- This topic has 115 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There are a number of well meaning contributors to this forum and blog who remain firmly on the side of all the evil in world.
One or two of them already know who they are and some of you know exactly who they are. Others will probably never know what they themselves are. The fault isn’t necessarily theirs, as I said, they are well meaning individuals. The fault is their expertise, their education, the cradle to grave propaganda and in some cases their own sense of self esteem, often derived from their adherence to the rules they believe are constituted in good faith for the benefit of all. Despite their genuine good intent, they now represent the problem, but because they work so strenuously to deny the reality rapidly unfolding upon all of us, they can’t help it. They’ve been trained from birth and selected through education and occupation to do exactly what they are now doing. In other circumstances some of them would be right now be denouncing Craig but for the grace of God or accident.
In the spirit of empiricism (etymology: ‘from experience’) I submit a number of videos which exemplify empiricism, or understanding and learning from experience. Please accept the possibility that others who disagree with you, do so from a position of knowledge and experience and do so in good will but during a climate of propaganda, deliberate polarisation and cultivated intolerance of other views through the wilful misrepresentation of those views. Craig’s followers are no exception. It is the air we breathe and the water we swim in.
Press conference called by Independent Canadian MP Derek Sloan with Dr. Byram W. Bridle, viral immunologist and University of Guelph associate professor, Dr. Patrick Phillips of Englehart and District Hospital, and Dr. Donald Welsh, Western University physiology and pharmacology professor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUrp5PlnBwQ
Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology.
Pierre Cory is an American critical care physician talking about his experience with Ivermectin. Ivermectin has more than ten years of safe use behind it unlike mRNA ‘vaccines’ and with many trials including gold standard double blind trials, has proved it’s efficacy against Covid19. It is an anti-biotic derived from Streptomyces bacteria which also has effective anti-viral properties. It is cheap, safe and if used early after onset of symptoms, effective against Covid19, yet there is a massively funded campaign against its use.
Honest question: why?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/
Jazz musician, former IDF soldier and outspoken Palestinian rights activist Gilad Atzmon.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/g4RTLmWjV8vw/
Much, much more to follow.
Do we really need the first three paragraphs about what sheeple or evil agents everyone else are? It’ll make whatever follows look like conspiracy theory, as does the aggressive forum title.
Without following your links, it looks like you’re highlighting two separate issues: (1) mRNA vaccines are very dangerous and (2) there’s a campaign against the use of ivermectin. Are you suggesting “let the virus run wild but treat everyone with ivermectin”?
I read it again just to check. What incredibly pompous shite!
Clarke, over time I have satisfied myself that your opinions are not only negligible, but harmful. Those seeking truth might at least explore serious evidence based arguments contrary to their own position. You will not. I’ve proved that a number of times.
J
Thanks for the carefully worded preamble and your interest in educating us who have a led a life of being indocrinated. But before I invest time in looking at your rather long references, can you please describe to me why you think your choice of links to educate is is the gold standard, and why for example should we listen to 38 minutes of a right wing nationalist Canadian MP talking? I tend to try and get my scientific and factual information from scientific publications. As you very well know, politicians are intrinsically trying to persuade us to their way of thinking, their interest in science, is usually limited to how much money and influence can be obtained from their speeches.So what explicitly are you accusing some commentators of doing that constitutes evil?
If ivermectin or any other treatment, for that matter, is proven to be beneficial I doubt anyone here would be against their use. I am always a little sceptical when it comes to anti-viral drugs simply because we haven’t got any good anti-virals apart perhaps from HIV treatments, despite years of research. We have many anti-biotics that are effective versus bacteria but not viruses. However that doesn’t mean I won’t be convinced by evidence that it works.
The references are actually worth looking at. It is concerning that there seems to be such censorship. I agree with you relating to judgement from experience. We are at a time of medicine by protocol which has been relentlessly pursued at the cost of experience.
“can you please describe to me why you think your choice of links to educate is is the gold standard”
I haven’t said anything of the sort. If you’d encountered the arguments proffered, you’d already be reviewing the studies referred to by them, which themselves are ‘gold standard’ and you’d be availing yourself of the data.
If you and Clarke can explain why you must attempt every rhetorical device to avoid actually refuting what you perceive as an invalid argument before hearing it, while taking the trouble to misrepresent and attack the character of those you haven’t bothered to hear but also those who put such arguments before you, why then I’d be most happy to oblige.
The device you use of asking us for the sake of openness and balance to start reading and watching lots of long videos and then asking for comments on them is deceptive. Why not ask in your own words the questions you wish us to answer. The thing is, I have seen this device used so often so often and know that it is a gambit to engage in these traps leading to a wild goose chase. Seen it all before.
J, let’s consider your introductory waffle for a moment. It’s a crude exercise in sophistry: the same spin could be applied to any domain to defend or attack any position. (“Do you believe in fairies? Don’t listen to the indoctrinated fools who’ve never even seen them; listen to the people with more open minds.”) You’re trying to stack the deck before you deal the cards, but your sleight of hand is a bit too obvious, I’m afraid.
Your first trick is evident in the title Covid: pick a side. You’re setting up a false dichotomy: ‘them’ vs ‘us’; the ‘dumbfucks’ (including people who believe the media plus most scientific experts) vs the ‘enlightened free thinkers’ (who actually get most of their ‘knowledge’ from radical websites). But who says there are only two sides? The scientific field is rife with active debate (which is an essential element of scientific method). The various protest camps are far from unified: some think there’s no virus, some think there is a virus but it’s relatively harmless, some think the vaccines are designed to kill or sterilise, others that masks are useless, and so on; they have as many disagreements with each other as they do with the people they’re attacking. But you ignore all those divisions and serve up a simple ‘good vs evil’ plot that would be considered too primitive for a Hollywood flick.
Once you’ve set up your simplistic dichotomy, you then allocate different groups via the black-and-white fallacy. You put the experts on the evil side with the dumbfucks, because they’re they’ve been trained in scientific method and therefore (according to you) have been taught to deny reality(?), which makes them evil (though they don’t know it). It’s a safe guess you’re not too familiar with postgraduate seminars. New scientific proposals are scrutinised in meticulous detail to find methodological weaknesses or a lack of fit to the available data. PhD candidates have to prove that they can examine and challenge existing ideas, and proceed to defend their alternative. That’s how they become experts – not by, as you seem to think, regurgitating information from a textbook. Moreover, any decent textbook clearly flags the issues of ongoing controversy, noting the areas that require further research. Your characterisation of evil experts, I’m afraid, doesn’t pay sufficient attention to real world science.
If you smear scientific experts as incapable of critical thinking, you run into a slight problem (or should that be a “sleight” problem?): you need to put some scientific experts on your ‘good’ side to support your argument. You solve this with a sleight-of-hand move: “these experts aren’t like those other experts because … because they disagree with the majority consensus and are prepared to speak out about it. That’s what makes them ‘good experts’, so they can go in this good pile”. Err … nope, that’s what makes them mavericks – who aren’t automatically “good” or “evil”.
Having stacked the deck you can deal out your cards into the good and evil piles: “Majority consensus? Evil.”, “Maverick view? Good.” Well, thanks, that’s quite entertaining, and it gives us useful information about how you think, but it doesn’t tell us much about things in the real world.
Your good-vs-evil dichotomy is a crude attempt to skew the debate before you’ve even mentioned the medical issues. I hope we can sweep that sophistry away first.
“Clarke, over time I have satisfied myself that your opinions are not only negligible, but harmful.”
Thank you for telling us how satisfied you are, but I dare say your level of personal satisfaction is not a reliable arbiter of truth. I think you’re unlikely to be much of an expert in Clark’s opinions if you can’t even spell his name right.
Dredd,
If I have any point to make, I believe it will emerged organically from the responses to this thread, rather than being explicitly stated at the outset.
“But who says there are only two sides?”
Very good point. Who has said there are only two sides?
One of my ambitions for this, erm, discussion, is to illustrate how atomised and divided we are by encouraging people who think they agree with each other to ‘react’ together, united by preconceptions against something which they refuse to encounter. Quite successful so far.
“encouraging people who think they agree with each other to ‘react’ together, united by preconceptions against something which they refuse to encounter. Quite successful so far.”
Oh, was it? Sounds intriguing. Who are those “people who think they agree with each other”, anyway?
I criticised your introductory guff because it was pure sophistry – which isn’t a good start in a discussion about medical science. You can attribute whatever alternative motives your imagination can conjure up and ramble on about those if you like – but it was still sophistry.
In your opening gambit you promise
“Much, much more to follow.”
As two of your links are from Bitchute, the well known extreme right wing alternative to youtube, forgive me for being cynical and not listen and watch this deranged propaganda. If you wish us to engage please can we avoid these sorts of links. I am sure you are well meaning but my opinion would have to change if you try to convince me that Bitchute is not the go-to channel for conspiracy and hate-filled right wing views.
J, June 19 at 20:08, para. 3:
– “Please accept the possibility that others who disagree with you, do so from a position of knowledge and experience”
J, June 20, 2021 at 18:44, para. 1:
– “Clarke, over time I have satisfied myself that your opinions are not only negligible, but harmful. Those seeking truth might at least explore serious evidence based arguments contrary to their own position. You will not. I’ve proved that a number of times.”
Time to start following your own advice maybe, J?
J, I asked you a question, ie. an invitation to discussion. I see that you had already set up your excuse for not engaging in such discussion. I expect that discussion is exactly what you are trying to avoid. “Over time…” etc… Do please remind me what you were pushing last time; “COVID’s all a hoax”, wasn’t it? So who would care whether ivermectin were an effective treatment for a hoax anyway? Only someone with an ulterior motive.
Do please prove me wrong. I’ll give you another chance by repeating my question, ie. my invitation to further discussion – where are you heading with this? Let everyone catch covid but treat us all with ivermectin?
And J, did I get your two assertions right? Come on, this isn’t exactly complicated.
“Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology.”
To give J the benefit of the doubt I clicked on his link.
Spike protein is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein)This was a discussion between Dr. Robert Malone, an acknowledged scientist who contributed some seminal work on RNA transfection into cells in 1989 as part of a group in The Salk Institute and has been active in research, and Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneur engineer who dabbles in medical science and in so doing displays a lot of ignorance
“We are told that the vaccine stays in the arm and does not move around the body, but now we know that it does”
Surprise surprise, it is well known that vaccines and antigens are distributed through the lymphatic system to major sites containing antigen processing cells in regional lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow and so on. Then he goes on to describe anecdotally the number of people who have been afflicted with rare side effects from the Pfizer vaccine, his carpet cleaner(!) had a heart attack after the vaccine, but seems to be still cleaning carpets, and his previously healthy wife has severe attack of the shakes, whereas horrific abortions with bloody faces in a 25 week pregnant woman is graphically described. But all these cases are not reported because the victims have no voices and the groupthink of all doctors dictate that silence is maintained because they must reiterate “the vaccine is safe”.
Bret Weinstein, the moderator/presenter is also full of anecdotes, everyone except his parents, reacted to the vaccine including his doctor and dentist and anyone he met. Although Dr Malone spoke with some authority, he was not convincing unfortunately in this rather anecdotal concept. Dr. Malone can be excused for feeling a bit left out of the glory surrounding the RNA vaccines as he does not seem that he has a Wikipedia page (yet) but his wife does explain his grievance in a Linked-in article.
Clarke (I prefer the extraneous e):
COVID’s all a hoax”, wasn’t it? So who would care whether ivermectin were an effective treatment for a hoax anyway? Only someone with an ulterior motive.
Do tell. Let us recall how you more or less accused me of being an anti-Semite with no basis whatsoever. Surely, being as evidence based as you claim, you can provide some documentary evidence to to back up this smear “J says Covid is all a hoax”.
SA,
We know that bullies everywhere are fond of denying the experience of their victims. Do you disagree? And here you are insisting that everyone is lying apart from you and let me add that I do accept take your point, these people could be lying, although you don’t attempt to prove it, you merely assume. (This is a value judgement, is it not?)
From my own experience (and empiricism, let us remind ourselves, is the product of experience is it not?) the stepfather of my daughter (my ex-wife remarried) was on the operating table having stents inserted into his arteries three days after having received his first ‘jab’ due to heart attack caused by blood clots throughout his body. I’ve actually worked with him in the past and despite his advanced years on me, he actually did outstrip me. Fit as the proverbial fiddle.
I’ve heard many similar stories in recent months despite also knowing plenty of people who’ve had Covid vaccines and merely felt very unwell for weeks or months and others who were more or less fine beyond localised discomfort. Only a zealot would claim this is not data, but if it is never recorded in the context of vaccines, then it actually never becomes data. Much as the MoD is still able to claim that less than five hundred thousand people were killed by the Iraq war through the simple expedient of not recording the 2.4 million deaths. I’m happy for you that you are able to trust our institutions to work freely on your behalf without interference. You must be a very happy man.
“In your opening gambit you promise
‘Much, much more to follow.’
As two of your links are from Bitchute, the well known extreme right wing alternative to youtube, forgive me for being cynical and not listen and watch this deranged propaganda. If you wish us to engage please can we avoid these sorts of links. I am sure you are well meaning but my opinion would have to change if you try to convince me that Bitchute is not the go-to channel for conspiracy and hate-filled right wing views.”
All of these videos were formerly available on most video hosting websites, including youtube until they were banned from all those sites. Do you think it proves your case that they are now only available on Bitchute, and if so, can you re-affirm exactly what it is that you are arguing?
“From my own experience (and empiricism, let us remind ourselves, is the product of experience is it not?) the stepfather of my daughter (my ex-wife remarried) was on the operating table having stents inserted into his arteries three days after having received his first ‘jab’ due to heart attack caused by blood clots throughout his body…”
This does not make any medical sense I am afraid and also I am afraid is neither empiricism nor data.
Let me tell you I know 25 people at least who had vaccines, including myself that have just had the usual reactions associated with vaccines. Also I know many people personally who had covid 19 and have been hospitalised and one who died in respiratory failure. So what does all this mean? My empiricism and my data are better than yours?
No. Data has to be verified to be meaningful, and all of what either of us is doing is recounting, anecdotally, what we have experienced. It is true that initial anecdotal findings are then properly collated and when this happens, meaningful results are generated as happened with the now well-documented relationship between a particular type of blood clots and the AZ and Johnson vaccines. It all ties in and a mechanism is described and findings corroborated.
But to go back to your daughter’s stepfather, we need more information to make sense of what you say in lay terms. How old is he, what underlying medical conditions did he have? What are the blood findings at the time and so on. Your anecdote remains just that, and a coinciding with b does not mean that a caused b.
The current problem of some people doubting science and suddenly finding themselves enabled to interpret complex data and also to trust their own data and their own go to websites creates a self-fulfilling bubble and a feeling of power that you are onto something, those others have not got onto. Most of those analyses are made by disgruntled scientists and backed by right wing individuals and organisations to cloud the issues and politicise what is essentially a public health emergency. I freely admit that governments also do the same and this is shown by the totally different approach in say China RSK, NZ and others, as opposed to the neoliberal pseudo democracies and the results show.
Well I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on Bitchute and we probably have to leave it there as we both know our own ‘truths’. I am sure you can enjoy P**ndemic on Bitchute.
J, please try to read a bit more coherently rather than leaping into rhetorical combat; I asked questions. I don’t remember what your previous stance was and I don’t remember where it was posted, so I asked you to clarify. I don’t know where you’re trying to get with your two initial assertions (around which which you claimed to classify everyone into absolute good and absolute evil, but then mysteriously lost interest in), so I asked.
On the covid-related points you’ve actually made, you seem keen to leap to rhetoric rather than rational discussion, and are degenerating alarmingly towards anti-vaxx conspiracy theory; “if it is never recorded in the context of vaccines, then it actually never becomes data. Much as the MoD is still able to claim that less than five hundred thousand people were killed by the Iraq war through the simple expedient of not recording the 2.4 million deaths” – maybe I need to remind you that it was the Lancet that published the challenge to the military’s mortality figures in Iraq? You have some actual evidence that the vaccines are far more dangerous than covid itself, do you? That tens of thousands of ordinary medical and local authority staff, people who live down your own street, are taking a break from their normal, chosen duties of care and community service, and instead covering up mass murder on behalf of Bill Gates or someone?
Come on Mr Conspiracy Theorist; stop thrashing around and tell us where you hope to get via your rhetoric.
J
“We know that bullies everywhere are fond of denying the experience of their victims. Do you disagree? And here you are insisting that everyone is lying apart from you and let me add that I do accept take your point, these people could be lying, although you don’t attempt to prove it, you merely assume. (This is a value judgement, is it not?)”
Amazing allegations J. I accused no one of lying, just that they have not produced any coherent evidence, first of the occurrence of what they describe and the relative numbers involved, and secondly of the causal link between what they have supposedly sand vaccinations. Their story, is just a series of anecdotes. Anyone can make these allegations and sometimes perceptions can lead to distortions and misconceptions. Interestingly this is a very well known device used by conspiracy theorists, stress actors, Sandy Hook etc…, you know what I mean. Also interestingly the same people go on about died with rather than died of when it comes to the virus, but anybody who has been run over by a bus, died of the vaccine (reductio ad absurdum I know – I hope you have some sense of humour!)
J seriously though, what exactly are you trying to prove? The simplistic title of your post is rather naïve. What side is there to pick? I hope we all want to pick the side of humanity, saving lives and conquering disease. Some of us have the knowledge and the experience of this first hand and others are so far removed that they do not recognise how difficult and absurd it is to make some of these allegations that are floated. The PCR is a useless test, the virus does not exist, the virus is no worse than the flu, ivermectin and chloroquine are so good but the evil doctors are suppressing the evidence, and many more absurdities. There is no one side and there is no one solid group of deniers, there are just so much irritating background noise that actually detracts from the real mismanagements and mistakes and manipulations by politicians and others. What you are doing is detracting from serious issues by accusing us of either being evil or misguided. You are the bully.
Perhaps I should have toned down my last sentence and not accuse you of being a bully, as long as you also recognise the absurdity of your insinuations that I am one.
– “if it is never recorded in the context of vaccines, then it actually never becomes data”
The vaccination programmes are now well advanced; tens of millions of people in the UK have been vaccinated, and well over half of the population in some countries, much higher proportions than actually got infected. If the vaccines were causing death at a fraction of the rate covid itself does, pronounced humps would be showing in those countries’ general mortality curves, and they’d track the vaccination rate.
Are they? You’ve checked this data have you J? Multiple, diverse governments all over the world are not merely coordinating to fraudulently attribute vaccine deaths to other causes on behalf of Bill Gates’s vaccine foundation, they’re also actually falsifying the standard local government Births, Deaths and Marriages registers that had been going for centuries before this pandemic even showed up, right?
Please ignore these questions, since you have already proven that my motivations are evil 😀
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty-7bd
— SNIP —[ Mod: Pasted 3,000 word article removed.
Kindly refrain from quoting long articles that can be read via a link. Also, you should offer some commentary on the contents. From the moderation rules for commenters:
Contribute
Contributions which are primarily just a link to somewhere else will be deleted. You can post links, but give us the benefit of your thoughts upon them.Regards. ]
We’re now very deep into serious accusations from the bullies on Craig’s blog, none whom seem to refer to what I’ve actually written, all of whom seem keen to tell me what it is I’m saying, have said, stand for, believe in and what I think. Keep it coming.
