AlexL

You @EC unexpectedly closed the thread "Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny" and did not provide a reason. I was waiting for an important answer from @monart... Some more transparency would be welcomed...

Make it "conspirAcist". I have already commented on this, see points B1 and B2: as arguments/references you cite Christine Massey, a quack and a conspiracist fromYogaEsoteric and FluorideFreePee😁, her unscientific, ridiculous "No Records Found" "research" and her general denial of the existence of viruses. Then Virus Mania, on which I also did already comment: the authors allege that viruses do not exist, that the bad and greedy Big Pharma invented them, and epidemics too, "for enormous profits at our expense." It is obviously a conspiracy: it had to start at lest 110 years ago (Poliovirus, 1909) and had to involve, since, dozen or hundreds of millions of medical professionals spreading this alleged fiction. And yes, you DO approvingly cite these two "authoritative" sources as support for your claim. Which means that, in fact, you have not supported them. There is also another comment of mine - this - about the 1.5 million award, which you consider to be authentic on the basis of a bogus counter-example, which awaits to be dealt with.

A. The implication of your wording above is that "official, authorized(??), mainstream narrative" is mostly wrong, which in itself is a conspiracist claim😁 B. Yes, the labeling "conspiracist can be used to intimidate etc., but the fact that it is used does not necessarily imply intimidation: it can be a true factual statement. In our case: 1. You approvingly cite Christine Massey, a quack and a conspiracist: consider her YogaEsoteric [sic!] and FluorideFreePee [sic!] sites, her unscientific, ridiculous "No Records Found" research and her general denial of the existence of viruses; 2. You (and C. Massey) approvingly and with no caveats refer to the book Virus Mania as an authoritative source, although the title itself is very telling: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio - How the Medical Industry Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense The respective viruses allegedly do not exist, the bad and greedy medical industry invented them, and epidemics, for enormous profits at our expense. It is obviously a conspiracy; it had to start at lest 120 years ago (Poliovirus, 1909) and had to involve, since, dozen or hundreds of millions of medical professionals spreading this alleged fiction. It is a shame to refer to that person and to the book approvingly and with no caveats - on this Objectivism forum.

No, it doesn't follow that it's a bogus award, just because Mr. Eckert wants proof of virus isolation from Dr. Kammerer first, while Dr. Kammerer want proof of the award first. It does follow. If you tell me: "do <<this>> for me and I will give you 1.5 millions" then, if I don't know you, the first thing I will do is ask you to show me that you do have such kind of money. If you refuse to provide evidence that you have the money, then I will - rightly - conclude, on this basis alone, that your offer is bogus. There is no symmetry between you and me in the above arrangement, so that there is no need to consider "the flip side".

Good cautionary questions. No, I've not given it a serious look; I just note that it would be an easy award to win if SARS-CoV-2 has already been isolated. Yes, indeed, it would be an easy award to win if SARS-CoV-2 has already been isolated. You suggest that, as nobody took up the challenge, SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated. If you have given it a serious look, you would have seen that the offer is not quite serious: From the site and the video linked to, I saw that the person who initiated the challenge and offers the reward is a certain Mr. Samuel Eckert. On October 17, 2022, Fr. Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer from the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg contacted this Samuel Eckert through her lawyers. She accepts the challenge. She will provide the required proof. For the fact that she, as you requested, is indeed a virologist, she sent attached her publications. She then asked Mr. Eckert to prove that he does possess the amount of the award, e.g. by depositing it in an escrow account. Now this Mr. Eckert answers something like: wait a minute, the objective of this challenge is not to pay 1.5 million, but to open a debate etc. ! In another video (this one, minute 15:43), Mr. Eckert explains that first should Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer provide the required proof for existence of SARS-CoV-2, and only then will Mr. Eckert prove that he has the money ! A bogus award, in other words. It would have been better if, before suggesting that nobody accepted the challenge and implying that this is an additional indication that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't exist, you would have given this challenge a serious look.☹️ His site indicates that this Mr. Eckert is a conspiracy theorist (no viruses exist etc.). This is not the first conspiracist you are approvingly citing on this Objectivism forum: it was also Christine Massey (from YogaEsoteric and FluorideFreePeel), then the book Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio. How the Medical Industry Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense.☹️☹️

Interesting. But have you checked what happened after the challenge was proposed? Did anyone accept the challenge? I would be cautious about a 1.5 million award: is it a honest offer, not a bogus one? Does the person/organization have this kind of money? Who will evaluate the scientific proof? Etc. IOW: have you establish the seriousness of this award offer?

Neither proves "limits to reason" or to knowledge.

@Pokyt is a new Staff Member and Moderator. This doesn't (yet?) appear in his profile. His profile specifies only Newbee and Unfortunately, there was no prior notice about this addition to the Staff Member and Moderator.

I just got a warning. Do you know something about it? Does the Moderator @dream_weaver know? ============================================== Hi AlexL, You have been warned by Pokyt for a comment made in a topic, Reblogged:A Man Tries the 'Back-up-to-Park' Fad Reason: Warning Content: Reblogged:A Man Tries the 'Back-up-to-Park' Fad Penalty: · Given 0 points which will never expire. Note: Hi, Alex. Just checking in to warn you about a post that was reported. I'm not going to dock you any points or anything, but it was reported and may have been in bad taste/against the rules. Thanks! ============================================== — Objectivism Online Forum

I will add @whYNOT, @monart and @SpookyKitty While @whYNOTis, curiously, pro-Israel, he is anti-Ukraine and an avid consumer of Putinist propaganda. All 6 are, possibly, also Trump and conspiracy theories sympathisers. I did not ask them about 9/11 and moon landing, though... 😁

Be ready for attacks from @tadmjones, @Jon Letendre, @Grames - you wouldn't expect on an Objectivism site...

Really good post👍👍👍

In what form are they(?) "quietly admitting Ivermectin is also a powerful anti-cancer agent"? By publishing that article on the nlm.nih.gov site? This site has the following disclaimer: "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health". If not on nlm.nih.gov, then where are they(?) "quietly admitting etc."?

Indeed, Christine Massey, has done that and continues to do so, e.g., for measles, and received same or equivalent "no records found". Just to double check: is this measles virus one about whose existence Christine Massey is certain - and, therefore, the query should have been positive? As I understand, measles virus is among the non-existent viruses, in Massey's view. So, no, Christine Massey, has NOT done the test-run I was talking about. Besides, @DavidOddenalready showed that such queries will always return a negative result and, therefore, Christine Massey proved nothing except her incompetence or, rather, bad faith.

OK, thanks. Now: what about Christine Massey's claim"Virology is not a science..."? You did not object to this @monart's quote...

No, it seems that I didn't. Can you please explain? (I do know what "bs" is, though.😁)

Oh, you are a virology professional ! Nice ! Too bad that, according to Christine Massey, M.Sc., "Virology is not a science, [it is] made for pandemics and vaccines". Which is only understandable, because viruses do not exist😁

Like mass inoculation in an effected[?] population during ... ? Are you capable to distinguish a science, virology, from [forced] mass inoculation, which is politics? "Virology practices" I was mentioning are research and laboratory practices and standards. But you understood this very well...

There should be thousands of scientific publications about the search for SARS-CoV-2, with varying levels of quality. An identical response of "No record found" from 220 different searches (assuming the lady's account is true😁) should have raised concerns among experienced scientists. This unanimous result suggests that there was not a single scientific publication claiming, albeit falsely, to have correctly identified SARS-CoV-2. This is quite remarkable! On the other hand, given the claim that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is a hoax orchestrated by those in power, one would expect to see a near-unanimous "Record found" response. If I were Christine Massey, M.Sc., I would have felt compelled to investigate the entire process, from the formulation of my query to the search procedures for archival records to the evaluation of the responses. I would have conducted an end-to-end probe, a "calibration test" of sorts. I would have submitted the same query but about another virus whose existence I was certain of, to see if I received predominantly positive responses. The remarkably unanimous outcome reported by C. Massey could be attributed to the specific wording of her query. For instance, CM's requirements for an acceptable answer may have been internally contradictory or not aligned with established virology practices. A clue in this direction comes from a comment by one of the respondents to CM's inquiry [see here]: Indeed, C. Massey's query was phrased as follows: Could the question have been carefully crafted to ensure that the only honest answer was "No records found"? Would a conspiracy-minded individual engage in such tactics? Who can know for sure? 😉

Therefore, they fabricate epidemics and amass wealth through fraudulent means. This was the full title of the 2007 edition. The augmented July 2020 edition is titled VIRUS MANIA: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio. How the Medical Industry Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense. From the book description: Therefore I urge you to refrain from citing this book as evidence for any claim. It only subverts its credibility. About There are at least dozens of articles documenting the isolation, purification and identification of SARS-CoV-2, published in the leading peer-reviewed journals. Just google isolating SARS-CoV-2 virus

Can you please give the full title of this book? TIA

The AI bot doesn't simply say yes, but also provides references; Christine Massey says she asked and says that she received only "No Records Found". Christine Massey also says "Virology is not a science, [it is] made for pandemics and vaccines". (BTW, the exact arguments you are providing appear in the article The shocking research if Christine Massey on the site YogaEsoteric, among other😁) Maybe, however e.g. this of the 4 cited articles is titled "SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies", has "Purification" in its title... But if you claim that the study described did not respect the virology standards required to warrant the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 was thus isolated, then you should substantiate this claim. The onus of proof is on you because I only said "maybe - just maybe - there are records that document the isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2", but you were affirmative.

Here is what Bard AI bot says (I know, I know!): Q: Was the isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2 documented? Where? Bard: Having had bad previous experiences with AI bots, I insisted: Q: Please double check the above info. Bard: Therefore, maybe - just maybe - there are records that document the isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2. I also verified the existence of (2 out of 4) of the cited articles and they do exist indeed.

Placing was precise, but did not correspond to reality. The alternatives are better.

"Placing"? Is this the exact wording of your understanding of the facts?