- This topic has 127 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In fact you are conspiracy theorists to the extent that everything that is not cool you lump into conspiracy theory and dedicate yourselves to debunking it – even whole branches of psychology and sociology! Conspirativism could not survive without defenders and detractors. So you are encouraging that kind of thinking.
One wonders if all of us here share the same purpose. In one reply I said that there were professional disinformers (I know that even if it is true you will think in conspiracist terms). When one looks at your replies one cannot help but be struck by doubts.
I hope Mr Murray knows what is really going on in the forums, the identities of those who participate and moderate and their real motivations.
Just for the record, I did not intend for you to analyse all 2021 articles. But you have asked for scientific papers and I have given them to you. And you don’t seem to have liked it.
And as usual you resort to attacks on the media or on me. You use conspiratorial arguments to discredit well-established facts in the social sciences. And in the process evade what you have asked for and what I have sent you.
While there are people who suffer professional and even personal ostracism for seeking the hard and fast facts, and one comes across people like you. Sometimes one ends up feeling uneasy and wondering if in the end we won’t get exactly what we deserve…
I’m glad I didn’t give my real name here. I wish GDPR applied here….
By the way Clark, how about not interpreting articles giving false information and let people think for themselves?
Oscar, the topic of this forum is:
Concerns about the contents of the covid vaccines
It is not:
Concerns about national and/or transnational elites
and quite honestly, the only connection you have made between the two is suspicion, as in: “there exist national and transnational elites, therefore the covid vaccines are probably the cause in the current rise in excess deaths”. But you could make a similar argument about anything, as in: “there exist national and transnational elites, which is why the vast majority of toothpastes are mint flavoured”.
You have never really put your cards on the table; I strongly suspect that you are promoting the “UN Agenda 21 Depopulation plot”.
The word “theory” is used in two different ways. In common language it is used to mean “unproven assertion”, but in academic contexts it means “framework for understanding”. As a social scientist you should understand that this ambiguity is exploited by pressure groups, who will say “oh that’s merely a theory”, for instance religious creationists claim that “evolution is merely a theory”. But gravitation is a theory, yet no one expects their teapot to just float away sometimes; they expect it to accelerate downwards at around 9.8m/s/s if they drop it.
I have been writing “conspirology” to mean “conspiracy theory”, using “theory” in the academic sense of meaning “framework for understanding”. Conspiracy theorists resort to conspiracy as their primary method for attempting to understand things. You just demonstrated this above, when you wrote:
– “One wonders if all of us here share the same purpose. In one reply I said that there were professional disinformers (I know that even if it is true you will think in conspiracist terms). When one looks at your replies one cannot help but be struck by doubts. […] I hope Mr Murray knows what is really going on in the forums, the identities of those who participate and moderate and their real motivations.”
To answer you, yes, Craig knows me quite well, we usually meet a few times each year and have spent considerable time together. I moderated here for a long time. I have met and spoken to some of the moderators, whom Craig knows personally too.
So your framework for thought misled you. This is probably also why you ignore questions, such as mine at 14:47, comment #88856 above:
– “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?”
So instead of assuming that anyone who challenges your position might be a “professional disinformer”, as you put it, try assuming they’re your equal, and attempt to answer their questions 🙂
Congratulations. You did it.
I hope you can look your children in the face when you realise the immensity of your mistake.
Although “hopefully” you will end up being happy fools as Aldous Huxley predicted in New Brave World.
You are the naysayers. And the worst thing is that your attitude discourages those of us who seek the truth in this crazy world.
I would like to see your contribution: “not that, not that, not that”; and along the way you leave a trail of people who throw in the towel because of the accumulation of people like you.
Congratulations. I hope it doesn’t happen to you like Tolstoy’s Ivan Illich.
See you never.
If you had read me properly, you would have seen that I was pointing out a contradiction in your argument from authority. I said:
“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 (…)”
I wanted to point out your contradictions.
And I could have pointed out glaring errors in your arguments and assertions from the beginning but I didn’t mean to rubbish anyone or provoke bad reactions.
But you haven’t read anything. And you do what I said you would do a few posts ago: put things in my mouth, distort my words and muddy the field.
You should have seen where I posted when I first came here….
Unlike you, I don’t enjoy personal attacks or getting on each other’s nerves.
In a cult forum, I am a loser no matter what I contribute, not even 2000 articles, I am answered ad hominem. Stay in your sect.
To the moderator: I wish you to delete ALL my posts, I want nothing to do with this place. If you meet my demands I will use legal means. Thank you.
Oscar – just a bit of kindly advice.
If you stomp your foot, give an angry “I’m outta here” speech and flounce off, it makes you look a bit silly to come back to say “And another thing!” a few more times before flouncing off again. And then repeating that sorry show yet again.
Just saying.
If you’ve got a case you feel up to making, make it. Otherwise, at least have the grace to bugger off while retaining some dignity.
What exactly was it that Kary B. Mullis said that is relevant to “concerns about the content of covid vaccines?”
I want the exact quote, printed out in a post that has got you so concerned. Don’t link me to somewhere else to read it, I expect YOU to quote it and explain what you infer from that quote and why.Oscar, have you even considered my reasons for regarding PCR as reliable? I have posted my reasoning repeatedly; before vaccination reduced covid’s death rate, PCR testing predicted the peaks in the general mortality curve. It doesn’t matter what anyone says about PCR; it obviously works reliably enough or it couldn’t do that. False positives can’t make people drop dead two weeks later.
And what basis do you have to assume the objectives of the “transnational elites”?
I don’t think you’re in any position to order the mods around, Oscar. Legally threatening them with really poor sentence structure too – “If you meet my demands I will use legal means”!! ??
But if you think you’ve made a comprehensive fool of yourself here (and who am I to disagree?) you could try asking them VERY politely.
Can’t think of any reason why they should, though. This represents the work of more than one person, why should their demonstration of the takedown of a flighty conspiracy nut be denied to others, who might well appreciate the entertainment?
Clark, when have I ever said anything about PCRs except to cite Mullis as an example of a disgraced scientist? See what I mean?
It would be nice if an outside observer could see this whole show… and how I started, how my words were misrepresented and how I was said to have said what I had not said… and so much for that. I would look like a person with thin skin, but you would look like thugs without arguments and provocateurs… not to say ignorant and sectarian, who neither read my arguments nor the sources I provide. And you scoff at the harsh reality.
Oscar – Your (no doubt very high powered) lawyers would probably advise you that your demands for your posts to be deleted are somewhat weakened if you continue posting. Jeez!
___
O:
“I hope you can look your children in the face when you realise the immensity of your mistake.“
Ok, so now we’re getting somewhere. You assert a conclusion, your own great knowledge of it, and the collective culpability of anyone doubting your momentous conclusions.
Somehow, medical statisticians have all failed to uncover the plot. All governments, worldwide, all coroners, and so on and so on. Or they’re in on the plot – ALL of them – and covering it up. Everyone except you and a handful of sensationalist attention seekers on YouTube. Typical conspiracy theory BS in other words.
But we’re the guilty ones for not immediately jumping to your conclusions.
No offence, but you’re a lot more silly than you think.
You are a pain in the ass, I have said nothing about PCRs or Mullis except indirectly that I cited him along with Malone and Montagnier as top scientists who had fallen very low. Can you read?
But what a plot Glenn! I have done wrong by talking about sociology of power in this thread, NOT ANYTHING ELSE!!! What plot? What conspiracy? I haven’t even established any causality between vaccines and problems, I’ve only criticised it being dismissed a priori, like other things in relation to the pandemic. NOTHING ELSE!!!
The one who can’t read is you, dear. ignorance or bad faith?
Oskar, given your last few posts, I confess that I haven’t a clue what you were trying to argue. What the hell do these few contrarian scientists you kept drawing our attention to have to do with transnational elites? Were you arguing that elites were trying to silence these scientists (but not doing a very good job of it), or just that the scientists had gone a bit wonky? If you weren’t arguing that elites are trying to trick us with a fake pandemic into killing ourselves with fake vaccines, then what is the supposed significance of this handful of contrarians? I’m genuinely mystified.
*** MODS *** since Oskar claims not to have been arguing anything he seemed to be arguing, I suggest you break all his links to anti-vax material; they reflect badly on Craig’s site and might cause down-ranking on search engines, social media, factuality ratings etc.
*** MODS ***, that includes Cognitive Liberty Online, unfortunately; if you look at the videos on its front page you’ll see what I mean. It’s a shame for Germann that he didn’t stick to his field.
O:
“But what a plot Glenn!”
Actually, it is rather obvious that you’ve completely lost it. The plot, that is.
I’m bored with your teasing us about a massive plot, and then acting all mystified and outraged when called to substantiate it. We’ve been through this cycle several times now on this thread, no wonder you pulled that risible stunt about legal action if mods didn’t delete the evidence you provided of your own stupidity.
Not stupidity, sorry, it was wrong of me to say that – I wish there was an edit feature here.
I should have said, gullibility and instability.
Some 20 plus posts from you Oscar and yet still not a single comprehensible argument. You seem to be very taken with the phrase a priori and I am presuming you mean by that “not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic.” Do you think that those of us contributing to these several covid-related threads are not familiar with what are said to be quotes from Mullis (who died prior to covid in 2019) or what Dr. Robert Malone has said relating to covid and the covid vaccines? Whilst I wouldn’t wish to take away from Mullis’ achievements he also took the stance that the HIV virus didn’t cause what we know as Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), a stance that in 2022 is demonstrably wrong. He didn’t “invent” PCR rather he discovered a way to use a transcription process that has been active in cells for billions of years.
Neither did Dr. Robert Malone “invent” mRNA vaccines, despite how many times he attempts to dissemble on that claim. Here is the paper he co-authored with others in 1987 which that claim supposedly arises from (in .pdf):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC297778/pdf/pnas00283-0074.pdf
Literally, hundreds of other researchers added knowledge to bring us to functioning mRNA vaccines. Whilst I am not sure whether the wiki article on Dr. Robert Malone is biased or unbiased it’s still worth a read.Don’t presume that I am not familiar with what these and others have said. So, please give your “a priori” a rest.
Michael Faraday discovered the basic principles of electricity generation in 1831. He wouldn’t have had any inkling on how we might be using electricity in 2022 to power the digital revolution. Our grasp of electricity has grown tremendously, and we are constantly finding new ways to use it to improve our lives. So with any new discovery. Knowledge grows.
PCR tests are a very useful medical tool that have been sucessfully used to diagnose and treat a host of infectious diseases, tissue typing for transplantation, genetic conditions such as carriers of certain genetic syndromes/disease, forensics and a host of other areas where identification of specific DNA/RNA sequences is beneficial. All this validates the use of PCR testing and no one was complaining of that prior to Covid.
@Clark
Gravity. Maybe your tea pot is stationary in space and it’s just moving through time! 😀At present he’s just a false name on the internet among countless millions of others. If he initiates legal action he’ll have to identify himself. Obviously never heard of the Streisand effect.
- The topic ‘Concerns about the contents of the covid vaccines’ is closed to new replies.