info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Why People Believe In Conspiracy Theories"
41 views
Skip to first unread message
Pamela
Nov 5, 2021, 2:54:57 PM11/5/21
to
"WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
are are below and the full text can be found here:
https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-
theories
----------------- START -----------------
We argue that people are drawn to conspiracy theories in order to
satisfy or in an attempt to satisfy three important psychological
motives. The FIRST of these motives is .... the need for knowledge and
certainty and I guess the motive or desire to have information. And
when something major happens, when a big event happens, people
naturally want to know why that happened. They want an explanation and
they want to know the truth. ....
people with lower levels of education tend to be drawn to conspiracy
theories. And we don't argue that's because people are not
intelligent. It's simply that they haven't been allowed to have, or
haven't been given access to the tools to allow them to differentiate
between good sources and bad sources or credible sources and non-
credible sources.
The SECOND set of motives, we would call existential motives. And
really they just refer to people's needs to be or to feel safe and
secure in the world that they live in. And also to feel that they have
some kind of power or autonomy over the things that happen to them as
well. So again, when something happens, people don't like to feel
powerless. ... Research has shown that people who do feel powerless
and disillusioned do tend to gravitate more towards conspiracy
theories.
The THIRD set of motives we would call social motives and those refer
to people's desire to feel good about themselves as individuals and
also feel good about themselves in terms of the groups that they
belong to. ... potentially one way of doing that is to feel that you
have access to information that other people don't necessarily have
... this is quite a common rhetorical tool that people use when they
talk about conspiracy theories, that everybody else is some kind of
sheep, but that they know the truth. ....
So people who have an overinflated sense of the importance of the
groups that they belong to, but at the same time, the feeling that
those groups are underappreciated, those kinds of feelings as well,
draw people towards conspiracy theories .... It's linked to the idea
of need for uniqueness, as well. That's another, I guess, narcissistic
notion that you have. You're in possession of information that other
people don't have. You're different to other people and it makes you
stand apart. But yes, narcissism at an individual level has been
associated in quite a few studies now with belief in conspiracy
theories.
.... In terms of age, we do. In our research, we generally find that
older people believe in conspiracy theories less than younger people
do. .... that does tend to show up pretty much all of the time. In
terms of gender, at least in the research that myself and my
colleagues have conducted, we've never found any gender differences in
terms of conspiracy belief.
..... in the literature it's often been found that if people believe
in one conspiracy theory, then they're likely to believe in others.
... We thought people would not entertain these two conspiracy
theories at the same time, but it turned out that they did, or at
least they were prepared to entertain the idea that both of those
[contradictory] things might be true.
----------------- END -----------------
Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
are are below and the full text can be found here:
https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-
theories
----------------- START -----------------
We argue that people are drawn to conspiracy theories in order to
satisfy or in an attempt to satisfy three important psychological
motives. The FIRST of these motives is .... the need for knowledge and
certainty and I guess the motive or desire to have information. And
when something major happens, when a big event happens, people
naturally want to know why that happened. They want an explanation and
they want to know the truth. ....
people with lower levels of education tend to be drawn to conspiracy
theories. And we don't argue that's because people are not
intelligent. It's simply that they haven't been allowed to have, or
haven't been given access to the tools to allow them to differentiate
between good sources and bad sources or credible sources and non-
credible sources.
The SECOND set of motives, we would call existential motives. And
really they just refer to people's needs to be or to feel safe and
secure in the world that they live in. And also to feel that they have
some kind of power or autonomy over the things that happen to them as
well. So again, when something happens, people don't like to feel
powerless. ... Research has shown that people who do feel powerless
and disillusioned do tend to gravitate more towards conspiracy
theories.
The THIRD set of motives we would call social motives and those refer
to people's desire to feel good about themselves as individuals and
also feel good about themselves in terms of the groups that they
belong to. ... potentially one way of doing that is to feel that you
have access to information that other people don't necessarily have
... this is quite a common rhetorical tool that people use when they
talk about conspiracy theories, that everybody else is some kind of
sheep, but that they know the truth. ....
So people who have an overinflated sense of the importance of the
groups that they belong to, but at the same time, the feeling that
those groups are underappreciated, those kinds of feelings as well,
draw people towards conspiracy theories .... It's linked to the idea
of need for uniqueness, as well. That's another, I guess, narcissistic
notion that you have. You're in possession of information that other
people don't have. You're different to other people and it makes you
stand apart. But yes, narcissism at an individual level has been
associated in quite a few studies now with belief in conspiracy
theories.
.... In terms of age, we do. In our research, we generally find that
older people believe in conspiracy theories less than younger people
do. .... that does tend to show up pretty much all of the time. In
terms of gender, at least in the research that myself and my
colleagues have conducted, we've never found any gender differences in
terms of conspiracy belief.
..... in the literature it's often been found that if people believe
in one conspiracy theory, then they're likely to believe in others.
... We thought people would not entertain these two conspiracy
theories at the same time, but it turned out that they did, or at
least they were prepared to entertain the idea that both of those
[contradictory] things might be true.
----------------- END -----------------
Pancho
Nov 5, 2021, 3:27:31 PM11/5/21
to
On 05/11/2021 18:54, Pamela wrote:
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
This is a Guy Fawkes night!
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority conspire.
I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being developed
and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who questions them.
Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those who
believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
conspiracy theorists.
The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.
Java Jive
Nov 5, 2021, 5:35:49 PM11/5/21
to
On 05/11/2021 20:20, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
Probably about once in a hundred or more times.
>
> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
> US and the EU fund virus research.
>
> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>
> That was a conspiracy theory.
It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution.
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> Except when they turn out to be right.
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
Probably about once in a hundred or more times.
>
> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
> US and the EU fund virus research.
>
> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>
> That was a conspiracy theory.
It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution.
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Alexander
Nov 5, 2021, 6:03:03 PM11/5/21
to
"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>
> most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not.
If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
> most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not.
fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
so clearly demonstrated.
They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the infection
with minimal fuss.
> That was a conspiracy theory.
2020: "Anyone claiming there's a plan to introduce vaccine passports
is a conspiracy theorist and their dangerous misinformation must be
stopped!"
2021: "Anyone opposed to vaccine passports is a conspiracy theorist
and their dangerous misinformation must be stopped!"
Java Jive
Nov 5, 2021, 7:34:35 PM11/5/21
to
On 05/11/2021 22:02, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>
>> most people now know the likelihood is that
>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>> accidental or not.
>
> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
> fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
> introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
> get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
> so clearly demonstrated.
Yes, the idea of it being a bio-weapon is utterly absurd - for the
>
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>
>> most people now know the likelihood is that
>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>> accidental or not.
>
> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
> fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
> introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
> get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
> so clearly demonstrated.
sake of argument, regardless of the actual figures because we only need
a ball-park scenario that is approximately right to make the point,
suppose it only kills, say, about 1 in 100 of the people it infects, and
kills equally randomly people in any nation of any race; would you buy a
machine gun that fired 99 blanks for every real bullet, and was equally
likely to kill the person firing it instead of the people being fired
at? Of course you wouldn't.
> They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
> well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the infection
> with minimal fuss.
cures did anything at all.
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Nov 6, 2021, 4:39:57 AM11/6/21
to
The biggest conspiracy theories are organised Religions of course.
I just think that it is thought to us when young, in things like Santa
Clause and other myths.
This is also tied in with a lot of advertising too.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Pamela" <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252...
I just think that it is thought to us when young, in things like Santa
Clause and other myths.
This is also tied in with a lot of advertising too.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Pamela" <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252...
Pamela
Nov 6, 2021, 5:39:58 AM11/6/21
to
On 20:20 5 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> Except when they turn out to be right.
>
>
> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
> US and the EU fund virus research.
>
> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
> US and the EU fund virus research.
>
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>
> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>
> That was a conspiracy theory.
>
> Bob.
>
The term "conspiracy theory" doesn't refer to something true.
Pamela
Nov 6, 2021, 5:47:14 AM11/6/21
to
to deflect attention from his own incompetent handling of the
situation by pointing to bogeymen in China. Facts don't matter to him.
charles
Nov 6, 2021, 6:29:36 AM11/6/21
to
I suspect the advertising came later
In article <sm5f0r$g2m$1...@dont-email.me>,
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
In article <sm5f0r$g2m$1...@dont-email.me>,
Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The biggest conspiracy theories are organised Religions of course.
> I just think that it is thought to us when young, in things like Santa
> Clause and other myths.
> This is also tied in with a lot of advertising too.
> Brian
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
> The biggest conspiracy theories are organised Religions of course.
> I just think that it is thought to us when young, in things like Santa
> Clause and other myths.
> This is also tied in with a lot of advertising too.
> Brian
--
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Indy Jess John
Nov 6, 2021, 8:03:37 AM11/6/21
to
On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
> However, this analysis doesn't
> support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
> a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution.
There was a programme on TV earlier this year. I only caught the end of
> However, this analysis doesn't
> support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
> a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution.
it while station hopping so I don't know where it was broadcast from or
what led up to the bit I saw.
It was a virology lab that spoke English. They had studied the Covid
Genome and its mutations and tested it against the species that would be
the most likely sources of the current mutations (which could explain
the animals imported from rural areas), and that had revealed that
natural mutations usually leave the original source still vulnerable and
other species might be additionally likely to catch it. The difference
with Covid-19 is that it is many, many times more aggressive to the
human genome that any other species tested.
Further investigation revealed that there was an on-going research
programme of identifying any viral ailments that might potentially
become a new epidemic, and genetically enhancing the virus to make it
more aggressive to humans so that available treatments can be tested for
future effectiveness and the need for research into better treatments
identified.
The Wuhan lab is one of several world wide engaged in that programme,
and the way the virus targets humans so completely fits the modus
operandi of creating that scenario as part of the programme.
They concluded that the virus almost certainly originated from the Wuhan
laboratory, but the escape into the wild was almost certainly accidental
because nobody involved in the programme would have considered such an
uncontrolled experiment with a deliberately enhanced and thus
potentially lethal virus.
My own aside is that the Chinese Government would have to stop the local
population from blaming the lab for the epidemic, hence the fake news
that it came from infected animals in the local meat market. Having
done that to avoid local protests, they are not going to allow any
foreign interference to undermine their local "solution".
Jim
charles
Nov 6, 2021, 8:27:05 AM11/6/21
to
In article <sm5qun$qt8$1...@dont-email.me>,
Do note that the first person to go public about the virus was arrested for
spreading waht we would call "fake news". Sadly he died from the virus
spreading waht we would call "fake news". Sadly he died from the virus
Indy Jess John
Nov 6, 2021, 8:34:15 AM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 11:25, Bob Latham wrote:
> The one that makes me scratch my head the most is masks. The figures
> I have says that the virus is 0.12 microns in size compared to a
> human hair at 75 microns. An N95 mask which I've never seen anyone
> wearing as an anti-covid mask has filter holes of 0.3 microns. A
> surgical mask I'm told is 2-10 microns. I've seen it described as
> trying to stop a fly with chain link fencing.
>
> So are those figures wrong? I've had them a while, they could be
> wrong.
>
> I keep reading that the virus is airborne and the government changed
> its story from 'there is no need for masks' to tells us that 'a mask
> isn't for your protection, it's to stop you spreading it to others'.
It is a little more complicated than the simple difference in size. The
virus that spreads originates from the lungs, and the virus isn't
expelled alone, it is embedded in moisture droplets also exhaled (try
breathing out onto cold glass and see how much condensation there is).
I have no idea how many microns the typical exhaled moisture droplet is,
but it will be a lot bigger than 0.12 microns. I am guessing that it is
bigger than 10 microns, or the surgical masks would have a tighter
specification.
Also despite the experiment with smoke, a fair amount of exhaled air
does go through the mask and masks do get damp as a result. That
dampness also contains the virus if the mask is worn by an infected
person. The air that escapes from the sides of the mask may also
contain the virus, but the direction is away from the person you are
talking to so they are unlikely to breath it in. It doesn't protect
others in crowded places but it does offer some protection in more
normal human interactions. Hence the "Your mask protects me; my mask
protects you" message. It is partially true. Any moisture droplet small
enough to escape the other person's mask is potentially able to
penetrate yours too, but because it has already gone through the
originator's mask its velocity has reduced and you might not breathe it
in. That is what the 2 metre space takes advantage of.
If you treat the advice as sensible rather than foolproof, it isn't as
ridiculous as it first appears.
Jim
> The one that makes me scratch my head the most is masks. The figures
> I have says that the virus is 0.12 microns in size compared to a
> human hair at 75 microns. An N95 mask which I've never seen anyone
> wearing as an anti-covid mask has filter holes of 0.3 microns. A
> surgical mask I'm told is 2-10 microns. I've seen it described as
> trying to stop a fly with chain link fencing.
>
> So are those figures wrong? I've had them a while, they could be
> wrong.
>
> I keep reading that the virus is airborne and the government changed
> its story from 'there is no need for masks' to tells us that 'a mask
> isn't for your protection, it's to stop you spreading it to others'.
It is a little more complicated than the simple difference in size. The
virus that spreads originates from the lungs, and the virus isn't
expelled alone, it is embedded in moisture droplets also exhaled (try
breathing out onto cold glass and see how much condensation there is).
I have no idea how many microns the typical exhaled moisture droplet is,
but it will be a lot bigger than 0.12 microns. I am guessing that it is
bigger than 10 microns, or the surgical masks would have a tighter
specification.
Also despite the experiment with smoke, a fair amount of exhaled air
does go through the mask and masks do get damp as a result. That
dampness also contains the virus if the mask is worn by an infected
person. The air that escapes from the sides of the mask may also
contain the virus, but the direction is away from the person you are
talking to so they are unlikely to breath it in. It doesn't protect
others in crowded places but it does offer some protection in more
normal human interactions. Hence the "Your mask protects me; my mask
protects you" message. It is partially true. Any moisture droplet small
enough to escape the other person's mask is potentially able to
penetrate yours too, but because it has already gone through the
originator's mask its velocity has reduced and you might not breathe it
in. That is what the 2 metre space takes advantage of.
If you treat the advice as sensible rather than foolproof, it isn't as
ridiculous as it first appears.
Jim
Pamela
Nov 6, 2021, 8:58:57 AM11/6/21
to
On 12:54 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <sm5so5$7pr$1...@dont-email.me>,
> I can see your argument which on the face of it is reasonable and
> logical if a little theoretical. Worth baring in mind even if I'm
> still mask sceptical. I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.
>
> Bob.
What correlation is there between graphs which show not wearing a mask
is as safe as wearing one? How many such graphs are you referring to?
> In article <sm5so5$7pr$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> logical if a little theoretical. Worth baring in mind even if I'm
> still mask sceptical. I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.
>
> Bob.
What correlation is there between graphs which show not wearing a mask
is as safe as wearing one? How many such graphs are you referring to?
Indy Jess John
Nov 6, 2021, 9:15:20 AM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 12:54, Bob Latham wrote:
> I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.
>
> Bob.
>
There is quite a difference between wearing a mask, and wearing a mask
> I would be far more convinced if I'd seen
> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.
>
> Bob.
>
*correctly*. How many people have you seen wearing a mask over their
mouth bit leaving their nose uncovered (because it is easier to breathe
like that!). I have also seen a mask worn as a chin strap which is
legally compliant but completely useless. As someone on the "extremely
vulnerable" list, I tend to notice these things (and keep my distance
from them).
Also there is an age limit embedded in the legislation below which masks
are voluntary at best, even though young children are some of the most
prolific infection spreaders, yet also least badly affected by Covid.
What you can't judge is whether the graphs would have shown a bigger
upsurge if the adults hadn't been instructed to wear masks.
Jim
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 9:30:20 AM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 12:54, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>
> In article <sm5so5$7pr$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
* Exhalation droplets are in a spectrum of sizes from visible droplets
that fall to the ground fairly quickly through to aerosols that can
travel some distance on the air.
* The larger the droplet, the more virus particles are likely to be
contained within it.
* Larger droplets have more momentum which tends to carry them into
fabric of the mask, and therefore are the ones most likely to be
contained by it, while small enough aerosols can escape around the
edges. Nevertheless experiments linked below have shown that even a
thin cotton handkerchief is significantly better than nothing; it was
the worst thing tested, but still caught around a quarter of the load.
* They need to be worn properly, and probably 10% of the people you see
walking around with them on are not doing so, their nose or mouth is
exposed, there is too much gap along the sides of the nose, etc. Also,
the mask itself needs to be of a close woven material, so wool is a poor
material to use, denim better.
See the links below ...
> I can see your argument which on the face of it is reasonable and
> logical if a little theoretical. Worth baring in mind even if I'm
> graphs from around the world showing a decline in infections
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.
As has been well explained above, you wear a mask to protect me, I wear
> following compulsory mask orders. All the graphs I have show no sign
> of correlation.
a mask to protect you. Relatives have just returned from France, and
remarked how much safer they felt there, because everyone was wearing
masks properly, keeping safe distances from each other, etc, as opposed
the lackadaisical shambles in UK public spaces.
This first video is a convincing watch, and the other links worth reading:
Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/
Alexander
Nov 6, 2021, 9:43:00 AM11/6/21
to
"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:598719...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <sm49mk$a8h$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>
>> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really
>> hasn't fulfilled its remit very well;
>
> That's a debatable point. MSM are now talking about "Gain of
>
>> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really
>> hasn't fulfilled its remit very well;
>
> Function" research on viruses being done at Wuhan paid for by EU and
> US.
Certainly it made no significant impact on all-cause mortality figures
in the UK during 2020. Same story in every other country I've looked at.
Fewer deaths per 100k in the UK than there were in the year 2008.
Slightly worse figures than in 2019 but we know why -
distorted medical policies and collateral effects of lockdown.
>
> It could be argued that all the virus had to do was start the ball
> rolling.
I would argue that the *perception* of a deadly virus started a 'ball
of fear' rolling. Think back to those pictures of people in China
pretending to drop dead on the pavements - they look a bit ridiculous
now don't they.
>
>> the virus was so weak that they had to introduce medical
>> malpractice,
>
There was medical malpractice - thousands of NHS patients with learning
difficulties, mental health problems, disabilities, and/or 'OAP' status,
were euthenised.
The government stockpiled large quantities of Midazolam drug and these
patients were discharged into care homes and given lethal doses. There
is a paper trail and other evidence.
It was done in March/April 2020 under the guise of a "population triage"
to free up the hospital beds for a coming wave of younger/fitter covid
patients (based on Ferguson's bogus predictions) which of course never
materialised.
Here is a short clip of Dr Mike Yeadon talking about it with Reiner
Fuellmich:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KIu0XdQDf46w/
at 1m10s. (bad audio - sorry)
The same horror scenario happened in other countries at the same time,
although different drugs were used to kill them.
In addition to the above, there is the matter of covid treatment
protocol - lethal doses of remdesivir (a drug for which there is
no evidence of efficacy in treating the alleged virus) are routinely
given after a positive PCR test - this invariably results in
multiple organ failure, which in turn causes fluid to accumulate
on the lungs. Doctors then label this "covid pneumonia" and put
the patient on a ventilator which, as you probably know from your
own research, is a death sentence.
US hospitals receive government payouts each time a "covid"
patient dies on a ventilator - nice little incentive there.
If you watch the Funeral Director video I linked to in another
post, he states that he has collected many patients who have
died as a result of this.
[Snipped lots as we are largely in agreement on most points.]
>> They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
>> well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the
>> infection with minimal fuss.
>
> in the US claimed helped for covid. In itself, that's just a claim
> but then those drugs suddenly got banned as dangerous in many
> countries around the world it then looks very suspicious to say the
> least.
Dr Zelenko (who has treated the US President and other world leaders)
has given evidence to an Israeli Rabbinical Court to that effect.
Video here if it's of interest:
https://rumble.com/vkrdx6-dr.-zelenko-speaks-to-a-rabbinical-court-in-jerusalem.html
[I agree with your take on the masks also.]
Tweed
Nov 6, 2021, 9:47:28 AM11/6/21
to
Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
like a stone to almost nothing.
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 10:36:17 AM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> True but I can't support imposing this horror on little children, I
> just can't.
Oh! FFS! Stop using emotional blackmail instead of argument. Children
are more adaptable than adults, and can more easily adjust to such
requirements, especially if it is explained to them that it will help
keep granny and grandad alive.
>> What you can't judge is whether the graphs would have shown a
>> bigger upsurge if the adults hadn't been instructed to wear masks.
>
> By omission, you seem to be tacitly admitting that no obvious drop in
> infections happens with compulsory mask wearing.
No, he stating that the real world is not a lab experiment where you can
vary one factor of interest while keeping constant all the other factors
that might skew the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn
from the results of varying the one factor the are valid.
You may be surprised to discover that there have been no experiments
done on whether washing your hands after going to the toilet is a good
thing, because it wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet
most of us accept that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a
good thing and do it without complaint. The situation with masks is
similar.
>
> True but I can't support imposing this horror on little children, I
> just can't.
Oh! FFS! Stop using emotional blackmail instead of argument. Children
are more adaptable than adults, and can more easily adjust to such
requirements, especially if it is explained to them that it will help
keep granny and grandad alive.
>> What you can't judge is whether the graphs would have shown a
>> bigger upsurge if the adults hadn't been instructed to wear masks.
>
> infections happens with compulsory mask wearing.
No, he stating that the real world is not a lab experiment where you can
vary one factor of interest while keeping constant all the other factors
that might skew the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn
from the results of varying the one factor the are valid.
You may be surprised to discover that there have been no experiments
done on whether washing your hands after going to the toilet is a good
thing, because it wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet
most of us accept that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a
good thing and do it without complaint. The situation with masks is
similar.
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 10:37:35 AM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 13:47, Tweed wrote:
>
> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
> the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
> FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
> like a stone to almost nothing.
Any useful links you could give?
>
> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
> the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
> FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
> like a stone to almost nothing.
Tweed
Nov 6, 2021, 10:55:49 AM11/6/21
to
Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/11/2021 13:47, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
>> the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
>> FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
>> like a stone to almost nothing.
>
> Any useful links you could give?
>
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1663
> On 06/11/2021 13:47, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you. One if
>> the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their ward staff to
>> FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff infection rate dropped
>> like a stone to almost nothing.
>
> Any useful links you could give?
>
https://www.medisave.co.uk/ffp3-face-mask-x20.html
We’ve been using the masks throughout. My wife works in a public facing
professional occupation and has avoided the plague, unlike many of her
colleagues. We refuse the masks by quarantining them in a bag in a warm
room for a week. Once they’ve had roughly 8 hours total use they get
binned.
Germany hands out FFP2 masks on prescription to their over 60s. (I think
that’s the correct age though stand to be corrected.) You’ll note Frau
Merkel wears one.
Forget all the stuff about protecting others with poor masks - wear a
decent one and protect yourself.
Tweed
Nov 6, 2021, 11:03:09 AM11/6/21
to
Pamela
Nov 6, 2021, 11:09:43 AM11/6/21
to
On 13:09 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADDA83F...@144.76.35.252>,
>
> There are masses of graphs around showing infections rates in
> countries across the globe. Some folk have dug up when compulsory
> mask wearing was introduced in those countries. You might reasonably
> expect to see a slow down of infections within 2 or 3 weeks but I've
> yet to see a graph which shows that.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Bob.
Can you provide links to those graphs or studies you say which show not
wearing a mask is as safe a wearing one.
How well do all such studies correlate?
> In article <XnsADDA83F...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What correlation is there between graphs which show not wearing a
>> mask is as safe as wearing one? How many such graphs are you
>> referring to?
>
> Dear me.
>
>> What correlation is there between graphs which show not wearing a
>> mask is as safe as wearing one? How many such graphs are you
>> referring to?
>
>
> There are masses of graphs around showing infections rates in
> countries across the globe. Some folk have dug up when compulsory
> mask wearing was introduced in those countries. You might reasonably
> expect to see a slow down of infections within 2 or 3 weeks but I've
> yet to see a graph which shows that.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Bob.
Can you provide links to those graphs or studies you say which show not
wearing a mask is as safe a wearing one.
How well do all such studies correlate?
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 12:19:56 PM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 13:42, Alexander wrote:
Anti-covid anti-vax conspiracy garbage that has been reported to
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:598719...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>> In article <sm49mk$a8h$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really
>>> hasn't fulfilled its remit very well;
>>
>> That's a debatable point. MSM are now talking about "Gain of
>> Function" research on viruses being done at Wuhan paid for by EU and
>> US.
>
> Certainly it made no significant impact on all-cause mortality figures
> in the UK during 2020. Same story in every other country I've looked at.
>
> Fewer deaths per 100k in the UK than there were in the year 2008.
> Slightly worse figures than in 2019 but we know why -
> distorted medical policies and collateral effects of lockdown.
>
>
>
>>
>> It could be argued that all the virus had to do was start the ball
>> rolling.
>
> I would argue that the *perception* of a deadly virus started a 'ball
> of fear' rolling. Think back to those pictures of people in China
> pretending to drop dead on the pavements - they look a bit ridiculous
> now don't they.
They always did, because they always were fake news originating from,
where else, Shitter! Why is it that nutters like you just never bother
to check anything at all, no matter how obviously false?
https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-8509320385
Video falsely claims to show bodies of virus victims in China
By ARIJETA LAJKAFebruary 21, 2020
CLAIM: Video shows dead bodies waiting to be picked up in Wuhan, China,
due to new coronavirus.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The video shows people sleeping in the streets
in Shenzhen, China, a city over 600 miles away from Wuhan.
THE FACTS: A video circulating on social media that shows bodies covered
with blankets on a street in China, is falsely identified as people who
died from the new coronavirus.
“Wuhan China. Dead Bodies waiting 4 pickup. Coronavirus NO ordinary
Virus. Is it intentionally released BIO WEAPON?” a Twitter user posted
on Feb. 17."
>>> the virus was so weak that they had to introduce medical
>>> malpractice,
>>
>> I wouldn't put it quite that strongly.
>
> There was medical malpractice - thousands of NHS patients with learning
> difficulties, mental health problems, disabilities, and/or 'OAP' status,
> were euthenised.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this crazed and paranoid claim?
> The government stockpiled [...] D r M i k e Y e a d o n talking
> about it with R e i n e r F u e l l m i c h : > h t t p s : / / w w w . b i t c h u t e . c o m / v i d e o / K I u 0
X d Q D f 4 6 w /
posted it at all ...
02:27 "I'm only repeating allegations I've heard"
... tells you all you need to know about this worst conspiracy theory
type of absurd fake news. It's extraordinary that anyone is dumb enough
to believe this shit, and the fact that you do tells us everything we
need to know about just how dumb you are, and nothing about the covid-19
pandemic.
More on D r M i k e Y e a d o n:
Fact Check-Fact check: Ex-Pfizer scientist repeats COVID-19 vaccine
misinformation in recorded speech
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-health-coronavirus-idUSL2N2N72CS
More on R e i n e r F u e l l m i c h:
Coronavirus was not staged by philanthropists to control people
https://factcheck.afp.com/coronavirus-was-not-staged-philanthropists-control-people
Attention this video denouncing a "corona fraud" and "crimes against
humanity" contains several false information [sic]
https://factuel-afp-com.translate.goog/attention-cette-video-denoncant-une-fraude-corona-et-des-crimes-contre-lhumanite-comporte-plusieurs?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui
> In addition to the above, there is the matter of covid treatment
> protocol - lethal doses of remdesivir (a drug for which there is
> no evidence of efficacy in treating the alleged virus) are routinely
> given after a positive PCR test - this invariably results in
> multiple organ failure, which in turn causes fluid to accumulate
> on the lungs. Doctors then label this "covid pneumonia" and put
> the patient on a ventilator which, as you probably know from your
> own research, is a death sentence.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this crazed and paranoid claim?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir
"Remdesivir, sold under the brand name Veklury,[10][11] is a
broad-spectrum antiviral medication developed by the biopharmaceutical
company Gilead Sciences.[12] It is administered via injection into a
vein.[13][14] During the COVID-19 pandemic, remdesivir was approved or
authorized for emergency use to treat COVID‑19 in around 50
countries.[15] Updated guidelines from the World Health Organization in
November 2020 include a conditional recommendation against the use of
remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.[16]"
> US hospitals receive government payouts each time a "covid"
> patient dies on a ventilator - nice little incentive there.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/
"Our ruling: True
We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as
COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE."
... but also ...
"Ask FactCheck reporter Angelo Fichera, who interviewed Jensen, noted,
"Jensen said he did not think that hospitals were intentionally
misclassifying cases for financial reasons. But that’s how his comments
have been widely interpreted and paraded on social media."
Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "Recent legislation pays hospitals higher
Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no
evidence of fraudulent reporting."
Julie Aultman, a member of the editorial board of the American Medical
Association’s Journal of Ethics, told PolitiFact it is “very unlikely
that physicians or hospitals will falsify data or be motivated by money
to do so.”"
So it's an actual possibility, but there's no evidence that it's
actually happening.
> If you watch the Funeral Director video I linked to in another
> post, he states that he has collected many patients who have
> died as a result of this.
He was totally unbelievable, end of story.
>>> They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
>>> well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the
>>> infection with minimal fuss.
>>
>> Certainly there were drugs long used for other reasons that doctors
>> in the US claimed helped for covid. In itself, that's just a claim
>> but then those drugs suddenly got banned as dangerous in many
>> countries around the world it then looks very suspicious to say the
>> least.
Nearly all the drugs touted widely around social media as being helpful
against covid-19, whether as prevention or cure, have been shown to be
useless when tested under properly managed randomised control trial
conditions with large enough sample sizes.
> D r Z e l e n k o
There is more debunking there than just this:
"The Satmar Hasidic community in Kiryas Joel, New York in Monroe, New
York, where Zelenko was a long-time community physician, issued a
disclaimer to Zelenko's claims about the potential infection rate in
their community as was reported in Jewish media sources, which announced
that "Jewish MD who promoted virus cocktail is leaving [the] community
where he tested it: Dr. Vladimir ‘Zev’ Zelenko, an Orthodox doctor
credited with bringing controversial malaria drug to Trump's attention,
accused of spreading disinformation about infection rates."[10][11][12]
In December 2020, Twitter suspended Zelenko's account for violating
rules against "platform manipulation and spam". The ban was criticized
by U.S. senator Ron Johnson and the Association of American Physicians
and Surgeons, a conservative nonprofit group.[13]"
And so the unfunny clown show goes on and on and on.
Anti-covid anti-vax conspiracy garbage that has been reported to
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:598719...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>> In article <sm49mk$a8h$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really
>>> hasn't fulfilled its remit very well;
>>
>> That's a debatable point. MSM are now talking about "Gain of
>> Function" research on viruses being done at Wuhan paid for by EU and
>> US.
>
> Certainly it made no significant impact on all-cause mortality figures
> in the UK during 2020. Same story in every other country I've looked at.
>
> Fewer deaths per 100k in the UK than there were in the year 2008.
> Slightly worse figures than in 2019 but we know why -
> distorted medical policies and collateral effects of lockdown.
>
>
>
>>
>> It could be argued that all the virus had to do was start the ball
>> rolling.
>
> I would argue that the *perception* of a deadly virus started a 'ball
> of fear' rolling. Think back to those pictures of people in China
> pretending to drop dead on the pavements - they look a bit ridiculous
> now don't they.
where else, Shitter! Why is it that nutters like you just never bother
to check anything at all, no matter how obviously false?
https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-8509320385
Video falsely claims to show bodies of virus victims in China
By ARIJETA LAJKAFebruary 21, 2020
CLAIM: Video shows dead bodies waiting to be picked up in Wuhan, China,
due to new coronavirus.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The video shows people sleeping in the streets
in Shenzhen, China, a city over 600 miles away from Wuhan.
THE FACTS: A video circulating on social media that shows bodies covered
with blankets on a street in China, is falsely identified as people who
died from the new coronavirus.
“Wuhan China. Dead Bodies waiting 4 pickup. Coronavirus NO ordinary
Virus. Is it intentionally released BIO WEAPON?” a Twitter user posted
on Feb. 17."
>>> the virus was so weak that they had to introduce medical
>>> malpractice,
>>
>> I wouldn't put it quite that strongly.
>
> There was medical malpractice - thousands of NHS patients with learning
> difficulties, mental health problems, disabilities, and/or 'OAP' status,
> were euthenised.
> The government stockpiled [...] D r M i k e Y e a d o n talking
> about it with R e i n e r F u e l l m i c h : > h t t p s : / / w w w . b i t c h u t e . c o m / v i d e o / K I u 0
X d Q D f 4 6 w /
> at 1m10s. (bad audio - sorry)
You should be far sorrier for the bad content, in fact you shouldn't've
posted it at all ...
02:27 "I'm only repeating allegations I've heard"
... tells you all you need to know about this worst conspiracy theory
type of absurd fake news. It's extraordinary that anyone is dumb enough
to believe this shit, and the fact that you do tells us everything we
need to know about just how dumb you are, and nothing about the covid-19
pandemic.
More on D r M i k e Y e a d o n:
Fact Check-Fact check: Ex-Pfizer scientist repeats COVID-19 vaccine
misinformation in recorded speech
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-health-coronavirus-idUSL2N2N72CS
More on R e i n e r F u e l l m i c h:
Coronavirus was not staged by philanthropists to control people
https://factcheck.afp.com/coronavirus-was-not-staged-philanthropists-control-people
Attention this video denouncing a "corona fraud" and "crimes against
humanity" contains several false information [sic]
https://factuel-afp-com.translate.goog/attention-cette-video-denoncant-une-fraude-corona-et-des-crimes-contre-lhumanite-comporte-plusieurs?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui
> In addition to the above, there is the matter of covid treatment
> protocol - lethal doses of remdesivir (a drug for which there is
> no evidence of efficacy in treating the alleged virus) are routinely
> given after a positive PCR test - this invariably results in
> multiple organ failure, which in turn causes fluid to accumulate
> on the lungs. Doctors then label this "covid pneumonia" and put
> the patient on a ventilator which, as you probably know from your
> own research, is a death sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir
"Remdesivir, sold under the brand name Veklury,[10][11] is a
broad-spectrum antiviral medication developed by the biopharmaceutical
company Gilead Sciences.[12] It is administered via injection into a
vein.[13][14] During the COVID-19 pandemic, remdesivir was approved or
authorized for emergency use to treat COVID‑19 in around 50
countries.[15] Updated guidelines from the World Health Organization in
November 2020 include a conditional recommendation against the use of
remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.[16]"
> US hospitals receive government payouts each time a "covid"
> patient dies on a ventilator - nice little incentive there.
"Our ruling: True
We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as
COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE."
... but also ...
"Ask FactCheck reporter Angelo Fichera, who interviewed Jensen, noted,
"Jensen said he did not think that hospitals were intentionally
misclassifying cases for financial reasons. But that’s how his comments
have been widely interpreted and paraded on social media."
Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "Recent legislation pays hospitals higher
Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no
evidence of fraudulent reporting."
Julie Aultman, a member of the editorial board of the American Medical
Association’s Journal of Ethics, told PolitiFact it is “very unlikely
that physicians or hospitals will falsify data or be motivated by money
to do so.”"
So it's an actual possibility, but there's no evidence that it's
actually happening.
> If you watch the Funeral Director video I linked to in another
> post, he states that he has collected many patients who have
> died as a result of this.
>>> They also had to suppress and ridicule very simple, cheap and
>>> well-established drugs and supplements that got rid of the
>>> infection with minimal fuss.
>>
>> Certainly there were drugs long used for other reasons that doctors
>> in the US claimed helped for covid. In itself, that's just a claim
>> but then those drugs suddenly got banned as dangerous in many
>> countries around the world it then looks very suspicious to say the
>> least.
against covid-19, whether as prevention or cure, have been shown to be
useless when tested under properly managed randomised control trial
conditions with large enough sample sizes.
> D r Z e l e n k o
> (who has treated the US President and other world leaders)
> has given evidence to an Israeli Rabbinical Court to that effect.
> Video here if it's of interest:
> h t t p s : / / r u m b l e . c o m / v k r d x 6 - d r . - z e l e n k o - s p e a k s - t o - a - r a b b i n i c a l - c o u r t - i n - j e r u s a l e m . h t m l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zelenko
> has given evidence to an Israeli Rabbinical Court to that effect.
> Video here if it's of interest:
> h t t p s : / / r u m b l e . c o m / v k r d x 6 - d r . - z e l e n k o - s p e a k s - t o - a - r a b b i n i c a l - c o u r t - i n - j e r u s a l e m . h t m l
There is more debunking there than just this:
"The Satmar Hasidic community in Kiryas Joel, New York in Monroe, New
York, where Zelenko was a long-time community physician, issued a
disclaimer to Zelenko's claims about the potential infection rate in
their community as was reported in Jewish media sources, which announced
that "Jewish MD who promoted virus cocktail is leaving [the] community
where he tested it: Dr. Vladimir ‘Zev’ Zelenko, an Orthodox doctor
credited with bringing controversial malaria drug to Trump's attention,
accused of spreading disinformation about infection rates."[10][11][12]
In December 2020, Twitter suspended Zelenko's account for violating
rules against "platform manipulation and spam". The ban was criticized
by U.S. senator Ron Johnson and the Association of American Physicians
and Surgeons, a conservative nonprofit group.[13]"
And so the unfunny clown show goes on and on and on.
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 12:23:17 PM11/6/21
to
> should read reuse the masks
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 12:24:47 PM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 13:09, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> There are masses of graphs around showing infections rates in
> countries across the globe. Some folk have dug up when compulsory
> mask wearing was introduced in those countries. You might reasonably
> expect to see a slow down of infections within 2 or 3 weeks but I've
> yet to see a graph which shows that.
So let's see the links to these "masses of graphs around" so that we can
>
> There are masses of graphs around showing infections rates in
> countries across the globe. Some folk have dug up when compulsory
> mask wearing was introduced in those countries. You might reasonably
> expect to see a slow down of infections within 2 or 3 weeks but I've
> yet to see a graph which shows that.
judge for ourselves.
Tweed
Nov 6, 2021, 12:46:05 PM11/6/21
to
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sm611d$5q9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>
> The corollary is that they know that ordinary masks do very little.
>
> Bob.
>
>
From the studies I’ve read (don’t ask for references, I’ve forgotten where
I read them), at the most optimistic mask wearing (non FFP3) reduces the
spread of infection by 10%, and in all likelihood less. It is very
difficult to measure directly.
Germany probably does much better simply because they’ve issued their over
60s with FFP2 (or better) masks that protect the wearer.
> In article <sm611d$5q9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you.
>> One if the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their
>> ward staff to FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff
>> infection rate dropped like a stone to almost nothing.
>
> Interesting thanks for that. If they work I may get some of those.
>
>
>> If you are vulnerable buy a box of FFP3 masks. These protect you.
>> One if the Cambridge hospitals did some work on moving all their
>> ward staff to FFP3 masks instead of surgical masks. Their staff
>> infection rate dropped like a stone to almost nothing.
>
>
> The corollary is that they know that ordinary masks do very little.
>
> Bob.
>
>
From the studies I’ve read (don’t ask for references, I’ve forgotten where
I read them), at the most optimistic mask wearing (non FFP3) reduces the
spread of infection by 10%, and in all likelihood less. It is very
difficult to measure directly.
Germany probably does much better simply because they’ve issued their over
60s with FFP2 (or better) masks that protect the wearer.
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 3:20:12 PM11/6/21
to
... but at times, and never more so since the pandemic began, public
talk about them has been grossly, even hysterically, misinformed.
The western-based non-profit-making organisation that was collaborating
with the Wuhan lab and had its funding suddenly cut by President Trump
was the New York based trust EcoHealth Alliance. Although it's not
strictly relevant to the discussion below, note particularly the
historical note that I've included - it was founded originally by the
British naturalist Gerald Durrell as Jersey Zoo (the trust came later),
the first zoo in the world to pioneer primarily keeping species in
danger of extinction as breeding stock to repopulate the wild:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
"EcoHealth Alliance
EcoHealth Alliance is a US-based[1] non-governmental organization with a
stated mission of protecting people, animals, and the environment from
emerging infectious diseases. The nonprofit is focused on research that
aims to prevent pandemics and promote conservation in hotspot regions
worldwide.
EcoHealth Alliance focuses on diseases caused by deforestation and
increased interaction between humans and wildlife. The organization has
researched the emergence of diseases such as severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS), Nipah virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS),
Rift Valley fever, the Ebola virus, and COVID-19."
A further note of interest:
"History
Founded under the name Wildlife Preservation Trust International in 1971
by British naturalist, author, and television personality Gerald
Durrell, it became The Wildlife Trust in 1999.[9] In the fall of 2010,
the organization changed its name to EcoHealth Alliance.[10] The rebrand
reflected a change in the organization's focus, moving from solely a
conservation nonprofit which focused mainly on the captive breeding of
endangered species, to an environmental health organization with its
foundation in conservation.[11]"
It's president is Peter Daszac, and at the time the Trump administration
first accused the Chinese of leaking the virus lab, Peter Daszac
appeared on BBC Inside Science interviewed by Roland Pease:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020, 18:50-end
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
"For 15 years we have been saying in every single paper we've published
that these bat coronaviruses are a high risk for the next pandemic. We
should stop eating bats. We should close down the wildlife trade. That
if we're not careful we shall see a pandemic of a bat origin coronavirus
from China. Repeatedly. John Reese (spelling?) said it, I've said it,
and many others have said it ... the people who said that are now being
accused of starting the outbreak. It's absolutely preposterous!"
The report also quote Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist from the University
of North Carolina speaking in 2018 in a lecture entitled "The Coming
Pandemic", who not only foresaw the current situation, but even the fake
news that would surround it!
22:04 Ralph Baric
"There's an opportunity to have political gain, financial gain, personal
gain during times of social upheaval, and that will probably occur.
There will be misleading stories on social media. Miracle cures that
will be touted. Conspiracy theories. So what can we do, leaders and
health professionals have to retain credibility, speak in a unified
voice, and tell the truth. This is absolutely essential. And certainly
it will lead the public to look for an answer, and there will be plenty
of people out there willing to provide answers that will be for their
own gain."
Unfortunately, I've not been able to find that lecture online, mostly
searches around the subject led to variously stupid conspiracy theory
websites, the best performing search was for ...
2018 lecture +"Ralph Baric" +"The Coming Pandemic"
... via which I did find this:
https://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/how-genetic-mutations-turned-the-coronavirus-deadly
"A few scientists tried to sound the alarm. In a 2015 study,
epidemiologist Ralph Baric and his colleagues at the University of North
Carolina analyzed the genomes of bat coronaviruses and warned, “Our work
suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses
currently circulating in bat populations.”[1] A second paper from the
same group the next year warned that another SARS-like disease from bat
coronaviruses was “poised for human emergence.”[2]" [but no links]
22:55 Back to Peter Daszac:
"So what we do is we look at bats, we get the genetic sequences, we
don't collect the viruses we collect the genetic code of the viruses,
it's not infectious material, because from the genetic sequence of the
virus you can tell pretty clearly whether it's likely to be able to
infect people. So what we're looking for are viruses that can infect
people, that are close to SARS, that could potentially cause a pandemic.
It's exactly what's happened with covid-19, that's what we've been
working on for 15 years, [to] try and stop this happening."
[...]
"One of the reasons scientists create these chimaeric viruses [...] they
do this so that we don't have to collect live samples and ship them
round the world, it's to protect public health. So what you can do now,
is you can get a virus that's NOT risky for people, and you can put one
of the spike proteins into that virus, and test it in the lab to see if
vaccines will work against the high risk virus. This work has already
been used to test drugs against covid-19 [...] designing vaccines to
save our lives"
[In the immediately above paragraph, [...] represents talk about
misinformed public attacks on their work]
> They concluded that the virus almost certainly originated from the Wuhan
> laboratory, but the escape into the wild was almost certainly accidental
> because nobody involved in the programme would have considered such an
> uncontrolled experiment with a deliberately enhanced and thus
> potentially lethal virus.
25:51 Rasmus Nielsen
I think this is he:
https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/faculty/rasmus-nielsen
"[Can't distinguish] is relatively compatible with a model in which the
most closely related virus to the human virus diverts from the human
virus about 35 years ago. So about 35 years ago there was a common
ancestor of this bat virus and the human virus, and since then we don't
know what it has been doing, we can't really say for sure if it
transferred to other mammals, or what else has been going on, but
there's nothing that we see in the pattern that is unusual for viral
evolution that would suggest that there's anything else going on than
the usual process of accumulation of mutation, natural selection, and
the occasional transfer from one species to another."
27:22 Peter Daszak
"I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years, and I do
that with my eyes wide open, I realise that behind of all that is an
authoritarian regime, but I've listened to everything they've said to me
for fifteen years, I've worked with them, I've eaten dinner with them,
I've been in the lab, we've had staff embedded in their labs, they've
visited the US, and Europe, and other places, I've never heard anything
said by anybody that in any way was suspicious, or we've later found out
to be untruthful. These are just scientists doing their job, just like
scientists all round the world. There's nothing unusual about this work
at all."
28:15 Peter Daszac
"One thing's pretty clear from five months of listening to the internet
trolls, there's a political effort to cast blame on a country, or in
this case on a lab, with an undercurrent of trying to alleviate the
blame of doing a terrible job of handling the pandemic. It's
politicisation of science that's going to hold up public health, and
it's going to kill people. [...] Politics and pandemics don't mix!"
> My own aside is that the Chinese Government would have to stop the local
> population from blaming the lab for the epidemic, hence the fake news
> that it came from infected animals in the local meat market. Having
> done that to avoid local protests, they are not going to allow any
> foreign interference to undermine their local "solution".
I've outlined above. I'll have another look later tonight for the more
recent edition of a science programme that discusses the blood samples
from early in the pandemic, but from memory it won't support any
conspiracy theories.
Java Jive
Nov 6, 2021, 3:40:28 PM11/6/21
to
On 06/11/2021 16:17, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsADDA9A2...@144.76.35.252>,
> supporting evidence.
No, that's you.
>
> In article <XnsADDA9A2...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you provide links to those graphs or studies you say which show
>> not wearing a mask is as safe a wearing one.
>>
>> How well do all such studies correlate?
>
> Nonsense. You appear determined to believe propaganda despite no
>
>> Can you provide links to those graphs or studies you say which show
>> not wearing a mask is as safe a wearing one.
>>
>> How well do all such studies correlate?
>
> supporting evidence.
No, that's you.
Pamela
Nov 6, 2021, 3:52:38 PM11/6/21
to
>
> There is *STILL* no evidence that the truth is any different from
> that I've outlined above. I'll have another look later tonight for
> the more recent edition of a science programme that discusses the
> blood samples from early in the pandemic, but from memory it won't
> support any conspiracy theories.
The common depiction of progress in science is of a "lightbulb moment" of
> There is *STILL* no evidence that the truth is any different from
> that I've outlined above. I'll have another look later tonight for
> the more recent edition of a science programme that discusses the
> blood samples from early in the pandemic, but from memory it won't
> support any conspiracy theories.
a new discovery and this would suit Donald Trump's simplistic
understanding of the world outside of real estate. The reality is more
prosaic and many others will have made important contributions along the
way to set the scene for such a lightbulb moment. One lab may do more
than another but it's rare for it to be the sole basis for a branch of
science and I woud be surprised if Wuhan fell into that category.
Pamela
Nov 6, 2021, 3:56:34 PM11/6/21
to
On 16:17 6 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADDA9A2...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> In article <XnsADDA9A2...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can you provide links to those graphs or studies you say which show
>> not wearing a mask is as safe a wearing one.
>
>> How well do all such studies correlate?
>
>> not wearing a mask is as safe a wearing one.
>
>> How well do all such studies correlate?
>
> Nonsense. You appear determined to believe propaganda despite no
> supporting evidence.
>
> Bob.
> supporting evidence.
>
On the contrary, you appear determined to believe counter-claims
despite no supporting evidence.
I suspect you can't see it because that's the nature of conspiracy
theories. Even the way you're railing against scientific consensus can
be appear to a blinkered outlook as holding the hidden truth.
Do you have any formal scientific background?
Java Jive
Nov 7, 2021, 6:36:12 PM11/7/21
to
On 06/11/2021 19:20, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2021 12:03, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> The Wuhan lab is one of several world wide engaged in that programme,
>> and the way the virus targets humans so completely fits the modus
>> operandi of creating that scenario as part of the programme.
>
> So-called Gain Of Function experiments are a legitimate concern ...
I left a space there to insert some background from 2016, but forgot to
>
> On 06/11/2021 12:03, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> The Wuhan lab is one of several world wide engaged in that programme,
>> and the way the virus targets humans so completely fits the modus
>> operandi of creating that scenario as part of the programme.
>
> So-called Gain Of Function experiments are a legitimate concern ...
paste the link in my email above:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
BBC Inside Science, 10/3/2016, 00:40
Gain Of Function
01:45 "Among the comments received ahead of today's meeting, was one
from David Fedson, who's a visiting Professor at Harvard ...
Seems to be this guy:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
... and an expert in the public health impact of new pathogens from
influenza to ebola. He wrote that: "If GoF research accidentally or
deliberately creates a new highly virulent and highly transmissable
influenza virus it will spread throughout the world in a matter of
months. The ensuing pandemic will be a global event." And yet,
proponents say the only hope of defeating new and deadly viruses is too
study them in the laboratory in order to find effective ways to fight them."
The ensuing discussion with Dr Filippa Lentzos ...
http://www.filippalentzos.com/
... on the issues surrounding GoF research is worth hearing in its own
right.
> .... but at times, and never more so since the pandemic began, public
> talk about them has been grossly, even hysterically, misinformed.
[snip]
>> My own aside is that the Chinese Government would have to stop the
>> local population from blaming the lab for the epidemic, hence the fake
>> news that it came from infected animals in the local meat market.
>> Having done that to avoid local protests, they are not going to allow
>> any foreign interference to undermine their local "solution".
>
> There is *STILL* no evidence that the truth is any different from that
> I've outlined above. I'll have another look later tonight for the more
> recent edition of a science programme that discusses the blood samples
> from early in the pandemic, but from memory it won't support any
> conspiracy theories.
listened to over the last few months ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
Science in Action, 27/06/2021, 0:56-14:16
Tales of unexpected DNA data
Bit of a minor bombshell this, given my last sentence quoted above, a
suggestion of possible Chinese conspiracy or cover up, but, as I
remembered and was really thinking of when I wrote it, still no support
for a lab leak theory over the otherwise more plausible natural
evolution theory.
Really people need to listen to this item in its entirety for
themselves, because it is tangled and complicated, but here's my attempt
at a summary ...
A new paper by virologist Jesse Bloom reported the discovery of some
early Wuhan partial genetic sequences. These were taken at an early
date in the outbreak there but the date meta data is not available, and
they give sequences that are two or three mutations closer to the
original bat virus compared to the ones that were previously considered
to have been the start of the outbreak, suggesting that the outbreak
began a month or more earlier than the Chinese authorities have so far
admitted.
Because they were taken as part of improving testing for the virus, they
were in a different set of databases than sequences taken for the
purposes of tracing its origins, and thus previously to Jesse Bloom
finding them had been overlooked by other researchers in the latter field.
Moreover, it appears as though a deliberate attempt has been made to
make the samples hard to find. Previously they had been stored in and
American National Institute For Health database, but around June 2020
the original authors emailed the NIH asking for the sequences to be
removed, saying that they would be published elsewhere, but no-one has
been able to find them published elsewhere. Jesse Bloom realised that
all NIH data would have been backed up on Google Cloud, and was able to
guess the URLs of the samples, and so retrieve them for analysis.
So given the summary above, now we can ask: why was this done? Of
course proponents of the lab leak origin will immediately claim it was
to cover that up, but Jesse Bloom himself is adamant that the samples he
has analysed push back the origins of the outbreak somewhat, but don't
favour particularly any particular origin, and most other researchers,
based on the data previously available, tend to give the lab leak origin
a low to very low probability, and there are plenty enough other
possible explanations for a Chinese cover up. One is that the Chinese
wish to appear that they have fully co-operating with the outside world,
but if the virus had been circulating in the Wuhan area a month or more
before they announced the outbreak - perhaps initially they hoped to
contain it and stamp it out, and so save themselves the embarrassment of
having to admit another SARS to the world, but failed - then it's
going to be embarrassing to admit that they'd known about it in the
intervening time, but failed to alert the outside world. Further, they
are supposed to have outlawed and eliminated wild animal farming, but we
know from other reports (below) that there were farmed wild animals in
the market in November, so that too is potentially embarrassing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
BBC Inside Science, 26/8/2021
00:52 Window to solve pandemic origins closing
"But first, covid-19, and the crucial question of how exactly this
terrible pandemic began. In January of this year, a team of scientists
appointed by the World Health Organisation set out to answer that
question with a research mission to Wuhan, the Chinese city at the
centre of the initial outbreak in December 2019. When they published
their findings this March, they couldn't point to the pandemic's
starting point conclusively, but they listed the probable sources in
order of scientific probability. Top of their list, that a farmed
animal provided a bridge for what was a bat virus to jump the species
barrier into humans. But that report was only a first step, the team
recommended crucial phase 2 studies that would need biological samples
from wildlife farms and from blood banks all over China. That research,
they said, would extend the existing threads of evidence to get closer
to the pandemic's origin. But in an article in the journal 'Nature'
this week, the researchers warn that the window of opportunity for those
crucial studies is closing."
Victoria Gill goes on to interview a member of the team, Dutch
virologist Professor Marion Koopmans. Summarising:
* Agreeing with independently with Rasmus Nielsen quoted from BBC
Inside Science of 7/5/2020 in my post above, she states that there is a
30-40 year unaccounted for gap of evolutionary time between the nearest
then known [but see below] bat coronaviruses and SARS-Cov-2.
* Two different reports on the Wuhan market state that susceptible
possible animal hosts were present in the market in November, but not in
December, so where did the susceptible animals come from, etc?
[JJ: And why disappeared in December? Belated Chinese crackdown to shut
stable door after horse had bolted? See first report above and next
bullet point!]
* Wild animal farming is supposed to have been banned by China, does
the November report signify that actually it's been continuing unofficially?
* Clear that there was widespread circulation in Wuhan throughout
December, but were there earlier pockets, blood bank donations need to
be sampled to test for earlier antibodies in the human population.
* Lab leak not impossible but they think least likely of the possible
origins. Investigating lab leak not part of investigators' terms of
reference for mission.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
BBC Inside Science, 23/09/2021, 16:42-23:28
Origins of SARS-Cov-2
17:03 "A team from the Pasteur Institute, in Paris, investigating bats
in caves in northern Laos, have discovered that the bats in the caves
are infected with a coronavirus that's genetically almost identical to
the one that's causing covid in humans"
Further detail on same story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
Science In Action, 23/09/2021, 00:40-07:36
New Evidence For SARSCoV2's Origin In Bats
Max Demian
Nov 8, 2021, 7:40:21 AM11/8/21
to
Also would have been better if the US hadn't developed the atom bomb on
the off chance that Germany developed one.
Similarly for chemical and biological warfare, and, in WW1, submarines.
There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use it
on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on the
Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can test
out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki) varieties.
--
Max Demian
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 7:42:16 AM11/8/21
to
On 2021-11-05, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority conspire.
>
> I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being developed
> and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who questions them.
>
> Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those who
> believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
> conspiracy theorists.
>
> The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.
Indeed. Remember that the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a laboratory
in Wuhan was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Now it seems certain
that is the case. The idea that Fauci and other people at the forefront
of implementing strategies for handling Covid-19 helped to fund gain of
function research was similarly dismissed. We now know it to be true.
As some people joke, conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these
days. The interesting thing is, these weren't even genuine conspiracy
theories at the time; they were just dismissed as such.
It's easy to use more bizarre theories such as Sandy Hook being staged
using "crisis actors" to cast doubt on people who question the
establishment narrative. It's information control and social
engineering. Just as bad as people who believe crazy theories based on
little evidence are those who accept everything that governments and the
mainstream media tell them without questioning it. Sensible people are
more circumspect than that, having a healthy level of scepticism.
> On 05/11/2021 18:54, Pamela wrote:
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
>> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>
> This is a Guy Fawkes night!
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
>> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>
>
> Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority conspire.
>
> I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being developed
> and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who questions them.
>
> Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those who
> believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
> conspiracy theorists.
>
> The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.
Indeed. Remember that the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a laboratory
in Wuhan was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Now it seems certain
that is the case. The idea that Fauci and other people at the forefront
of implementing strategies for handling Covid-19 helped to fund gain of
function research was similarly dismissed. We now know it to be true.
As some people joke, conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these
days. The interesting thing is, these weren't even genuine conspiracy
theories at the time; they were just dismissed as such.
It's easy to use more bizarre theories such as Sandy Hook being staged
using "crisis actors" to cast doubt on people who question the
establishment narrative. It's information control and social
engineering. Just as bad as people who believe crazy theories based on
little evidence are those who accept everything that governments and the
mainstream media tell them without questioning it. Sensible people are
more circumspect than that, having a healthy level of scepticism.
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 7:45:49 AM11/8/21
to
On 2021-11-05, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
>
> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
> US and the EU fund virus research.
>
> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>
> That was a conspiracy theory.
As I argue in my other post, I don't think it was even a conspiracy
theory. People merely pointed out the likelihood that the research
facility in Wuhan, which was known to study Covid viruses, had an
accidental leak. The subsequent argument that pushing the bat soup
narrative and labelling anything concerning the lab as being on the level
of moon landing theories was the real conspiracy.
> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> Except when they turn out to be right.
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
>
> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
> US and the EU fund virus research.
>
> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
> accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>
> That was a conspiracy theory.
As I argue in my other post, I don't think it was even a conspiracy
theory. People merely pointed out the likelihood that the research
facility in Wuhan, which was known to study Covid viruses, had an
accidental leak. The subsequent argument that pushing the bat soup
narrative and labelling anything concerning the lab as being on the level
of moon landing theories was the real conspiracy.
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 7:47:47 AM11/8/21
to
On 2021-11-05, Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
> get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
> so clearly demonstrated.
It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
concerning.
>
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>
>> most people now know the likelihood is that
>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>> accidental or not.
>
>> most people now know the likelihood is that
>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>> accidental or not.
>
> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
> fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
> introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
> get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
> so clearly demonstrated.
It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
concerning.
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 7:49:04 AM11/8/21
to
On 2021-11-06, Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The term "conspiracy theory" doesn't refer to something true.
Actually, it can. MK ULTRA was a conspiracy theory for years. It
turned out to be real.
> On 20:20 5 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>
>>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>> Except when they turn out to be right.
>>
>> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
>> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
>> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
>> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
>> US and the EU fund virus research.
>>
>> Things are different now, most people now know the likelihood is that
>
>> In article <XnsADD9C05...@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>
>>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>> Except when they turn out to be right.
>>
>> I recall a year ago the narrative was that the virus came from bats
>> in a wet market and it was a conspiracy theory and stupid to say
>> anything else. Despite the obvious snag that there are wet markets
>> all over that part of china but the virus came from Wuhan where the
>> US and the EU fund virus research.
>>
>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>> accidental or not. Plenty of documentary items now even on MSM
>> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>>
>> That was a conspiracy theory.
>>
>> Bob.
>> showing what happened around September 2019 in that lab.
>>
>> That was a conspiracy theory.
>>
>
> The term "conspiracy theory" doesn't refer to something true.
Actually, it can. MK ULTRA was a conspiracy theory for years. It
turned out to be real.
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 8:10:48 AM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 12:42, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-05, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 18:54, Pamela wrote:
>>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>>
>>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
>>> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>>
>>
>> This is a Guy Fawkes night!
>>
>> Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority conspire.
>>
>> I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being developed
>> and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who questions them.
>>
>> Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those who
>> believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
>> conspiracy theorists.
>>
>> The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.
>
> Indeed. Remember that the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a laboratory
> in Wuhan was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Now it seems certain
> that is the case. The idea that Fauci and other people at the forefront
> of implementing strategies for handling Covid-19 helped to fund gain of
> function research was similarly dismissed. We now know it to be true.
> As some people joke, conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these
> days. The interesting thing is, these weren't even genuine conspiracy
> theories at the time; they were just dismissed as such.
This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked already in this
> On 2021-11-05, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 18:54, Pamela wrote:
>>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>>
>>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
>>> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>>
>>
>> This is a Guy Fawkes night!
>>
>> Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority conspire.
>>
>> I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being developed
>> and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who questions them.
>>
>> Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those who
>> believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
>> conspiracy theorists.
>>
>> The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.
>
> Indeed. Remember that the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a laboratory
> in Wuhan was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Now it seems certain
> that is the case. The idea that Fauci and other people at the forefront
> of implementing strategies for handling Covid-19 helped to fund gain of
> function research was similarly dismissed. We now know it to be true.
> As some people joke, conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these
> days. The interesting thing is, these weren't even genuine conspiracy
> theories at the time; they were just dismissed as such.
very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea that you read
*all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing the mark
as a result.
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 8:12:54 AM11/8/21
to
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 8:16:26 AM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 12:45, Incubus wrote:
>
> As I argue in my other post, I don't think it was even a conspiracy
> theory. People merely pointed out the likelihood that the research
> facility in Wuhan, which was known to study Covid viruses, had an
> accidental leak. The subsequent argument that pushing the bat soup
> narrative and labelling anything concerning the lab as being on the level
> of moon landing theories was the real conspiracy.
Again comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this thread.
>
> As I argue in my other post, I don't think it was even a conspiracy
> theory. People merely pointed out the likelihood that the research
> facility in Wuhan, which was known to study Covid viruses, had an
> accidental leak. The subsequent argument that pushing the bat soup
> narrative and labelling anything concerning the lab as being on the level
> of moon landing theories was the real conspiracy.
Pamela
Nov 8, 2021, 8:28:47 AM11/8/21
to
On 12:42 8 Nov 2021, Incubus said:
> On 2021-11-05, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 18:54, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>>
>>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>> This is a Guy Fawkes night!
>>
>> Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority
>> conspire.
>>
>> I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being
>> developed and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who
>> questions them.
>>
>> Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those
>> who believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
>> conspiracy theorists.
>>
>> The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.
>
> Indeed. Remember that the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a
> laboratory in Wuhan was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Now it
> seems certain that is the case. The idea that Fauci and other
> people at the forefront of implementing strategies for handling
> Covid-19 helped to fund gain of function research was similarly
> dismissed. We now know it to be true.
It wasn't as simple as that. Conspiracy theorists claimed the U.S.
> On 2021-11-05, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2021 18:54, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>>
>>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>> This is a Guy Fawkes night!
>>
>> Humans do conspire. In particular people in power and authority
>> conspire.
>>
>> I get the feeling that the conspiracy theorist meme is being
>> developed and marketed by those in power to attack anyone who
>> questions them.
>>
>> Both people who believe the moon landings didn't happen, and those
>> who believe some MPs are for hire by rich political lobbyists, are
>> conspiracy theorists.
>>
>> The trick is to be able to dismiss reasonable doubt as paranoid.
>
> Indeed. Remember that the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a
> laboratory in Wuhan was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Now it
> seems certain that is the case. The idea that Fauci and other
> people at the forefront of implementing strategies for handling
> Covid-19 helped to fund gain of function research was similarly
> dismissed. We now know it to be true.
government had funded development of Covid in Wuhan. The truth turned
out to be far more prosaic. As is often the case with conspiracy
theorists, they alight on a possible fragment of truth and then make
vast untrue inferences. Conspiracy theory thinking is a dysfunctional
process which uses various thinking errors and lack of mental ability.
Dr Fauci calls Rand Paul and his wacky questions at the congressional
committees as "egregiously correct", meaning that a fragment of what
has been claimed is technically true but it's presented in an
"egregiously misrepresentative" way.
One might note how delusionalists such as Rand Paul, Marjorie Taylor
Greene, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Lindell, Donald trump etc
band together and present themselves as having secret insights.
> As some people joke, conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts
> these days. The interesting thing is, these weren't even genuine
> conspiracy theories at the time; they were just dismissed as such.
>
> It's easy to use more bizarre theories such as Sandy Hook being
> staged using "crisis actors" to cast doubt on people who question
> the establishment narrative. It's information control and social
> engineering. Just as bad as people who believe crazy theories based
> on little evidence are those who accept everything that governments
> and the mainstream media tell them without questioning it. Sensible
> people are more circumspect than that, having a healthy level of
> scepticism.
(that the Sandy Hook school massacre was orchestrated by the parents)
and also claims by Dr Stella Immanuel (originally from voodoo-loving
Cameroon) that she cures Covid with hydroxychloroquine. The bigger
problem is that there's many more people duped by less obvious
consipracy theorists but who can not see the lunacy of their
situation.
In the end a penchant for consipracy theories is a personal
psychological matter (quoted in my original post) and no amount of
rational debate or hard facts will make adherents change their mind.
So nowadays the lunatics are trying to run the asylum and social media
is their power base. The cult of Scientology used to seek out
mentally susceptible new members and groom them, but today social
media permits these same victims to band together in "self-help"
groups and swap misinformed ideas. Bless.
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 9:17:45 AM11/8/21
to
being a newcomer, you must be a newcomer to Usenet. Either that or just
an arrogant fukwit.
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 9:21:19 AM11/8/21
to
conspiracy theories.
> Dr Fauci calls Rand Paul and his wacky questions at the congressional
> committees as "egregiously correct", meaning that a fragment of what
> has been claimed is technically true but it's presented in an
> "egregiously misrepresentative" way.
> One might note how delusionalists such as Rand Paul, Marjorie Taylor
> Greene, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Lindell, Donald trump etc
> band together and present themselves as having secret insights.
chamber.
Pancho
Nov 8, 2021, 9:38:25 AM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>> concerning.
>
> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>
Where?
>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>> concerning.
>
> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 10:06:59 AM11/8/21
to
began in the lab. The scientists reported in my posts are a range of
sources, not one, and they are pretty much agreed that the lab leak
origin is the least likely to be true. If you think differently, then
link to some robust provenance for it, otherwise don't repeat what you
can't substantiate.
> As for being a newcomer, you must be a newcomer to Usenet. Either that or
> just an arrogant fukwit.
the latter and are the former troll I suspect, hopefully you'll obey
some common-or-garden social rules this time. If not, ignore that last
remark but consider that perhaps I've seen 1,000's or more posts by
idiots repeating crap they don't understand and can't substantiate.
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 10:09:24 AM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 14:21, Incubus wrote:
>
> That's not really so very different from being part of a Remainer echo
> chamber.
Non-sequitur. Attempt to move the goal-posts away from a losing
>
> That's not really so very different from being part of a Remainer echo
> chamber.
argument, just like the former troll, noted.
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 10:16:54 AM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 14:38, Pancho wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>
[Quoting broken: Incubus wrote:]
>
> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>>> concerning.
>>
>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>
> Where?
See my posts of 6/11 19:20 in reply to Indy Jess John, and my follow-up
>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>>> concerning.
>>
>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>
> Where?
to that of 7/11 23:36.
Note the particularly the point that once they've obtained the genome,
they don't deal in live viruses, precisely because they're too dangerous.
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 8, 2021, 10:41:19 AM11/8/21
to
On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 18:54:57 UTC, Pamela wrote:
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> theories
>
Three reasons: -
1. Sometimes they are true / right - Marinus van der Lubbe did not fire the Reichstag, the nazis did it, similarly Poland did not invade Germany, Goebbels faked the Gleiwitz incident, part of Operation Himmler, Putin's spies murdered two people in the UK and so on.
2. Sometimes they are very plausible - Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the KGB, the mafia were trying to remove Robert Kennedy from JFK's government and Oswald himself was assassinated a few days after he shot JFK, by a man dying from cancer.
3. Most times however it is just quasi-religious denial of obvious fact - e.g. the death of Princess Diana. Even if the never found white car did cause the accident, for it to be deliberate its driver would need to have arrived at the tunnel before her Merc', know it was coming, know she was in it, know it was speeding and the driver was drunk and drugged, know there was no Armco in the tunnel and that Diana was NOT wearing a seat belt (I personally survived a head on crash with similar velocity relatively unscathed because I was) and manouvre the car in exactly the right way to cause her Merc' to swerve and crash into a column and assess that the impact would be enough to kill her, but not cause enough damage to their vehicle to prevent their escape. Clearly a virtually impossible series of coincidences to be planned. OTOH a plane crash...
Pamela
Nov 8, 2021, 10:51:56 AM11/8/21
to
On 14:21 8 Nov 2021, Incubus said:
> On 2021-11-08, Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
Marjorie Taylor Greene (space cadet): Pizzagate, LA massacre, etc.
Sidney Powell (true wacko): Venezuelan software in voting machines.
Rudy Giuliani (former NY prosecutor): total mental breakdown.
Mike Lindell (MyPillow): dramatic voter fraud non-proof.
Donald Trump (Queens mafiosi): fake president, bad loser.
Google for more.
> On 2021-11-08, Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> One might note how delusionalists such as Rand Paul, Marjorie
>> Taylor Greene, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Lindell, Donald
>> trump etc band together and present themselves as having secret
>> insights.
>
> You seem more familiar with their ideas than I. Can you give
> examples?
Rand Paul (undying supporter of Trump): Dr Fauci's expertise.
>> One might note how delusionalists such as Rand Paul, Marjorie
>> Taylor Greene, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Lindell, Donald
>> trump etc band together and present themselves as having secret
>> insights.
>
> You seem more familiar with their ideas than I. Can you give
> examples?
Marjorie Taylor Greene (space cadet): Pizzagate, LA massacre, etc.
Sidney Powell (true wacko): Venezuelan software in voting machines.
Rudy Giuliani (former NY prosecutor): total mental breakdown.
Mike Lindell (MyPillow): dramatic voter fraud non-proof.
Donald Trump (Queens mafiosi): fake president, bad loser.
Google for more.
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 10:53:33 AM11/8/21
to
Pamela
Nov 8, 2021, 11:10:29 AM11/8/21
to
hold two mutually exclusive explanations for the same event (as part
of their quest to make sense in their own terms about "something's not
right"). The example given was Diana faked her own death and was also
assassinated.
It's said conspiracy theorists are trying to make sense of something
which can't be explained by their usual understanding of the world and
so they embrace ideas which seem weird to anyone else. It's as if they
have experienced severe traumatic shock and are trying to work out
what's happened using a poor personal knowledge base and usually poor
education too.
Conspiracy theorists are said to strongly dislike all forms of
authority (which may be down to some past experience or just an
inferiority complex in their personality) and this makes them are
reflexively resistant to anything told by experts, preferring to do
their own "research". They also seem to enjoy the power of the
"secret" inside knowledge which the "sheeple" don't possess.
Conspiracy theorists will "know" that everything I have written above
is part of a clever plot to suppress the truth.
I honestly believe they may be part of the undiagnosed quasi
psychotic, which is said to form something like 0.5 percent of the
population.
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 11:40:49 AM11/8/21
to
in this thread, as per my reply to Pancho.
Are you sure you haven't nym-shifted?
Pamela
Nov 8, 2021, 11:55:03 AM11/8/21
to
On 16:40 8 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 08/11/2021 15:53, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-08, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> In his head.
>
> In a number of respected scientists' heads, reproduced by me
> elsewhere in this thread, as per my reply to Pancho.
>
> Are you sure you haven't nym-shifted?
I can vouch for Incubus. He's no sock. He's generally a nice guy who
> On 08/11/2021 15:53, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-08, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> In his head.
>
> In a number of respected scientists' heads, reproduced by me
> elsewhere in this thread, as per my reply to Pancho.
>
> Are you sure you haven't nym-shifted?
makes a lot of sense but tends towards the conspiratorial more than I
would like.
Pancho
Nov 8, 2021, 12:01:28 PM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 15:16, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 14:38, Pancho wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
> [Quoting broken: Incubus wrote:]
>>>>
>>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>>>> concerning.
>>>
>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>
>> Where?
>
> See my posts of 6/11 19:20 in reply to Indy Jess John, and my follow-up
> to that of 7/11 23:36.
>
Ah I see, the fallacy of an appeal to a wall of rambling bollocks.
> On 08/11/2021 14:38, Pancho wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
> [Quoting broken: Incubus wrote:]
>>>>
>>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>>>> concerning.
>>>
>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>
>> Where?
>
> See my posts of 6/11 19:20 in reply to Indy Jess John, and my follow-up
> to that of 7/11 23:36.
>
Something you refer to as proof, confident in the knowledge it is too
tedious for anyone to read. First para "Although it's not strictly
relevant" and references to Gerald Durrell.
You're spot on, it was to tedious to read.
If you have an actual argument, could you summarise it in a few
sentences, without meandering asides.
> Note the particularly the point that once they've obtained the genome,
> they don't deal in live viruses, precisely because they're too dangerous.
>
Pancho
Nov 8, 2021, 12:02:54 PM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 16:54, Pamela wrote:
> I can vouch for Incubus. He's no sock. He's generally a nice guy who
> makes a lot of sense but tends towards the conspiratorial more than I
> would like.
>
Are you calling Incubus is a bender?
> I can vouch for Incubus. He's no sock. He's generally a nice guy who
> makes a lot of sense but tends towards the conspiratorial more than I
> would like.
>
williamwright
Nov 8, 2021, 12:25:15 PM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 12:40, Max Demian wrote:
> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use it
> on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on the
> Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can test
> out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki) varieties.
The A bombs saved a lot of American lives. The invasion of Japan would
> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use it
> on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on the
> Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can test
> out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki) varieties.
have been a bloodbath. I don't count Jap lives as being worth a light
because of the way they treated POWs.
Bill
Incubus
Nov 8, 2021, 12:32:05 PM11/8/21
to
On 2021-11-08, Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 12:40:08 PM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 17:01, Pancho wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 15:16, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 14:38, Pancho wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>> [Quoting broken: Incubus wrote:]
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>>>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>>>>> concerning.
>>>>
>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> See my posts of 6/11 19:20 in reply to Indy Jess John, and my
>> follow-up to that of 7/11 23:36.
>>
>
> Ah I see, the fallacy of an appeal to a wall of rambling bollocks.
>
> Something you refer to as proof, confident in the knowledge it is too
> tedious for anyone to read. First para "Although it's not strictly
> relevant" and references to Gerald Durrell.
It so happens that the Trust founded by Gerald Durrell is intimately
> On 08/11/2021 15:16, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 14:38, Pancho wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>> [Quoting broken: Incubus wrote:]
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>>>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>>>>> concerning.
>>>>
>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> See my posts of 6/11 19:20 in reply to Indy Jess John, and my
>> follow-up to that of 7/11 23:36.
>>
>
> Ah I see, the fallacy of an appeal to a wall of rambling bollocks.
>
> Something you refer to as proof, confident in the knowledge it is too
> tedious for anyone to read. First para "Although it's not strictly
> relevant" and references to Gerald Durrell.
involved in this story.
> You're spot on, it was to tedious to read.
subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem. It
only remains to give a well-known quote that applies to you: "It's
better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool than
to open it and remove all shadow of doubt!"
> If you have an actual argument, could you summarise it in a few
> sentences, without meandering asides.
of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
is read it *before* slagging it off.
>> Note the particularly the point that once they've obtained the genome,
>> they don't deal in live viruses, precisely because they're too dangerous.
>
> What point! How would we know it was true.
hand what was going on in the Wuhan lab.
Either read it, or if you prefer listen to the programmes linked
instead, or stop spouting bollocks about something you don't understand
and have admitted that you are too lazy to understand.
Pamela
Nov 8, 2021, 12:50:00 PM11/8/21
to
and sincere.
charles
Nov 8, 2021, 12:54:42 PM11/8/21
to
In article <iut4rp...@mid.individual.net>,
and British Lives,
I had an uncle who was one of those PoWs. He never recovered from the
experience.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
I had an uncle who was one of those PoWs. He never recovered from the
experience.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
abelard
Nov 8, 2021, 1:02:08 PM11/8/21
to
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:39:58 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
>If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
>subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem.
excision
>This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
>of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
>is read it *before* slagging it off.
you seem remarkably dogmatic for a poster claiming that the 'subject'
is 'complex'
i also have as yet not read your interminable text
wrote:
>If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
>subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem.
>This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
>of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
>is read it *before* slagging it off.
is 'complex'
i also have as yet not read your interminable text
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 1:16:21 PM11/8/21
to
real evidence?
> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
understand the evidence supporting that statement.
abelard
Nov 8, 2021, 2:04:47 PM11/8/21
to
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
>On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:39:58 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
>>> subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem.
>>
>> excision
>>
>>> This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
>>> of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
>>> is read it *before* slagging it off.
>>
>> you seem remarkably dogmatic for a poster claiming that the 'subject'
>> is 'complex'
>
>Almost as dogmatic as some claiming the leak was from the lab on zilch
>real evidence?
>
>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>
>But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>understand the evidence supporting that statement.
does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?
>On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:39:58 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
>>> subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem.
>>
>> excision
>>
>>> This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
>>> of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
>>> is read it *before* slagging it off.
>>
>> you seem remarkably dogmatic for a poster claiming that the 'subject'
>> is 'complex'
>
>Almost as dogmatic as some claiming the leak was from the lab on zilch
>real evidence?
>
>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>
>But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>understand the evidence supporting that statement.
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 2:09:37 PM11/8/21
to
sources of the virus, most scientists in the field think a lab leak is
the least likely, and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly
improbable.
abelard
Nov 8, 2021, 2:46:15 PM11/8/21
to
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 19:09:30 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
wrote:
>On 08/11/2021 19:04, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>>>
>>> But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>>> doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>>> one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>>> different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>>> that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>>> understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>>> numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>>> understand the evidence supporting that statement.
>>
>> does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?
>
>No, not if you take the trouble to understand it; of the possible
>sources of the virus, most scientists in the field think a lab leak is
>the least likely, and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly
>improbable
'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>On 08/11/2021 19:04, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>>>
>>> But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>>> doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>>> one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>>> different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>>> that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>>> understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>>> numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>>> understand the evidence supporting that statement.
>>
>> does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?
>
>No, not if you take the trouble to understand it; of the possible
>sources of the virus, most scientists in the field think a lab leak is
>the least likely, and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly
>improbable
'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
Java Jive
Nov 8, 2021, 3:21:00 PM11/8/21
to
yourself than pointless semantics. By the time you've continued this
exchange much further, you could have just read my original posts,
listened to the radio clips linked therein, and got a better informed
opinion than you can from arguing such pointless semantics with me here,
so it's beginning to look as though simply you don't *WANT* to read the
relevant information. If that's the case, fine, but don't then try to
continue to argue about it, sight unseen.
Indy Jess John
Nov 8, 2021, 4:59:52 PM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
> There is still no*SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
> began in the lab.
There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
begin in the lab either.
Hence the wide range of views, mainly dictated by assumptions and
probabilities. You think that the virus mutated naturally from an
original non-human origin, I think that no natural mutation would merge
a bat and pangolin genome so it was probably an enhanced version that
escaped. Neither of us will ever get proof of which is right and which
is wrong, and the Chinese will continue to keep whatever they know a
carefully guarded secret.
Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to live
with what is around now.
Jim
> There is still no*SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
> began in the lab.
There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
begin in the lab either.
Hence the wide range of views, mainly dictated by assumptions and
probabilities. You think that the virus mutated naturally from an
original non-human origin, I think that no natural mutation would merge
a bat and pangolin genome so it was probably an enhanced version that
escaped. Neither of us will ever get proof of which is right and which
is wrong, and the Chinese will continue to keep whatever they know a
carefully guarded secret.
Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to live
with what is around now.
Jim
Vir Campestris
Nov 8, 2021, 5:08:04 PM11/8/21
to
On 08/11/2021 17:49, charles wrote:
> In article <iut4rp...@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 12:40, Max Demian wrote:
>>> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
>>> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
>>> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use
>>> it on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on
>>> the Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can
>>> test out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki)
>>> varieties.
>
>> The A bombs saved a lot of American lives. The invasion of Japan would
>> have been a bloodbath. I don't count Jap lives as being worth a light
>> because of the way they treated POWs.
>
>> Bill
>
> and British Lives,
>
> I had an uncle who was one of those PoWs. He never recovered from the
> experience.
>
Oddly enough the probably saved Japanese lives too.
> In article <iut4rp...@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 12:40, Max Demian wrote:
>>> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
>>> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
>>> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use
>>> it on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on
>>> the Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can
>>> test out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki)
>>> varieties.
>
>> The A bombs saved a lot of American lives. The invasion of Japan would
>> have been a bloodbath. I don't count Jap lives as being worth a light
>> because of the way they treated POWs.
>
>> Bill
>
> and British Lives,
>
> I had an uncle who was one of those PoWs. He never recovered from the
> experience.
>
Rather than fight over every inch they just surrendered. Which meant
that Japan wasn't carpet bombed throughout
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo>
says Tokyo had 100,000 casualties; the effects on the other cities would
presumably have been similar.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't kill many times more.
Andy
abelard
Nov 8, 2021, 5:15:46 PM11/8/21
to
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
rest binned unread
Spike
Nov 9, 2021, 4:25:41 AM11/9/21
to
On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:
> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
--
Spike
> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
--
Spike
Ian Jackson
Nov 9, 2021, 5:33:01 AM11/9/21
to
In message <iuut4h...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>
>And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
>
Which is exactly what I keep trying to say in many of my pro-Remain
posts - only I don't have 'The Latin'!
--
Ian
<Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>
>And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
>
posts - only I don't have 'The Latin'!
--
Ian
Spike
Nov 9, 2021, 5:54:17 AM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 10:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
--
Spike
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> writes
>> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
>> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed, support
>>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
>> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
>> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
>> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
>> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
>> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
>> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
>> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
>> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
> Which is exactly what I keep trying to say in many of my pro-Remain
> posts - only I don't have 'The Latin'!
With respect, Ian, you pile supposition upon supposition...;-)
>> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
> Which is exactly what I keep trying to say in many of my pro-Remain
> posts - only I don't have 'The Latin'!
--
Spike
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 8:24:39 AM11/9/21
to
On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> began in the lab.
>
> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
>
> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
to the outbreak.
> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
> begin in the lab either.
investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
and if new data appears that proves it false.
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 9, 2021, 8:28:17 AM11/9/21
to
On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 12:40:21 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
> On 06/11/2021 19:52, Pamela wrote:
> > On 19:20 6 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
SNIP
>
> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use it
> on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on the
> Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can test
> out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki) varieties.
>
The USA did not test the uranium bomb - they knew it would work - and it did.
If they weren't sure they risked a failed, but potentially viable A bomb literally falling into enemy hands.
The USA DID test the plutonium bomb on 16th July 1945 in New Mexico.
Dropping the bombs avoided an amphibious invasion of Japan, which would have been a bloodbath for the allies, likely including my youngest uncle, who was being trained for it. The casualties and material losses for the Japanese would have been an order of magnitude greater if their home islands had been invaded - millions rather than ~200,000 killed in the attacks.
As an aside there was a large proportion of Jewish members of the Manhattan team and reputedly many of them were disappointed that it was not ready in time to drop on Berlin.
> --
> Max Demian
> On 06/11/2021 19:52, Pamela wrote:
> > On 19:20 6 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
SNIP
>
> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use it
> on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on the
> Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can test
> out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki) varieties.
>
If they weren't sure they risked a failed, but potentially viable A bomb literally falling into enemy hands.
The USA DID test the plutonium bomb on 16th July 1945 in New Mexico.
Dropping the bombs avoided an amphibious invasion of Japan, which would have been a bloodbath for the allies, likely including my youngest uncle, who was being trained for it. The casualties and material losses for the Japanese would have been an order of magnitude greater if their home islands had been invaded - millions rather than ~200,000 killed in the attacks.
As an aside there was a large proportion of Jewish members of the Manhattan team and reputedly many of them were disappointed that it was not ready in time to drop on Berlin.
> --
> Max Demian
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 8:34:01 AM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 08:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>,
The hypocritical blame game, remind me again, who was it who trolled
uk.tech.digital-tv solidly for 18 months on the trot with sometimes
dangerous climate and covid disinformation?
> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
Let me remind you again what Peter Daszac, who has visited the lab at
Wuhan, said about the work there:
"So what we do is we look at bats, we get the genetic sequences, we
don't collect the viruses we collect the genetic code of the viruses,
it's not infectious material, because from the genetic sequence of the
virus you can tell pretty clearly whether it's likely to be able to
infect people. So what we're looking for are viruses that can infect
people, that are close to SARS, that could potentially cause a pandemic.
It's exactly what's happened with covid-19, that's what we've been
working on for 15 years, [to] try and stop this happening."
[...]
"One of the reasons scientists create these chimaeric viruses [...] they
do this so that we don't have to collect live samples and ship them
round the world, it's to protect public health. So what you can do now,
is you can get a virus that's NOT risky for people, and you can put one
of the spike proteins into that virus, and test it in the lab to see if
vaccines will work against the high risk virus. This work has already
been used to test drugs against covid-19 [...] designing vaccines to
save our lives"
> In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>> live with what is around now.
>
> Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.
>
>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>> live with what is around now.
>
The hypocritical blame game, remind me again, who was it who trolled
uk.tech.digital-tv solidly for 18 months on the trot with sometimes
dangerous climate and covid disinformation?
> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
Let me remind you again what Peter Daszac, who has visited the lab at
Wuhan, said about the work there:
"So what we do is we look at bats, we get the genetic sequences, we
don't collect the viruses we collect the genetic code of the viruses,
it's not infectious material, because from the genetic sequence of the
virus you can tell pretty clearly whether it's likely to be able to
infect people. So what we're looking for are viruses that can infect
people, that are close to SARS, that could potentially cause a pandemic.
It's exactly what's happened with covid-19, that's what we've been
working on for 15 years, [to] try and stop this happening."
[...]
"One of the reasons scientists create these chimaeric viruses [...] they
do this so that we don't have to collect live samples and ship them
round the world, it's to protect public health. So what you can do now,
is you can get a virus that's NOT risky for people, and you can put one
of the spike proteins into that virus, and test it in the lab to see if
vaccines will work against the high risk virus. This work has already
been used to test drugs against covid-19 [...] designing vaccines to
save our lives"
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 8:35:54 AM11/9/21
to
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 8:39:11 AM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 09:25, Spike wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
>
> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
It can *NOT* be thus shown.
>
> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
>
> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.
Pamela
Nov 9, 2021, 8:58:32 AM11/9/21
to
On 08:18 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
> In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>> live with what is around now.
>
>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>> live with what is around now.
>
> Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.
>
>
> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
>
> Bob.
> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
>
If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?
Does apportioning blame satisfy someone's agenda or score points?
abelard
Nov 9, 2021, 9:17:14 AM11/9/21
to
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:35:49 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
like so many, you suffer from confirmation bias
look it up and learn
wrote:
>On 08/11/2021 22:15, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>>>
>>>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>>>
>>> Bullshit,
>>
>> rest binned unread
>
>Proving a closed mind unwilling to accept evidence contrary to beliefs.
you must console yourself as best you may
>On 08/11/2021 22:15, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>>>
>>>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>>>
>>> Bullshit,
>>
>> rest binned unread
>
>Proving a closed mind unwilling to accept evidence contrary to beliefs.
like so many, you suffer from confirmation bias
look it up and learn
abelard
Nov 9, 2021, 9:26:33 AM11/9/21
to
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:24:32 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> We
>should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>and if new data appears that proves it false.
no, far far from it
'we' 'should'....
make *no* assumptions and prepare for as many
possibilities as profitable
'we' 'should' also look at the costliness of various
assumptions
wrote:
> We
>should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>and if new data appears that proves it false.
'we' 'should'....
make *no* assumptions and prepare for as many
possibilities as profitable
'we' 'should' also look at the costliness of various
assumptions
Indy Jess John
Nov 9, 2021, 9:42:52 AM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
>>> began in the lab.
>>
>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>
> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
> to the outbreak.
It is also worth noting that nearly everybody in the Wuhan facility who
> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
>>> began in the lab.
>>
>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>
> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
> to the outbreak.
cast doubts on the biological security seems to have been removed from
public view. Or they were reported as deaths from the virus.
I wouldn't want to upset the Chinese State. Would you?
>
>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>> begin in the lab either.
>
> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>
The evidence is dated a fair while after the initial outbreak (lockdowns
>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>> begin in the lab either.
>
> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>
can be useful in that respect). It gave the Chinese plenty of time to
clean the toilet before letting anyone else into it.
And I have still not seen a sensible explanation of why part of the
pangolin genome was in the early cases investigated[1], when the
publicly available information was based on bats.
[1] The research paper I found on-line at the time the virus first hit
the news is strangely no longer around and the search engines no longer
suggest it ever existed. Quite a thorough clean of the toilet!
Perhaps I am more cynical than you! We can agree to differ.
Jim
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 11:14:30 AM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 14:17, abelard wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:35:49 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 22:15, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>>>>
>>>>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit,
>>>
>>> rest binned unread
>>
>> Proving a closed mind unwilling to accept evidence contrary to beliefs.
>
> you must console yourself as best you may
It's skin off your nose, not mine.
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:35:49 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 22:15, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>>>>
>>>>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit,
>>>
>>> rest binned unread
>>
>> Proving a closed mind unwilling to accept evidence contrary to beliefs.
>
> you must console yourself as best you may
> like so many, you suffer from confirmation bias
>
> look it up and learn
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 11:36:58 AM11/9/21
to
leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
have no relevance to such a discussion.
abelard
Nov 9, 2021, 11:50:45 AM11/9/21
to
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 16:36:51 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
>On 09/11/2021 14:26, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:24:32 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We
>>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>>
>> no, far far from it
>>
>> 'we' 'should'....
>> make *no* assumptions and prepare for as many
>> possibilities as profitable
>>
>> 'we' 'should' also look at the costliness of various
>> assumptions
>
>That is unscientific; this is simply a matter of whether the Wuhan lab
>leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
>much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
>have no relevance to such a discussion.
rotfl
>On 09/11/2021 14:26, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:24:32 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We
>>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>>
>> no, far far from it
>>
>> 'we' 'should'....
>> make *no* assumptions and prepare for as many
>> possibilities as profitable
>>
>> 'we' 'should' also look at the costliness of various
>> assumptions
>
>That is unscientific; this is simply a matter of whether the Wuhan lab
>leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
>much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
>have no relevance to such a discussion.
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 11:53:55 AM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 14:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 09/11/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
>>>> began in the lab.
>>>
>>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>>
>> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
>> to the outbreak.
>
> It is also worth noting that nearly everybody in the Wuhan facility who
> cast doubts on the biological security seems to have been removed from
> public view. Or they were reported as deaths from the virus.
Evidence?
>
> On 09/11/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
>>>> began in the lab.
>>>
>>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>>
>> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
>> to the outbreak.
>
> It is also worth noting that nearly everybody in the Wuhan facility who
> cast doubts on the biological security seems to have been removed from
> public view. Or they were reported as deaths from the virus.
> I wouldn't want to upset the Chinese State. Would you?
the market.
>>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>>> begin in the lab either.
>>
>> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
>> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>
> The evidence is dated a fair while after the initial outbreak (lockdowns
> can be useful in that respect). It gave the Chinese plenty of time to
> clean the toilet before letting anyone else into it.
why the Chinese should have wished to clean the toilet, and a lab leak
is by no means most likely.
> And I have still not seen a sensible explanation of why part of the
> pangolin genome was in the early cases investigated[1], when the
> publicly available information was based on bats.
>
> [1] The research paper I found on-line at the time the virus first hit
> the news is strangely no longer around and the search engines no longer
> suggest it ever existed. Quite a thorough clean of the toilet!
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
Here's how I replied to you at the time, note particularly the last
sentence:
>> If you want to have a look at some samples, you can look through
>>
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-aggressive-l-type-strain-affecting-70-per-cent-of-cases/
>> (L and S types)
>
> Links to the same paper at academic.oup.com [above] concerning virus
> analysis, which, although you say it's too complicated for you, sounds
> like what you were describing up thread. Is that not the one? BTW,
> some of the detail is beyond my knowledge too, but the summary and an
> early diagram tells us quite a lot in plain English; viz, it's closely
> related to bat corona viruses that have also crossed into pangolins,
> though this particular one, SARS-Cov-2, came direct to us without
> going via pangolins as some had posited early in the outbreak.
Also anyway, there's no particular reason why it couldn't've come to us
via pangolins, they're the world's most illegally trafficked animal, it
just happened that in this particular pandemic, pangolins were not involved.
> Perhaps I am more cynical than you! We can agree to differ.
Java Jive
Nov 9, 2021, 11:55:21 AM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 16:50, abelard wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 16:36:51 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>>
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 16:36:51 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>>
>> That is unscientific; this is simply a matter of whether the Wuhan lab
>> leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
>> much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
>> have no relevance to such a discussion.
>
> rotfl
>
So, just as I supposed, you have no rational argument to make.
>> leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
>> much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
>> have no relevance to such a discussion.
>
> rotfl
>
Indy Jess John
Nov 9, 2021, 4:20:02 PM11/9/21
to
On 09/11/2021 16:53, Java Jive wrote:
> No it hasn't, and it didn't say that anyway:
> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
Thanks for the reminder. That was the report that sparked my curiosity
> No it hasn't, and it didn't say that anyway:
> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
and I went hunting for further information. It was just idle curiosity
then and I didn't think at the time I would want to revisit it, so I
didn't log where to find again the other information I had found, which
were mostly drafts for review rather than finished papers. They are the
ones that I haven't found again.
I remember noting that the USA example appeared to show that the S and L
variants could both infect the same person concurrently, and I wondered
if they should therefore be treated as two separate infections (like
SARS and Covid-19 are) rather than just two variants of a virus under
investigation.
>
> Here's how I replied to you at the time, note particularly the last
> sentence:
>
> >> If you want to have a look at some samples, you can look through
> >>
> https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-aggressive-l-type-strain-affecting-70-per-cent-of-cases/
>
The "Reader Q&A" is useful. It explains why viruses tend to be more
> Here's how I replied to you at the time, note particularly the last
> sentence:
>
> >> If you want to have a look at some samples, you can look through
> >>
> https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-aggressive-l-type-strain-affecting-70-per-cent-of-cases/
>
virulent in the winter. I knew that they were but didn't know the reason
before.
It was all quite a while ago and now that the mindset seems to have
moved from "Can we defeat it?" to "How do we live with it?", how it all
originated is not so important to me.
Churchill had an interesting view:
"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times in enemy action"
Two nasty coronaviruses have started from China. I will treat it as
coincidence for now.
Jim
Incubus
Nov 10, 2021, 4:58:46 AM11/10/21
to
into Covid-19's origins:
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1890
"The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan
Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months, not least
because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s
government."
The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
"In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
the question".
Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.
Incubus
Nov 10, 2021, 5:02:20 AM11/10/21
to
On 2021-11-09, Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08:18 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>>> live with what is around now.
>>
>> Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.
>>
>> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
>> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
>> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
>>
>> Bob.
>
> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
> virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
The virus wasn't "weaponised". It wasn't even a weapon.
> On 08:18 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>>> live with what is around now.
>>
>> Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.
>>
>> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
>> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
>> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
>>
>> Bob.
>
> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
> virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
> Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?
also like to see some form of restitution.
> Does apportioning blame satisfy someone's agenda or score points?
USSR ultimately leaked radiation that went as far as Denmark?
Spike
Nov 10, 2021, 5:02:27 AM11/10/21
to
On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 09:25, Spike wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
>> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
>> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
>> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
>> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
>> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
> It can *NOT* be thus shown.
>> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.
It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
> On 09/11/2021 09:25, Spike wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
>> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
>> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
>> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
>> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
>> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
> It can *NOT* be thus shown.
>> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.
ignoring such things.
--
Spike
Jim Lesurf
Nov 10, 2021, 5:16:41 AM11/10/21
to
In article <hb8jog52elfl39486...@4ax.com>, abelard
you'd be able to decide for yourself on an informed basis what terms are
most appropriate and have an informed 'opinion' on that.
Better, of course, to do your own analysis/investigation and present the
details here for JJ and any others who may be interested to examine.
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
> >
> >Bullshit,
> rest binned unread
Well, if you actually read though the detail of his earlier explanations
> >> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
> >
> >Bullshit,
> rest binned unread
you'd be able to decide for yourself on an informed basis what terms are
most appropriate and have an informed 'opinion' on that.
Better, of course, to do your own analysis/investigation and present the
details here for JJ and any others who may be interested to examine.
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Jim Lesurf
Nov 10, 2021, 5:16:42 AM11/10/21
to
I've removed the xposting.
In article <smdtls$ml5$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
*IF* someone misunderstands, misrepresents, oversimplifies, or is
clueless about the actual science they can 'show' anything they fancy based
on their erronious beliefs about the science/evidence. e.g. the earlier
example of Bob's "two point paper". Self-referentially, it can seem fine.
But expose it to mere reality and it blows away.
The science on the basic point wrt thermodynamics, etc, is established,
though. CO2 causing warming is consistent with the basic physics provided
you understand how it applies. Nor is this a 'consensus' but standard
physics applied to the correctly specified situation.
Alas, clueless wilful misunderstandings are common in this area and others.
FWIW The first thoughts that ran though my mind when I read the claim about
Stephan's Law were those I suspect would occur to many people who know
more than primary school physics.
1) Stephan's Law is for *Black Body* radiation.
2) ...erm... The Earth is NOT a 'Black Body'. It's absorbtion/emission
behaviour varies with wavelength, surface details, atmospheric layering,
etc, etc, over time.
Hence if you change the atmospheric conditions you can change the
absorbtion/emission behaviour, and hence temperatures on Earth.
So to a physicist the bald claim does look like another example of
a 'Sour Cherry' from someone else than Bob. i.e. a 'result' presented
as 'science' when it ain't, by someone who is simply showing their
lack of understanding of physics, or a wish to believe nonsense, or
shit-stir.
In article <smdtls$ml5$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed.
> > support the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can
> > be shown that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to
> > violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the
> > Stefan Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
> It can *NOT* be thus shown.
In one sense it can :-)...
> > That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed.
> > support the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can
> > be shown that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to
> > violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the
> > Stefan Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.
> It can *NOT* be thus shown.
*IF* someone misunderstands, misrepresents, oversimplifies, or is
clueless about the actual science they can 'show' anything they fancy based
on their erronious beliefs about the science/evidence. e.g. the earlier
example of Bob's "two point paper". Self-referentially, it can seem fine.
But expose it to mere reality and it blows away.
The science on the basic point wrt thermodynamics, etc, is established,
though. CO2 causing warming is consistent with the basic physics provided
you understand how it applies. Nor is this a 'consensus' but standard
physics applied to the correctly specified situation.
Alas, clueless wilful misunderstandings are common in this area and others.
FWIW The first thoughts that ran though my mind when I read the claim about
Stephan's Law were those I suspect would occur to many people who know
more than primary school physics.
1) Stephan's Law is for *Black Body* radiation.
2) ...erm... The Earth is NOT a 'Black Body'. It's absorbtion/emission
behaviour varies with wavelength, surface details, atmospheric layering,
etc, etc, over time.
Hence if you change the atmospheric conditions you can change the
absorbtion/emission behaviour, and hence temperatures on Earth.
So to a physicist the bald claim does look like another example of
a 'Sour Cherry' from someone else than Bob. i.e. a 'result' presented
as 'science' when it ain't, by someone who is simply showing their
lack of understanding of physics, or a wish to believe nonsense, or
shit-stir.
Roderick Stewart
Nov 10, 2021, 5:19:26 AM11/10/21
to
On Tue, 09 Nov 2021 13:58:20 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
>virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
If that really is what happened, then let's hope that whoever was
<pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
>virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
responsible has learned from it that anything infectious intended as a
weapon is as much use as nuclear bombs, in that if anybody uses it the
entire world suffers and nobody wins.
You'd think that anybody with half a brain would have realised this
already, which doesn't say much for the intelligence or equanimity of
the average world leader. Truly we live in troubled times. Actually I
suppose we always have, but now we live in troubled times in which the
idiots in charge have global destruction a their fingertips.
Rod.
Jim Lesurf
Nov 10, 2021, 5:52:03 AM11/10/21
to
xposting trimmed.
In article <iv1jlg...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
I guess it is a parallel in that both are examples of non-scientific
twaddle presented as being 'science' when they are (sour) cherries.
In article <iv1jlg...@mid.individual.net>, Spike
twaddle presented as being 'science' when they are (sour) cherries.
Pancho
Nov 10, 2021, 6:43:00 AM11/10/21
to
On 10/11/2021 10:02, Incubus wrote:
>> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
>> virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
>
> The virus wasn't "weaponised". It wasn't even a weapon.
>
>> Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?
>
> Hopefully, firmer controls on research and genetic engineering. I'd
> also like to see some form of restitution.
>
That's the point. It is too risky for the Chinese to cooperate.
>> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
>> virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
>
> The virus wasn't "weaponised". It wasn't even a weapon.
>
>> Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?
>
> Hopefully, firmer controls on research and genetic engineering. I'd
> also like to see some form of restitution.
>
Java Jive
Nov 10, 2021, 7:34:33 AM11/10/21
to
and denial of anything hostile is precisely what is largely fuelling
speculation, but that's politics, not *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE*!
> The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:
the mission's return, and as I've already quoted her here.
> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>
> "In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
> that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
> Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
> assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
> by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
> stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
> condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
> the question".
>
> Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
> You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
> the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.
point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
Java Jive
Nov 10, 2021, 7:51:07 AM11/10/21
to
unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.
Java Jive
Nov 10, 2021, 7:53:29 AM11/10/21
to
On 10/11/2021 11:09, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <598923b...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> with other views must be attacked and bullied into silence. Be as
> personal and nasty as possible.
Puerile paranoia left in for others to laugh at.
> I for one will not be bullied.
And if you were right, that would be commendable, but as you're nearly
always wrong, that just makes you a stubborn irrational old fool.
>
> In article <598923b...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I guess it is a parallel in that both are examples of non-scientific
>> twaddle presented as being 'science' when they are (sour) cherries.
>
> All views not held by agenda following lefties must be wrong. People
>
>> I guess it is a parallel in that both are examples of non-scientific
>> twaddle presented as being 'science' when they are (sour) cherries.
>
> with other views must be attacked and bullied into silence. Be as
> personal and nasty as possible.
Puerile paranoia left in for others to laugh at.
> I for one will not be bullied.
And if you were right, that would be commendable, but as you're nearly
always wrong, that just makes you a stubborn irrational old fool.
Incubus
Nov 10, 2021, 7:55:07 AM11/10/21
to
inconclusive and insufficient. Glossing over them and dismissing
concerns as speculation ignores the fact that vital evidence has not
been made available and the joint investigation has been steered away
from a particular conclusion.
>> The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:
>
> As one of the members of the mission said several months ago soon after
> the mission's return, and as I've already quoted her here.
>
>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>>
>> "In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
>> that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
>> Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
>> assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
>> by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
>> stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
>> condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
>> the question".
>>
>> Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
>> You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
>> the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.
>
> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
uncooperative. The joint study is not just fundamentally flawed; by
agreeing to rule out a potential outcome - that Covid-19 got into the
wild as the result of a lab leak - it is unscientific.
The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.
abelard
Nov 10, 2021, 8:02:33 AM11/10/21
to
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:50:57 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
>On 10/11/2021 10:02, Spike wrote:
>>
>> On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
>>> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.
>>
>> It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
>> ignoring such things.
>
>You don't help either of your cases by lumping them together in such an
>unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
>highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
>do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
>you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
>scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
>and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
>already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
>be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.
you are probably confusing science with scientism
the first is an inchoate group of methods...
the second is crude religion...socialism is a form of scientism
and very little relation to any working form of genuine science
you are far distant from 'science'
wrote:
>On 10/11/2021 10:02, Spike wrote:
>>
>> On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
>>> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.
>>
>> It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
>> ignoring such things.
>
>You don't help either of your cases by lumping them together in such an
>unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
>highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
>do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
>you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
>scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
>and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
>already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
>be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.
the first is an inchoate group of methods...
the second is crude religion...socialism is a form of scientism
and very little relation to any working form of genuine science
you are far distant from 'science'
abelard
Nov 10, 2021, 8:06:38 AM11/10/21
to
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:34:25 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
>The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
that was his job you numpty!
>in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
you post as if you are 16 years old
or as the ad has it, 'don't ask you, you're only 6!'
wrote:
>The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
>in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
or as the ad has it, 'don't ask you, you're only 6!'
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages