 14:03, hermeneutika wrote:

> I believe i have more than 2 or 3 witnesses.

There is also the question of the reliability of witnesses. If my single
witness is a respected clergyman and your two or three are hairy bikers
from Liverpool with tatoos, piercings and criminal records, I would
confidently claim that my single witness trumps your two or three.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/11/2022 13:54, hermeneutika wrote:

> So you are saying that the above institutions are above and beyond reproach and can be trusted absolutely?

There are very few absolutes in this world and I am sure that neither
Tim nor Stuart would adopt the extreme view you have expressed. Rather,
in a scale of reliability, New Scientist and Scientific American are
9/10 and the dodgy websites you appear to favour are 1/10 or less.

[Madhu]

* hermeneutika <75d87cb3-669f-4269...@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sat, 19 Nov 2022 06:03:56 -0800 (PST):

> The vexed question of "trust". I refer you to 1 Kings 13:14-18
>
> 14 And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak:
> and he said unto him, [Art] thou the man of God that camest from
> Judah? And he said, I [am].
> 15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.
> 16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee:
> neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:
> 17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no
> bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou
> camest.
> 18 He said unto him, I [am] a prophet also as thou [art]; and an angel
> spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with
> thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. [But] he
> lied unto him.

1ki 13:18 --He lied unto him.-- The angel lied to the bethel prophet
or the bethel prophet lied to the judah prophet?

On my first reading I thought the bethel prophet bore animus toward the
judah prophet because the judah prophet was ruining his livelhihood and
this coloured my understanding of the passage, as I've noted here
repeatedly

> And also 1 Kings 22:22
>
> 22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go
> forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his
> prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go
> forth, and do so.
>
> And finally Ezekiel 13:6
>
> 6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith:
> and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made [others] to hope
> that they would confirm the word.
>
> De 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity,
> or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two
> witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be
> established.
> Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or
> two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may
> be established.
> 2Co 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth
> of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
> 1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or
> three witnesses.
> Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or
> three witnesses:
>
> I believe i have more than 2 or 3 witnesses....trust in the Bible is a
> uneasy thing. Trust in God, everyone else pays cash.

It was law, but it has been subverted from the start, with continual
reminders (like Naboth's vineyard), so it almost becomes an internalised
hypocrisy Satan has been rigging up false-witnesses long before this era
of consensus science.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/11/2022 05:39, Madhu wrote:

> 1ki 13:18 --He lied unto him.-- The angel lied to the bethel prophet
> or the bethel prophet lied to the judah prophet?

The Bethel prophet lied to the Judah prophet.

> On my first reading I thought the bethel prophet bore animus toward the
> judah prophet because the judah prophet was ruining his livelhihood and
> this coloured my understanding of the passage, as I've noted here
> repeatedly

I'm not sure of his motivation. At first reading it seems as though he
recognised the Judah prophet as truly speaking from God and wanted to
share in the kudos.

> It was law, but it has been subverted from the start, with continual
> reminders (like Naboth's vineyard), so it almost becomes an internalised
> hypocrisy Satan has been rigging up false-witnesses long before this era
> of consensus science.

Indeed.

[hermeneutika]

Surely this is prejudice against hairy bikers from liverpool. I am shocked!

[steve hague]

I have to admit that when I see people with multiple tattoos and
piercings, I adopt a negative opinion of them. Someone once said we
shouldn't judge people, or we would be judged ourselves. I wonder who
that was, and how He came to that conclusion.
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/11/2022 11:07, hermeneutika wrote:

> Surely this is prejudice against hairy bikers from liverpool. I am shocked!

You know the old one: "What do you call a Liverpudlian in a suit?"

Answer: "The defendant."

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/11/2022 12:57, steve hague wrote:

> I have to admit that when I see people with multiple tattoos and
> piercings, I adopt a negative opinion of them. Someone once said we
> shouldn't judge people, or we would be judged ourselves. I wonder who
> that was, and how He came to that conclusion.

I'm not sure if there were tatoos and piercings in Jewish society back
then. I'm pretty sure that Bible is dead against such things. In which
case He can't have been talking about them.

[Madhu]

* steve hague <tlfsje$ph$1 @gioia.aioe.org> :
Wrote on Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:57:16 +0000:

> I have to admit that when I see people with multiple tattoos and
> piercings, I adopt a negative opinion of them. Someone once said we
> shouldn't judge people, or we would be judged ourselves. I wonder who
> that was, and how He came to that conclusion.

[really not relevant but the `fortune' program showed me this old joke]

%
The somewhat old and crusty vicar was taking a well-earned retirement
from his rather old and crusty parish. As is usual in these cases, a
locum was sent to cover the transition period. This particular man was
young and active, and had the strange notion that church should also be
active and exciting. As a consequence he was more than a little
disapointed with the dull and tradition-bound church. He decided to do
something about it.

For his first Sunday, he didn't wear the traditional robes and
vestments, but lead the service wearing a nice 2-piece suit. The
congregation was horrified! He changed the order of the service. The
congregation was horrified! Then came the children's lesson.

For this he came out of the pulpit, and sat on the communion table. The
congregation was mortified! He sat there swinging his legs against the
table as the children gathered around him. The congregation were totally
beside themselves!

He asked the children, "What's small, brown, furry and eats nuts?"

There was total silence.

He asked again, "What's small, brown, furry and eats nuts?"

Total silence.

Eventually, one timid youngster put up his hand and said, "Please, Sir,
I know the answer is Jesus, but it sure sounds like a squirrel to me."
%

-- (By way of fortune)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/11/2022 02:14, Madhu wrote:

> Eventually, one timid youngster put up his hand and said, "Please, Sir,
> I know the answer is Jesus, but it sure sounds like a squirrel to me."

The old ones are the best (though that is the first time I heard it
linked with a trendy vicar).

[hermeneutika]

lol in spades!!!!