The Covid lies and shenanigans are coming to light

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

This researcher found that the more vaccines one has had (any kind) the greater the likelihood of getting Covid.

Didn’t he admit that selection bias was not accounted for in the results? And it’s not the government who’s actually forcing people to take vaccines, right?

I understand how some seasonal vaccines don’t always cover the real life threats, but I choose to take them anyway. It’s always been a crapshoot. But the harm done is small, in comparison to the overall harm done without vaccines.

BTW the libertarian think tank Reason Foundation calls itself “nonpartisan”. Does that make sense?

I’m missing a couple points, unless you’re just pointing out that some companies producing vaccines are making exaggerated claims.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Ex-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield (same position, BTW, as that of Anthony Fauci) believes a lab leak is the most likely explanation and, unless the CDC has its own data (remember the saying about being entitled to one’s own opinion but not one’s own facts), he has access to the same facts as the CDC and Oxford English major David Quammen.

The Lancet sponsored a commission that found a lab leak a distinct possibility. Start listening at 12:55 below:

So, that it came from a lab is not a hare-brained conspiracy theory. And lately, even American government agencies which previously poopooed the idea of a lab leak are taking the lab leak theory as either a distinct possibility or even the most likely explanation.

The reasons for the resistance to a lab leak are as plain as day: 1) American sponsorship of controversial gain-of-function research, which Fauci probably either lied about or shaved the truth on in his congressional testimony under questioning by Sen. Rand Paul and 2) relations with China are bad enough right now as it is.

Slippage is happening in the lab leak direction with both the Energy Department and FBI drifting toward a lab leak scenario with either “low confidence” (Energy Department) or “moderate confidence” (FBI). I think we can define “low confidence” as meaning something like “it seems more likely than not” and “moderate confidence” as meaning something like “most likely.”

[PopeBeanieModerator]

You keep repeating shit over and over. Another video with Jeremy Sachs, nine months old really? How about the one below from that far back, another guest on This Week in Virology. At this point I don’t see any responses to my previous suggestions of what pro-zoonotic sources are presenting, and there’s no evidence you’ve even spent a single minute watching them, or the article that Reg linked to.

You seem to feel a need to discount Quammen’s science writing by simply noting that he’s an Oxford English pro? He interviewed 95 scientists, in detail, and you won’t even spend a minute here responding to his work? I see major evidence here of confirmation bias on your part, perhaps even intentional.

The “slippage” you speak of, sounds much like a commitment to a slippery slope fallacy.

To be clear, NEITHER side has smoking gun evidence, and real science therefore does not draw 100%-certainty conclusions on this amateur debate either way. There’s nothing new here, except for the popularity of believing in one side or the other. It’s been the same old outrage machine clickbait for months, an you are an active pusher of it.

Also to be clear yet again, these emotional and useless back and forth arguments that take no one anywhere are using up oxygen that could otherwise be used to discuss how to prevent and prepare for BOTH potential lab leaks and zoonotic origins of more inevitably approaching pandemics. The finger pointing clickbait and pandering to people on only one side or the other isn’t solving shit.

Can you at least read and comment on the article that Reg suggested?

And the following is more optional, because it’s from the mouths of professional virologists, which will put most amateurs to sleep.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Pope Beanie

Forget names for the moment. Which one should carry more weight on the topic of the origins question: A magazine writer or the prior Director of The Centers for Disease Control who has access to all the data he needs? I mean, just off the top, which starts with the most assumed credibility?

Which one based his view on interviews with experts and which one IS an expert with access to all the relevant expertise anyone could want, along with the expertise to accurately interpret what he hears?

That said, I will not read the article because of certain diabetes-related visual limitations making any long reads a very trying experience. However, I will certainly listen to the article.

“Confirmation bias”? That applies to someone who has firmly concluded something and ignores disconfirming data in order to keep on believing.

I am arguing that we need to keep an open mind and not become committed to the natural origin theory so firmly that the alternative theory, that Covid came from a lab in Wuhan doing work either for the Chinese or American governments or both. Only someone suffering from confirmation bias himself could deny the alternative theory out of hand.

[DavisModerator]

I can surmise from your replies that it is frustrating engaging with Unseen on topics for which he has bought into unfound conspiracies. I have, unfortunate put unseen on my absolute ignore list, as I have found it impossible to find a way to constructively engage with him. I would suggest any further engagement with someone who has bought into an unfounded conspiracy and doubles down with more nonsense and in unable to relent, is a pointless venture and simply enables further nonsense. It is, of course, up to you to continue engaging but I would strongly encourage you to consider how effective and efficient this is.

[_Robert_Participant]

Davis wrote:

I can surmise from your replies that it is frustrating engaging with Unseen on topics for which he has bought into unfound conspiracies. I have, unfortunate put unseen on my absolute ignore list, as I have found it impossible to find a way to constructively engage with him. I would suggest any further engagement with someone who has bought into an unfounded conspiracy and doubles down with more nonsense and in unable to relent, is a pointless venture and simply enables further nonsense. It is, of course, up to you to continue engaging but I would strongly encourage you to consider how effective and efficient this is.

I had to abandon an old friend, and then he died. Was a true classic liberal for all of his life and then started reposting and emailing me on one conspiracy after another during the early Trump presidency. All the Qanon hits, from anti-mask, lab leak, anti-vaccine to borderline racism, especially the Jewish cabal and all that ridiculous ‘save the babies’ crap. Guy had millions in the stock market, yet he was suddenly anti big corporations, LOL. I called him out on that and that was the end of any friendship we had left.

I don’t know exactly when or how he died but I do suspect Covid, looking back at his final tweets. Sad, because his sister told me the family stopped communicating with him as well. He was a Catholic and was always kidding around about aliens, UFOs and Illuminati, but that seemed like nothing to worry about at the time.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Davis and Robert

I don’t promote conspiracy theories, I promote discussing alternative views.

There is plenty of evidence to keep an open mind on the matter of the origin of Covid, including the experts, including Dr. Redfield, who tell us that the genome contains a modification that might have come out of nature but more likely came out of a lab.

I’m not the one with the closed mind here. Don’t pretend otherwise. I’ve also reminded you of how often governments use disinformation mixed in with truth to manufacture consent. It’s happened many times and now is not the time to forget history and become blind to government propaganda.

Propaganda is always more recognizable in retrospect than in the moment.

[UnseenParticipant]

How rational is it to continue to see the lab leak theory as so unlikely as to be dismissed out of hand? Is keeping an open mind so hard?

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Davis and Robert

Considering the evidence just discussed in the prior post, do you still think the lab leak explanation deserves to be framed as a totally wacko theory only held by people who’ve lost their senses?

If you can’t even admit there might have been a lab leak, then I’m not the one with his head up his ass.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@unseen – you might be interested in this BBC programme https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mdfw/episodes/player

they’re never going to know the answer: there are arguments for both sides, but the origin is likely to remain shrouded in mystery.

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

@ Davis and Robert Considering the evidence just discussed in the prior post, do you still think the lab leak explanation deserves to be framed as a totally wacko theory only held by people who’ve lost their senses? If you can’t even admit there might have been a lab leak, then I’m not the one with his head up his ass.

I always said it’s a possibility and the Chinese leadership will never admit it and if this is true it happened on Trump’s watch, so I have no idea right wing nut jobs would be so happy about it. And we know Trump defunded much of the medical equipment Obama had in storage for pandemics.

Trump Falsely Claims He Inherited ‘Empty’ Stockpile

Here’s the thing, even if the leak hypothesis was dismissed unscientifically, show us the fucking evidence as always. You have the zoological origin possibility (as has occurred with virtually every pandemic since the dawn of humans) or the leak possibility.

All coronaviruses before COVID 19 are known to be Zoonotic in origin and there is no known evidence that has a possible precursor strain to COVID 19 was present or being studied in the Wuhan labs. And yes, the Chinese have suppressed epidemic related information (SARS1) before. So that’s where we stand.

 

[jakelafortParticipant]

Color me ignorant. But i am not sure why ascertaining the origin is so important.

[—Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

Color me ignorant. But i am not sure why ascertaining the origin is so important.

We have to know the right way to play victim over it.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

jakelafort wrote:

Color me ignorant. But i am not sure why ascertaining the origin is so important.

Autumn wrote:

We have to know the right way to play victim over it.

I’ve mentioned more than a few times by now, it’s important to know BOTH possible origins, even when I believe in probable zoonotic origin. As technology evolves and knowledge available to humans around the world increases, intentional “lab leaks” are increasingly possible.

DJ McNasty, villain still at large, along with his hundreds-of-millions of “destroy our democratic system” minions had a lot to do with frustrated citizens committing to distrusting not just government, but all scientifically informed authors, journalists, and widely considered (by many) true experts and objective, street-level investigators.

The shit show is now under all our noses, with almost all sides doubling down on “there’s only one way to think about or research these issues”. Or sometimes it’s just a personal crusade when one feels they’re not being listened to.

Loss of trust in handling potential or real-time pandemics is just one of the many modern issues we’re losing competency on, as a country, and perhaps even as humanity at large.

A valid cliche: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

While clickbait and calculated content wins the most eyeballs.

@unseen, you keep saying we should appreciate alternative sources. Personally, I avoid mainstream sources, so I’m already halfway there. From my personal perspective, the at large “alternative” sources are the truly science-focused sources, especially the sources that aren’t rife with clickbait headlines, themes and memes.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: BAD habit, publishing before i proofread what i wrote. i apologize

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@unseen – you might be interested in this BBC programme https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mdfw/episodes/player

It’s several 30 minute episodes of audio only, which I like because it allows me to do other work while listening. This link makes it slightly easier to skip the first, intro episode, and then jump from one episode to the next.

[Author]

Posts