Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 2/27/2024 at 11:14 AM, AlexL said:

A. The implication of your wording above is that "official, authorized(??), mainstream narrative" is mostly wrong, which in itself is a conspiracist claimšŸ˜

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 citeĀ Christine Massey, a quack and a conspiracist: consider her YogaEsoteric [sic!]Ā andĀ FluorideFreePee [sic!] sites,Ā her unscientific, ridiculousĀ "No Records Found" research and her generalĀ 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 toĀ refer to that person and to the book approvingly and with no caveats - on this Objectivism forum.

How do you define "conspiricist"? You repeatedly resort to using "conspiricist" as if it can wipe away facts; in this case, the fact that no documentation has been found or presented for the isolation, purification, and distinctive identification of SARS-CoV-2 (with properties that causes the deadly and contagious Covid-19).

Indeed, the authors of many high profile studies, including the first study from Wuhan, have admitted they had not isolated SC2 in their studies. And some microbiologists have even asserted that modern microbiology do not require or practice virus isolation and that virus identification is not definitive, only in percentages of probability. This has been pointed out several times earlier here.

So how does your use of "conspiricist" explain this away?
Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2024 at 11:14 AM, AlexL said:

It is a shame toĀ refer to that person and to the book approvingly and with no caveats - on this Objectivism forum.

I have shown no more "approval" for the people you claim I did, than you have shown "approval" for many publications by Christians you have cited in your posts. The "shame" may be only in the minds of those who easily throw out the label, "conspiricsit" when they have little more of value to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2024 at 11:49 AM, necrovore said:

In a mixed economy, it's easy to imagine that corrupt people could work their way up to the top. These days I'm not so sure it's even necessary to imagine, because you can look at the people at the top and see that they are corrupt.

Ā 

Ā 

Yes, and these corrupt "people at the top", known or unknown, wield their power and influence such that, in this case of the covid tyranny, the majority of the medical profession just believe and follow their leaders, do their jobs, keep their eyes and heads down, so as to keep or advance in their positions -- while others who do speak up are dismissed or punished as purveyors of disinformation, "conspiricists", or "covid deniers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2024 at 12:06 PM, EC said:

So am I,Ā  and this is what I was trying to get out of you. Two years ago because I was secretly recruited to an Army ghost psy-op unit because of my involvement in Skinwalker Ranch until they discovered that I was 44 at the time with no military experience,Ā  since then my life has been made into a living hell that keeps getting worse. This is what I have never explicitly stated. They are a "secret" spy hacking unit. I wanted to get involved to protect the United States against our foreign adversaries like China,Ā  Russia,Ā  Iran,Ā  and N. Korea instead I found out that they also target American citizens like myself and destroy their lives in every possible manner. Saying this "publicly" will likely make things worse but already essentially every value (spiritual and material) has been taken or destroyed, my ability to work, live, you name it, and now a 32 year old non-cancerous tumor has returned to my ear that I had to removed at 14, I'm now essentially homeless (this new phone is hacked too and they do things like put smilies as I'm writing these horrible things or they will use an upside down emoji alot because of the altruistic inverted immorality type stuff subtly implying that rational egoism and all of Objectivism is actually the "inverted" ideas and ideals). The list goes on in every form of harassment, destruction etc on an unimaginable scale.Ā  And the whole time everyone tries to pretend that I'm "crazy". To destroy a moral American's life just for this reason is what is actually crazy, immoral, and extremely anti-American of them.

It's an amusing parody -- but it doesn't answer the question: Where is the documentation that SARS-CoV-2 has been definitively identified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, monart said:

It's an amusing parody -- but it doesn't answer the question: Where is the documentation that SARS-CoV-2 has been definitively identified?

Parody? It is what is/has happening/happened.Ā  It's the truth. What do you have against this specific virus/diseaseĀ  over all others? Do you require explicit scientific evidence of every virus, illness, or disease regardless of the amount of evidence available before acknowledging its existence?Ā 

"What I have a cold that I got from family members that had it? Regardless of how many symptoms I have I won't believe it until I see highly specific evidence of its DNA isolation!" I could see you doing this given the conversation.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2024 at 6:41 AM, monart said:

How do you define "conspiricist"?

Make it "conspirAcist".

Quote

You repeatedly resort to using "conspiricist" as if it can wipe away facts; in this case, the fact that no documentation has been found [...]

I have already commented on this, see points B1 and B2: as arguments/references you citeĀ Christine Massey, a quack and a conspiracist fromYogaEsotericĀ andĀ FluorideFreePeešŸ˜,Ā her unscientific, ridiculousĀ "No Records Found" "research" and her generalĀ 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 -Ā 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2024 at 1:01 PM, EC said:

Seriously? Why are you guys playing these silly games?

A ā€˜coldā€™ or saying someone has ā€˜a coldā€™ means to describe a person experiencing mild to moderate symptoms from a non specific upper or lower respiratory tract infection. Actually ā€œcold symptomsā€ is redundant, yeah?
Ā 

The OP is arguing that the existence of a specific contagion hasnā€™t been shown with sufficient scientific rigor. Though Iā€™m not convinced of that, your attack of it is an ad hominem based on what seems like a non objective use or understanding of terms.

My silly idea was to prompt you to see that by equating the concepts you were not addressing the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tadmjones said:

A ā€˜coldā€™ or saying someone has ā€˜a coldā€™ means to describe a person experiencing mild to moderate symptoms from a non specific upper or lower respiratory tract infection. Actually ā€œcold symptomsā€ is redundant, yeah?
Ā 

The OP is arguing that the existence of a specific contagion hasnā€™t been shown with sufficient scientific rigor. Though Iā€™m not convinced of that, your attack of it is an ad hominem based on what seems like a non objective use or understanding of terms.

My silly idea was to prompt you to see that by equating the concepts you were not addressing the argument.

I chose a cold because it is the most common illness and is also a Corona virus. Covid has been proven to exist with extreme scientific vigor and massive perceptual evidence.Ā 

I'm closing this thread.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • EC locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...