Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny

[monart]

On 2/1/2024 at 1:08 PM, tadmjones said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2LS27P/

Easy to find article, plainly debunks the idea that SARS-CoV 2 virus was not  isolated or purified. Reuters fact checker team declares a false verdict on a story about a Canadian doctor claiming the virus was never isolated and that the identification the medical officials and pharma companies used as evidence was basically a mish mash of RNA and other materials commonly found 'in' human bodies.

 

Yes, I've read this article before, with its mutually contradictory debunkings. At the same time that it throws out links to papers that claim/appear to have isolated and purified SARS-CoV-2 (and "therefore" the virus does exist), it also links to another article that acknowledges that modern microbiology does not require or practice virus isolation or purification and thus the FOI no-records-found.  The link to images show pictures with little or no captions describing what the pictures are about, besides the title, "SARS-CoV-2" and the other few words like "related to" and "models of". This is far from being an adequate debunking.

Suppose that somewhere there is documentation of isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2 showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the novel virus exists (or existed). If so, the next claim is unproven, that it causes "Severe" and "Acute" respiratory illnesses and deaths that are new and extra to the usual respiratory illnesses and deaths from other causes (including non-microbial causes like pollution and malnutrition) or from various co-morbidities like asthma or old age. Then there are the other challenges to the accuracy of PCR tests as diagnostic tools, the reliability of the covid case numbers, the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, the legality and morality of mask mandates and lockdowns, and so on.

Grant that current microbiology may not be advanced yet to easily, definitively identify new viruses (or even "old" ones), so that it's expected to yield only percentages of probability that such and such virus exists and has such and such identity. On the frontiers of research, in highly specialized fields, this may be normal and acceptable science. In most cases, this exploratory, vanguard research is of interest or relevance to the specialists and not to most others. But when such provisional findings or claims are quickly used to justify a declaration of a pandemic and the subsequent global tyranny, then suspicions about deception and malice could arise.

Suppose in a court trial, an accused murderer is convicted, based on the accused being the closest one among a crowd gathered around the victim, and on the accused resembling some other convicted murderers on record. No murder weapon linked to the accused was found, nor any witnesses to the murder when it happened. Yet the judge and jury pronounced the accused guilty and sentenced to death or to life-imprisonment, depending on the jurisdiction. Is this a fair trial?

Edited February 4 by monart

[tadmjones]

10 minutes ago, monart said:

Yes, I've read this article before, with its mutually contradictory debunkings. At the same time that it throws out links to papers that claims/appears to have isolated and purified SARS-CoV-2 (and "therefor" the virus does exist), it also links to another article that acknowledges that modern microbiology does not require or practice virus isolation or purification and thus the FOI mo-records-found.  The link to images show pictures with little or no captions describing what the pictures are about, besides the title, "SARS-CoV-2" and the other few words like "related to" and "models of". This is far from being an adequate debunking.

Suppose that somewhere there is documentation of isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2 showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the novel virus exists (or existed). If so, the next claim is unproven, that it causes "Severe" and "Acute" respiratory illnesses and deaths that are new and extra to the usual respiratory illnesses and deaths from other causes (including non-microbial causes like pollution and malnutrition) or from various co-morbidities like asthma or old age. Then there are the other challenges to the accuracy of PCR tests as diagnostic tools, the reliability of the covid case numbers, the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, the legality and morality of mask mandates and lockdowns, and so on.

Grant that current microbiology may not be advanced yet to easily, definitively identify new viruses (or even "old" ones), so that it's only expected to yield only percentages of probability that such and such virus exists and has such and such identity. On the frontiers of research, in highly specialized fields, this may be normal and acceptable science. In most cases, this exploratory, vanguard research is of interest or relevance to the specialists and not to most others. But when such provisional findings or claims are quickly used to justify a declaration of a pandemic and the subsequent global tyranny, then suspicions about deception and malice could arise.

Suppose in a court trial, an accused murderer is convicted, based on the accused being the closest one among a crowd gathered around the victim, and on the accused resembling some other convicted murderers on record. No murder weapon linked to the accused was found, nor any witnesses to the murder when it happened. Yet the judge and jury pronounced the accused guilty and sentenced to death or to life-imprisonment, depending on the jurisdiction. Is this a fair trial?

I believe you may have misunderstood my implication, I posted a link to an easily found article ie an article someone that 'googled it' would find rather quickly. The article debunks claims made that call into question the 'existence' of a specific 'covid viron' via 'scientific techniques' by questioning the rigor of the techniques and the assumptions that the rigor shown is the amount of rigor to categorically claim the existence thereof.

CM is also questioning the rigor , to what end ? If she and her cohorts 'prove' the nonexistence of the covid viron by not accepting the current amount of rigor or the adequacy of the techniques in establishing that rigor, what benefit do they stand to attain ? What is a motivation we can ascribe to their actions, financial or reputational advancement of scientific knowledge ?

What motivation might we ascribe to a guy who heads the company that compiled, published and 'fact checked' the article that  'googling' readily presents? He also sits on the board of a company that gained financially and reputationally, by saving humanity, based on the existence of said specific viron, which the article claims to prove.

[monart]

On 2/4/2024 at 3:31 AM, DavidOdden said:

Yet you still have no personal evidence to support your position, it is entirely based on believing the claims of other people. That would be fine, if those other people are shown to be credible and trustworthy. I have no reason to believe that Massey is trustworthy, and based on my reading of her FOI-related posts, I conclude that she is not trustworthy w.r.t. this particular issue (which is whether covid exists). You on the other hand, apparently have faith in her belief, and use her postion as the basis for your own argument. Your challenge to the covid-existence is ineffective, because you have not provided any evidence that supports the claim that covid does not exist, which is necessary to overcome the direct evidence of the senses, which cannot be rationally denied, that covid does exist.

 

 

The onus of proof is on they who assert (the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19), not on others to disprove their assertion. David, it's not worthwhile for me to keep replying to you when you don't read (carefully enough) what I write to you and to others, and not when you let yourself be stuck on "trust", "experts", and "faith". Thanks, though, for your looking at this at all.

[monart]

22 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I believe you may have misunderstood my implication . . .

No, I didn't misunderstand your implication; I chose to respond to the debunking article itself, instead of your implication, because the former is more factual than the latter (even if the latter is still interesting to me).

[tadmjones]

Yeah the fact that the CEO of Thomson Reuters is a Pfizer board member is interesting as are his activities with the WEF.

[monart]

Covid-19, Excess Deaths?

A baker's dozen or more ways to find the truth of something like "Covid-19 Pandemic". It's as easy as pie, a piece of cake, the proof is in the pudding. Whether or not, or in whichever way, that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist, just check the pre-2019 records (regional or global) for the numbers of respiratory illnesses/deaths from all causes (microbial and non-microbial).

Compare those numbers with 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023 numbers, taking into account the usual changes in demographics. The cases of "Covid-19" illnesses/deaths, if any, would be the new, excess cases, occurring in addition to the numbers trending from the previous years or even for 2023.

Since it's hard to fake deaths on a massive scale needed for the pandemic, it's easier to re-label other pre-existing respiratory deaths as due to "covid" (covid, "because" there's a covid pandemic happening). Have there been excess deaths caused by covid? Or, do the numbers show that covid may be a cure for the common cold and other respiratory diseases?

Edited February 6 by monart
To reformat into paragraphs for easier reading.

[monart]

19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Yeah the fact that the CEO of Thomson Reuters is a Pfizer board member is interesting as are his activities with the WEF.

Yes, a conflict of interest. And yes, "interesting", in the Spock's sense. "Fascinating" is how so many so easily suspended their own judgement and gave away their trust.

[Doug Morris]

3 hours ago, monart said:

Covid-19, Excess Deaths?

Have you considered that anti-pandemic measures, whether right or wrong, would naturally reduce cases of all respiratory diseases?

 

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Have you considered that anti-pandemic measures, whether right or wrong, would naturally reduce cases of all respiratory diseases?

 

Except covid ? Masking, distancing, and curtailing social engagement had an effect on respiratory disease transmission but did not limit the spread of covid ? The mitigation efforts stop somethings but not that one?

Are you proposing the transmission mechanism of covid was different than the mechanisms operational in the other diseases? I'm having a hard time understanding your logical cause and effect argument here.

[monart]

19 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Have you considered that anti-pandemic measures, whether right or wrong, would naturally reduce cases of all respiratory diseases?

 

Good point - but not for all cases. Some of the anti-pandemic measures may have reduced the spread and reported cases of some respiratory diseases due to microbes, but not those from other causes like asthma, malnutrition, or air pollution (in heavily polluted cities like Wuhan, Beijing, and Mumbai).

And, like Tad asked, why did the anti-pandemic measures not also reduced the covid cases in the same way?

Moreover, the funding and group-thinking factors would have biased diagnoses in favor of covid rather than other diseases, especially when misdiagnosed by the unreliable and inaccurate PCR/PCR-derived tests yielding significant false positives of covid due to over-amplification (assuming SARS-CoV-2 has been definitively identified).

[monart]

On 2/3/2024 at 1:04 PM, Jon Letendre said:

One side has made an assertion, the other side is still waiting for proof.

Simple. No crisis.

Yes, the asserting side ultimately says: no definitive proof is available or required, just percentages of probability of existence and identity. That's sufficient to justify tyranny. Have trust in the goodwill of governments and their medical expert authorities.

[Doug Morris]

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Except covid ?

Where did anyone say or imply this?

 

[Doug Morris]

3 hours ago, monart said:

And, like Tad asked, why did the anti-pandemic measures not also reduced the covid cases in the same way?

What are your grounds for claiming this?

 

[tadmjones]

49 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Where did anyone say or imply this?

 

I inferred that your comment that virus transmission mitigation may lead to overall lower numbers of deaths to a post about trying to find a method to deduce the total number of covid deaths leads to the implication since other ILI were officially tallied lower than past totals 'in the pandemic' being overtaken by 'covid' death totals means the lower ILI's were the result of the mitigation efforts.

[Doug Morris]

54 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I inferred that your comment that virus transmission mitigation may lead to overall lower numbers of deaths to a post about trying to find a method to deduce the total number of covid deaths leads to the implication since other ILI were officially tallied lower than past totals 'in the pandemic' being overtaken by 'covid' death totals means the lower ILI's were the result of the mitigation efforts.

This does not make sense.  Please clarify.

 

[tadmjones]

He said : " it looks like a lot of what were called covid deaths were really a lot of the normal , non covid, but covid like things people die from, maybe they just claimed all the noncovid deaths on covid, we should just count the total deaths and compare the number to historic rates of noncovid but covid like deaths to see if there is a real difference"

I inferred your replay as " but what if mitigation efforts worked against the deaths from historic noncovid things"

 

But maybe you mean there wasn't an overall uptick in total deaths from covid combined with noncovid, and that without the mitigation efforts the total would have been higher due to historic trends plus added covid deaths , which were lowered also , that the case fatatlity rate was so high that the mitigation worked to slow covid too, just not as effectively against covid ?

[monart]

21 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

What are your grounds for claiming this?

 

What are your grounds for claiming that the anti-pandemic measure did reduce the cases of covid (when the existence of covid is yet to be verified without using circular reasoning or appeals to authority)?

Edited February 8 by monart

[EC]

The mRNA vaccines are direct proof of the type of scientific evidence of the existence of COVID that you were looking for and things like the identification of different strains if for some reason you want to deny the evidence of the senses. What could be a ton of administrative reasons for the denial of a Freedom of Information Act request is not proof of anything except maybe they to protect the companies that make the vaccines patents since they use exactly that DNA to create the vaccines. Besides asking a form of question that created the response "no records found" over and over as David suggested, another plausible explanation is this was the governments manner of "complying" with the request while actually not to protect patents or something else.

[tadmjones]

How does not acknowledging a specific DNA sequence's existence protect a patent? Is that how patent law is administered? So if the information 'makes it to the public' , patent law is then unenforceable?

[EC]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

How does not acknowledging a specific DNA sequence's existence protect a patent? Is that how patent law is administered? So if the information 'makes it to the public' , patent law is then unenforceable?

Was just throwing out a possibility (I have another that could be more likely that I don't want to discuss if we are even to accept that this person actually made these requests and/or received those responses as an actual fact. 

That said, mod hat on for the first time, this isn't really a forum to discuss the "non-existence" of a disease where a massive amount of evidence exists that it actually exists while denying all of that evidence and substituting in the supposed single piece of very sketchy "evidence" in replacement. I'm not taking any mod actions but just don't like what seems like a blatant conspiracy theory with essentially no evidence in support and massive amounts of evidence against potentially making the forum look bad to outsiders interested in Objectivism, especially when this is a topic that has nothing to do with Miss Rand's philosophy in any manner.

[tadmjones]

That reminds me of funny bit on Ricky Gervais’ last special. He was talking about being famous and rich and having  an extended family that he barely tolerates. At Christmas he promised each niece and nephew , separately, that they were going to be his sole heir, just don’t tell any of the others, lol.

Edited February 9 by tadmjones

[EC]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

That reminds me of funny bit on Ricky Gervais’ last special. He was talking about being famous and rich and having  an extended family that he barely tolerates. At Christmas he promised each niece and nephew , separately, that they were going to be his sole heir, just don’t tell any of the others, lol.

How so? What is the connection? I'm not seeing it or what it has to do with what I said.

[necrovore]

It's likely the government is covering something up, but I think it's outlandish to conclude that the virus doesn't exist. More likely it does, but the reason the government knows it exists, is something like, certain people created it in a lab. The government doesn't want that fact to get out. They want to deny responsibility. So what you get is, "The virus exists, but we can't tell you how we know that."

I suppose some people think that if they make up some crazy story, they can pressure the government into disproving it by revealing the truth. That doesn't work.

[EC]

54 minutes ago, necrovore said:

It's likely the government is covering something up, but I think it's outlandish to conclude that the virus doesn't exist. More likely it does, but the reason the government knows it exists, is something like, certain people created it in a lab. The government doesn't want that fact to get out. They want to deny responsibility. So what you get is, "The virus exists, but we can't tell you how we know that."

I suppose some people think that if they make up some crazy story, they can pressure the government into disproving it by revealing the truth. That doesn't work.

This is what I was hinting at that that I didn't want to discuss, cough cough, China, and who knows what that would have or could lead to if it wasn't a "conspiracy theory" that the lab in the same city that did experiments on coronavirus's from bats where the COVID was first discovered accidentally (or purposely) leaked the virus. There's the likely real story and not the notion that the virus that my own grandfather died from "doesn't exist".

[tadmjones]

10 hours ago, EC said:

How so? What is the connection? I'm not seeing it or what it has to do with what I said.

I noticed the owner was viewing a thread the other day and then it seems a crew of new moderators were newly inaugurated.