- This topic has 127 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
WTF? LOL!
Glenn, I refer you to the social scientists cited in answer #88772. You are oversimplifying as much or more than the conspiracy theorists. I repeat, I refer you to that answer. You may find that you don’t need to resort to conspiracies to explain history or how the world works, because all those issues are well studied and documented. But you guys are on your own, of course you are.
On the other hand, you do the same as Clark, you respond to things I didn’t say and take for granted that I deny things (which I don’t deny) and add a touch of emotion to it. So I refer you to the paragraph in my reply #88786 regarding cognitive liberty. And in general reread that reply, come on.
Keep muddying the waters. I don’t know if you’re here to liven up the forum and don’t give a shit about the truth or what.
So “cada loco con su tema”. But don’t exclude yourselves.
In a world where madness passes for sanity, it’s a pleasure to be mad, guys.
By the way, if you want to better contextualise why someone would want to demolish PART of the economy, it is simple: what has fallen had already fallen or was destined to fall. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. All indicators told us that we were heading for an unprecedented civilisational crisis for that reason. It has been known since the 1970s or earlier. It started before the pandemic and before the war. I would cite scientific authors that I have already quoted in other threads, but what for….
I’ve got more important things to do than to keep getting involved in deaf and dumb dialogues. One of those things will delight you: serious and rigorous social scientific research.
Luckily the truth always comes out. And it doesn’t depend on people like you and me. But I suspect you are not interested in the truth.
So I refer you to the last two paragraphs of my previous reply.
Sometimes I wonder if it is worth working in research and outreach when I come across people like you. Fortunately not everyone is like you.
Good luck with this disorganised and sectarian thinking that responds to things I haven’t said and assumes I think things I don’t think. I’m a psychologist and I know something about madness… ehem!
Have a nice day. “Que os vaya bonito”.
I’m going back to the madhouse, gentlemen. 😉
Goodbye.
The truth is that I had never considered the content of vaccines as stated in the title of this thread (apart from the issue of adverse effects).
– – – Sarcasm mode on – – –
After analysing your nonsensical responses and the lack of coherence with what I have said in my messages, one wonders if you have not been given a faulty chip with the vaccines or what. OMG!
– – – Sarcasm mode off – – –
Oscar, you wrote, referring to me:
– “According to you the mass media are not to be trusted, the great intellects are to be trusted until they contradict your point of view, then you dismiss them without even approaching their arguments.”
No, I have never argued that certain people should be trusted. I have consistently argued that the accuracy of claims be judged by evidence. For instance, the Wikispooks page I referred to above makes the following claim in its section “The not fit for purpose PCR-test”…
– “To inflate the crisis, a testing method was used, the PCR test, that had a number of false positive results that could be tweaked (by adjusting the cycle threshold), allowing control of the official case count”
…but I or anyone else can test this assertion by using publicly available data, and it proves to be false. This is not a matter of opinion, or “cognitive freedom”; it is a matter of fact. PCR sampling of the general population reliably predicted hospital admissions a week later, and an increase in the overall death rate reliably occurred a week after that.
This is an argument from evidence, not from “great intellects”. I recommend looking to scientific and technical journals, because these are where evidence is presented. Most papers in such journals list many contributing authors, and usually I’ve never heard of any of them.
Why should I primarily consider the philosophy of the political exploitation of fear, when I wish to understand the real dangers of covid? I have a very simple practice that protects my cognition from such political interference – I don’t watch telly or read ‘news’papers – they’re both also a massive waste of time.
– – – – – – – – –Oscar, you wrote:
– “those above are laughing. And the truth continues to be shipwrecked.”
So what might you consider to be “the truth”? Well, you repeatedly recommend Cognitive Liberty Online, so I went and had a look at that. It makes a big fuss about its founder’s qualifications and academic publications, ie. it attempts to establish the author’s scientific authority – but preaching from authority seems the opposite of “cognitive liberty” to me. The author is a psychologist and neuroscientist – not an epidemiologist, virologist or immunologist, so pandemics really aren’t within his field. There is much philosophy on the site, with quotes from famous thinkers.
But on covid it supports the well-trodden denialist path. On the front page it suggests to the gullible that PCR is unsuitable for testing for covid infection, again making a big deal of scientific authority, this time that of Kary Mullis. Then it presents a negative scientific authority argument, about Anthony Fauci; this time, of course, the scientific credentials are absent. Gee, this “cognitive freedom” site is really keen on telling who we should and shouldn’t believe! Then, the cherry on the cake, some fear porn! An old video of Bill Gates, with a repeat of the scariest and most emotive few words – a bogeyman to fear.
Oscar, take back your cognitive freedom by seeing through this manipulative bullshit!
Ewan2, your comment – about me, for some peculiar reason – seems dishonest. I routinely recommend just two books, Bad Science and Bad Pharma, both by Ben Goldacre. I can’t think of a time that I referred either you or Oscar to a scientific paper.
Science is indeed a mode of enquiry, but when I suggested that you employ it, you dismissed numerical evidence as “able to prove anything”. Well there we go then; if we’re giving up on observation, measurement and counting, we’re giving up on science altogether, and we’d better believe whatever feels best when we read random commenters on obscure websites 😀
You are right, guys. I was wrong in everything I said. I will actively work on regaining my cognitive freedom and getting rid of all the denialist disinformation that has infiltrated my mind.
If you have any other suggestions on what to do or what to read to navigate in these turbulent times I will be happy to read them.
Clark, and you are using a double or triple ad hominem disqualification against me based on a superficial reading of a website that I have recommended a couple of times and that you assume my idea of truth is that website.
No comment on social science or on my two lengthy posts….
All very scientific. I’m hardly going to be cured of the conspiranoic virus that way!
Ewan2, you wrote:
– “The reason we are beholden to go to these scientific papers etc is because it is only comprehensible to a tiny part of the population, thus negating many from the discussion.”
I don’t often refer readers to scientific papers. What I have recommended, over and over again, is this:
- Go look at the graph of UK covid infections.
- Note the peaks in that graph.
- Go look at the graph of UK covid deaths.
- Note that peaks in covid deaths follow about two weeks after peaks in infection.
- Go look at graph of deaths-from-all-causes.
- Note that deaths-from-all-causes has peaks at the same time as covid deaths.
Now which part of that is beyond general comprehension? Which part of it is “science as belief” rather than a mode of enquiry? Care to retract your accusations?
Oscar, you have never clearly stated your views on the pandemic (apart from nudges such as that “those above are laughing. And the truth continues to be shipwrecked”), so I have had to infer it from the sources you recommend. Sorry if that seems insulting; it isn’t intended as such.
Conversely, I have no qualms about insulting Wikispooks and Cognitive Liberty Online. They’re pontificating outside their respective fields, namely the secret services and social science, and Cognitive Liberty Online seems hypocritical in that it resorts to arguments from authority so frequently.
You wrote:
– “If you have any other suggestions on what to do or what to read to navigate in these turbulent times I will be happy to read them.”
Just the same as ever – Ben Goldacre’s books. It’s not that Goldacre is an authority; he goes to considerable lengths to avoid preaching from authority. Bad Science in particular is a hoot; thoroughly enjoyable, and essentially a book about the ‘MSM’. Bad Pharma is by comparison dense, technical, and a lot drier, but that’s inevitable when you take on the pharmaceutical industry.
Oscar, sorry to have neglected social science. I know the field has documented bias, but it’s not something I’ve looked into much.
But documenting the roots of bias is one thing, whereas identifying specific biases is another. I’d expect an interdisciplinary approach to be necessary – I’m guessing that you’d need social scientists working with scientists in the field that is being examined for biases.
I find Goldacre quite social-science aware – but then I haven’t studied social science (nor anything else much, come to that). But my favourite of his chapter titles is “Pill Solves Complex Social Problem – or – Will Fish Oil Pills Make My Child a Genius?”, and he frequently points out the medicalisation of social problems.
Agreed. I already got the Spanish translation of Bad Science when you recommended it a few weeks ago. I’ll look for the other one now. Thank you.
I don’t have a static view on the pandemic, because it’s a research process for me. What I can say is that “those at the top” exist and are a proven sociological fact (given enough authors from different perspectives).
I can also affirm that “those at the top”, at the very least, have instrumentalised the pandemic to their ends and at least a group of “them” are directly involved in the origin of it all.
I am working on it, as I say. And in a year or so I hope to be able to publish my unquestionable findings (because of the solid evidence to back them up).
However, as I said, other people have tried this before, and have been fodder for defamation.
Every age has its heretics. We should not be surprised.
I for one have to give up these debates here. They take up more of my time and energy than they give me, and it’s not worth it to me to continue here. (Besides, Clark, I need to try out a new Linux distro ;))
I hope that some author or work or website that I have mentioned over the last few days in these forums will be of use to someone.
I hope you are all in good health, in freedom and in the direction of truth (as an attitude towards life).
See you soon,
Oscar
Oscar:
– “What I can say is that “those at the top” exist and are a proven sociological fact”
I agree. However, they do come and go over time, yet the system persists, so I regard the system as more significant than the individuals; when individuals are somehow removed, the system promotes other suitable candidates to their positions.
– “I can also affirm that “those at the top”, at the very least, have instrumentalised the pandemic to their ends…
I agree, though in my structural understanding, whoever happened to be at the top would have done the same.
– …and at least a group of “them” are directly involved in the origin of it all.”
I haven’t yet seen evidence of this; the closest I have seen is that someone with experience of the pandemic very early in its course tipped off a group of major bankers and money managers, especially regarding covid’s very rapid speed of spread – I posted a comment about this somewhere on these forums, in response to a link, but I can’t remember where.
Of course, “those at the top” have monetary interests in many things and many connections to other powerful people, so being “directly involved in the origin of it all” could merely be coincidence. Given what I know of covid’s medical effects, only self-destructive people would deliberately release it.
I hope your book becomes available in English, and if so I hope I find time to read it.
Good wishes to you too, Oscar.
Dang, my mistake on the last page – apologies. I misread Ewan completely, and agreed with him by mistake. Ewan was – of course – talking complete nonsense, and I disagree with him 100%
This is the most recent compilation article I know of.
Diario16 – Unexplained increase in mortality
In case it is of interest to anyone. The original is in Spanish, forgive Google for its mistakes.
Cheers,
Oscar
Here is another one on anti-vaccine and denialists, both referenced and written by a physicist with expertise in molecular biomedicine.
Despite his studies, I don’t agree that you have to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on the subject, as Clark says. As I said in another post about real science, if you know about a subject and you know how to understand the literature on the subject and handle the sources, you can speak with propriety and rigour. So I don’t accept insults towards Wikispooks or my colleague Germann on the basis that they are not experts.
Also, if we accept the argument that only experts can “pontificating”… isn’t that an argument from authority? And following that criterion, why NOT LISTEN, SIMPLY LISTEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the inventor of the PCR test (he doesn’t look like an idiot), to one of the inventors of mRNA technology (he might know something, perhaps), to the discoverer of the HIV virus, and so many others?
We’d better brand them as crazy denialists and misinformers and ban them from the debate, because real science thrives on debate, and shut them down from social networks and so on. A good example of how sick society is. Yes, being crazy as Glenn called me, is definitely a compliment to me.
And yes, meanwhile, the elites are laughing (if you still see that as a conspiracy theory after having checked the authors I suggested in another post, I think the ones who have lost touch with reality are you).
And yes, the truth is still shipwrecked. The real drama is that with it, we are sinking as a civilisation (in another post I already gave the clues as to why “someone” would want to demolish what was already in freefall).
I haven’t said it, but in addition to being a psychologist, I have a master’s degree in Human Rights and Public Policy. And I am also an activist. This is not an argument of authority, I explain.
There I learned that often when we talk about human rights we do it in a self-interested way and only partially. It is something like… “I want this, I bring up the human rights argument”. We often forget the ultimate meaning of human rights and the achievement of human rights. To trivialise them, as has been done here in the case of cognitive liberty, is despicable.
In any case, my point is that it is the same with science. It is another fetish word that we use at convenience to support what we a priori already believe. And we often forget what it really is: a sincere search for truth following a particular method, albeit flexible according to the object of study.
So go ahead, use sacrosanct science to keep muddying the waters, and when you can’t, resort to purely emotional arguments and personal attack as you have done before. That defines you, not me.
The elites laugh and the truth continues to be shipwrecked.
“All normal and fine’, as my friend Turiel would say.
Here you have more than 2000 studies and/or scientific reports on the hypothetical harmfulness of “vaccines” (I don’t know about there, but in Spain the Real Academia de la Lengua had to modify the definition of “vaccine” to include what was being inoculated to the population).
The blog belongs to an acquaintance, so it goes without saying that I don’t share everything that is said there (I can already see you criticising me for what he says… killing the messenger!) Google refuses to give me other compilation sources and copying and pasting 2021 references here seemed excessive. Anyway, if you are serious you will focus on the studies, i.e. the picture, not the frame. Right?
Since scientific publishing is monopolised by a handful of for-profit companies, if you are asked to pay 40 quid to access an article, you can try Sci-Hub. The .is, .se and .st ccTLDs are currently online.
[Note that I am not including any illegal links and therefore this forum and website cannot be harmed].
I have taken the liberty of browsing through discussions you have had for over 4 years.
So I give up on this forum.
I came here because of Wikispooks censorship. As I said, I have learned that what is obvious to me after 15 years of complete dedication to researching certain issues – issues that you dismiss with disdain from ignorance – is not so obvious to others. Thank you.
I have also learned about Craig Murray, of whom I was unaware. And I like him. I have to admit that the existence of forums like these on personal pages of researchers and activists is rare. So thank you.
I will follow your work. But I will no longer participate in the forum.
I felt I had to make one last defence of Wikispooks and Chris Germann, with all the flaws they may have and have.
I also had to defend myself against personal attacks I have received here. Also, things have been put in my mouth that I have not said and things have been attributed to me that have little or nothing to do with me.
Having said that, I repeat that my only ultimate commitment is to the truth. If you can say the same, I wish you all the best in your investigations.
In the meantime, time spent on all these comments and the work behind them, the wheel of history keeps turning and killing people. Ignorance kills.
The elites are still laughing as they prepare and people debate their sociologically documented existence.
And the truth is still shipwrecked.
Oscar:
– “I don’t agree that you have to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on the subject, as Clark says.”
This is untrue. How often do I have to state and demonstrate my actual position, eg. Sep 24, 13:08, comment #88798 above, that I reason from evidence rather than quoting people with supposed authority, before your statements to the contrary become a lie?
You then go on to present arguments from authority, doing precisely that which you falsely accuse me of, eg. “the inventor of the PCR test (he doesn’t look like an idiot), to one of the inventors of mRNA technology (he might know something, perhaps), to the discoverer of the HIV virus…”. These are arguments about what supposedly authoritative people have said; arguments from authority, not evidence.
But dominating your comments is pure conspiracism, “the powerful are very powerful therefore the argument I present must be true”.
Diario16 was a Spanish tabloid ‘news’paper, but according to Wikipedia it closed in 2001.
Diario16 gives every impression of being ‘MSM’ ie. corporate media, in that it presents a great deal of advertising and pulls in JavaScript from the usual immense list of commercial parasites*.
The Diario16 articles linked by Oscar are sensationalist anti-(covid)-vaxx polemics, misusing genuine scientific articles, distortions of official figures, and quotes from the handful of usual suspects, eg. a foundation consisting of Steve Kirsch (personal fortune estimated at $230 million*), Robert Malone and Peter McCullough.
______
* Conspiracy theorists constantly warn us about the ‘MSM’ and “the Elite”, yet frequently cite the corporate media, and quote as authorities the immensely rich such as Kirsch and buyers-and-sellers of companies such as Yeadon.Oscar, if you can resist whining about being victimised for a few minutes, I’d like you to answer me this.
Why should I listen to the “inventor of the PCR test” saying that its test results are misleading when evidence shows that it works? Why should I listen to claims that are provably wrong?
It’s a simple question; please try to answer without banging on about secret plots by the powerful.
The Moon is made of green cheese. It must be because the MSM controlled by the Elite say it isn’t, except when they say that it is. But don’t ask NASA, ESA or Roscosmos because they’re all controlled by the Elite; don’t look in a scientific journal for the same reason! No, look in Diario16, or you’ll be one of the sheeple who trust the MSM!
Clear as mud.
Oscar:
– “I don’t agree that you have to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on the subject, as Clark says.”
I may have misinterpreted this sentence. It is possible that you meant:
– “I agree with Clark that you don’t need to have an official degree in whatever it is to be able to speak on a subject”
in which case I apologise for my misinterpretation.
“Here you have more than 2000 studies and/or scientific reports………..”
Oscar, I hope you have read through each and every one!
I have skimmed through some of them. This one , near the end, caught my eye.
Myocarditis after Covid-19 Vaccination in a Large Health Care Organization
This is perhaps the largest study to date and the reason it caught my eye is because the UK.gov cites the very same study in it’s review of ” Information for healthcare professionals on myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination” Updated 21 March 2022Similar for:
Information for healthcare professionals on blood clotting following COVID-19 vaccinationThey are doing a very poor job of hiding the truth they don’t want you to know. Those damn elites are so confident of their covid vaccines cover up they even make the data public. What bastards!
The incidence of myocarditis is about 2 per 100,000 post vaccination against a population wide incidence of between 30 and 35 per 100,000 (in UK). ALL treatment options have side effects, some serious some not so serious. Even doing nothing as an option can have side effects.
Hey Oscar, instead of repeatedly telling us that you have been researching the “truth” for years, imploring us to “listen” to people whose views we have repeatedly addressed in multiple covid threads, why don’t you summarise your argument, give us some publicly available figures that back up your premise so that we can appraise. Otherwise, please keep the promise you have repeatedly made in multiple posts and just quit posting, wasting everyone’s time.
Oscar, I’m not going to read through 2000 plus individual studies to make your argument for you. I very much doubt you have read through them either. (they are mostly case reports and smaller studies). If you avtually have an argument the make it, it goes something like this:
“I think the covid vaccines are the cause of the excess deaths because of this, this and this” and give a brief explanation and summary of your sources. You say you are a psychologist and have a masters degree in Human Rights and Public Policy. I am assuming that you didn’t get through either of those courses without learning some competency in presenting an argument. Please use what you learned.
- Regarding the issue of national and/or transnational elites: your reactions to my references to the subject have only shown your ignorance and what is really worrying, your reluctance to learn anything about something crucial to understanding the world. I talk about social psychology and the sociology of power, and you talk about conspiracies… You’re on your own.
- As for the hypothetical causal relationship between COVID vaccines and serious and/or fatal adverse effects that are not well documented, I sincerely hope I am wrong in my suspicion. I have no personal or financial interest in being right in my suspicions. I also hope that if confirmed, your egos will allow you to react appropriately as citizens, subjects of rights and duties. Although, given the history of mankind, nothing makes me think so flatteringly.
- If you want these forums to retain the vitality and freshness of a true forum for debate and not become a nest of single-mindedness and sectarianism… well, I came here in good spirits and have been bitten and personally attacked when you ran out of arguments. Again, you will see what you do.
Goodbye!
- The topic ‘Concerns about the contents of the covid vaccines’ is closed to new replies.