- This topic has 1,202 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Node
I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your ‘accusations’ against Neil Ferguson.“I was referring to Neil Ferguson, not Imperial College. As I said his record is easily available, but since you insist, here are some of his catastrophic predictions.”
First to address is that you have been referring to Neil Ferguson and not Imperial. But this itself is odd. You don’t really think that an institution like IC would employ someone with a dud reputation did you? Of course you did because later on you dismiss IC with this:
“I am stating as fact that they receive huge sponsorship from an organisation which stands to make billions from covid-19 vaccines, therefore Imperial College has a conflict of interest.”
So really we have a corrupt world famous institution being bribed to produce research that would influence its results so as to comply with its grants.
This is the nitty gritty of conspiracy theories. Everybody is corrupt and therefore you can safely ignore all their lifetime work and even IC is corrupt, Bill Gates is corrupt. Against such CTs there is really no rational discussions. Just please, without offence look at this and tell me: are you really aware of how Universities appoint senior staff, and how the process has safeguards and how important reputations are in this respect, not reputations to CTs but to the scientific communities? Are you aware of how grants are awarded mostly competitively? Is everything that Bill Gates does tainted? Is that because he is interested in vaccinating many people in Africa because they cannot afford it and he is a billionaire, or is that he has evil purposes to exterminate Africans and ultimately rule the world?. I am no apologist for Bill Gates or any billionaire but it is a fact of life that billionaires influence policies and some of them do so by buying news media and become POTUS but at least Bill Gates is at the more benign end and as far as I know his foundation is arms length with full checks. But of course you may choose to differ and I understand why. I do not like the system but try not to blame individuals for trying to do good within a corrupt system.
Then your quotes about Ferguson’s history of predicting this and that. Of course these articles come from The Spectator and the Guardian. And of course they are politically motivated. No doubt Neil Ferguson gave advice on Foot and Mouth, on Bird Flu and other virus epidemics. The decisions taken on his advice were mainly pragmatic and political. He has in the case of Covid 19 made projections which were later modified to take account of changing government policy and revised his predictions downward. So that is what is modelling is about, if you change one of the parameters then the outlook may be different. No doubt deaths from bird flue, BSE and F&MD proved to be less than he predicted, but maybe that was a result of the advise the government followed. If were are to know the truth we would like to have a levelled scientific discussion, not trial by Spectator and Guardian.
And then the CTs are now concentrating on Ferguson, and in so doing probably also are aligning themselves with Dominic Cummings and some of the very vociferous right wing elements in this government who also do not like Ferguson and probably were very pleased to see him go, with the help of the Telegraph (although I agree he was foolish).
But Ferguson is not the only scientist in this, there are many more and there are scientific advisers all over the world, some of them sleeping with mistresses and some not, some tainted by association with Bill Gates and some not. They come from many countries, including places like China, Taiwan, India, Russia, France, Italy Spain, the USA and many others. They all say things that are similar. So why this obsession with Ferguson. Is it because it is the real soft belly that will prove the falsity of the situation, or is a typical CTs diversion?
My challenge to you is simple: please find the equivalent of Ferguson in China, Italy and Spain and any other countries you wish and tell me if their advice is tainted by similar previous failures and associations with Bill Gates.SA
This would be comical if it weren’t so tedious. You never reply to me, you reply to a comic book composite “conspiracy theorist” character which exists only in your mind. Never mind wasting my time, you waste even more of your own. Do us both a favour and reply to what I say, not what your “Grassy Knollington” character says.I never mentioned corruption. I said “a clear conflict of interest.”
“I said “a clear conflict of interest.”
Clear to you and of course obscure to all those Universities and grant giving bodies and scientists. I am sorry you find my answers tedious but I really don’t know what you are trying to achieve. I think these are serious matters and to think that you have more insight than the majority scientific opinion, because of articles in the Guardian, the Spectator, OffGuardian, UK Column and other such sites beggars belief. You are right I am wasting my time.
“I am stating as fact that they receive huge sponsorship from an organisation which stands to make billions from covid-19 vaccines, therefore Imperial College has a conflict of interest.”
Are these ‘facts’?
- “….they receive huge sponsorship…” They are called grants, sponsorships are what is done in commerce and advertising and there are rules that apply to these grants.
- “….From an organisation that stands to make billions from covid-19 vaccines…” Really? Does the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation make vaccines? Do they make billions currently out of making vaccines to be more available to third world countries that can’t afford them? Is this fact supported by any actual evidence? If so I would like to see this evidence.
-
You really don’t think that by making these statements you have established that they are facts do you?
So unless we can prove that these are facts and not suppositions we cannot make any progress.SA
“This would be comical if it weren’t so tedious”
Indeed it is. My answer to you, because I wanted to treat you with respect, was very detailed and asked many questions which you chose to ignore. Why? Is that because you are seeking the truth? I think not.
SA. Do you agree that Ferguson’s predictions have proven unreliable in the past?
“SA. Do you agree that Ferguson’s predictions have proven unreliable in the past?“
Ferguson is a scientist not a fortune teller. Your use of the term predictions shows that you do not understand the essence of what modelling means nor that the possible outcome of this modelling may actually change the course of what might otherwise have happened thereby preventing the “predictions” from materialising.
Your question to me is a trick question. How should I know? And would it matter what I think?Sorry of course you did not use any of these terms but you used instead a term, conflict of interest. As a result I asked you whether you were aware of how funding and grants for research is done. Most grant giving bodies want to find the answer to a problem and therefore grants an institution or a scientist best suited to find an answer to the question. That this answer may lead to a commercial benefit to the grant giving body does not produce any conflict of interests as long as they follow the rules of science and verification of results.
But your definition is a wide net that captures almost anything given a grant if given by a commercial body.
And I also asked you valid questions about your concept of “facts”. But you ignored that to to go back to being piqued, because all you wanted is to get me to agree with you about your “facts” without questioning their veracity.On NV-CJD. Contaminated meat products not necessarily the only cause, not even possibly the greatest cause, you’re omitting potentially contaminated blood and other products, such as human cadaver derived, from hospital mortuary post-mortems where the brain was removed, growth hormone, not banned in the UK till ’85 though nv-cjd cases and deaths in amongst other places France had been a runnning scandal since at least 1982. Not synthesised till about ’87. There would have been legal, medically sanctioned and probable small scale illegal use.
On the other -main topic I’d also raise the outbreak of ‘something’ at Greenspring Retirement Community, Fairfax County, Virginia, 55 miles by road, 40 as the crow flies from Ft. Detrick, in June 2019.
Tony M.
I came across this bloke many years ago. He is knowledgeable, experienced, and I judge him sincere. His cows trust him 🙂
I found his explanation very plausible, but I’ve never found anyone else explore that avenue so it’s inconclusive.
He’s well worth 36 minutes of your time if you haven’t seen him before.
– “Sorry; the remote resource you’re attempting to connect to does not exist.”
SA, Node is simply right; it’s the only possible conclusion. Just grovel for using the wrong word, grovel again for using another verboten term, then tug your forelock three times and all will be well. Learn your place and Node will be happy.
Actually, I don’t understand why Craig permits it. There are quite a number of these effectively empty usernames commenting at this site; it is hard to believe that there are real human beings behind them. They are impervious to reason; they should simply be banned.
Now hear their howls about suppression of their “freedom of speech”, as if they had anything to say.
“This bloke”. Now before I go and look, I wonder if this is who I remember…
Node proves Clark right.
How? Look at his last post. Sticks to one point I raised and leaves it there having ignored a lot of what I said before.
Clark is right. Node does not want a rational discussion.Yep, that’s him; Mark Purdey. The conspiracy theorists seem to think he was outcast by the establishment, but actually his ideas were discussed in the scientific literature, tested, and one was to have some validity. But the conspiracy theorists insist that Purdey’s ideas are the whole story, which is of course the usual obsessive nonsense.
The above was all from memory. I’ll now go and check…
And if node wants to maintain any credibility he has to answer the questions I asked him several times and not with another question.
Node wrote: “but I’ve never found anyone else explore that avenue so it’s inconclusive”. From memory, I found the scientific follow-up pretty easy to find.
Oh look; Purdey has a Wikipedia page! Well fancy that!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Purdey
The article has a whole list of Purdey’s papers published in the scientific literature. His input had considerable influence upon the course of research, eg. “His theories encouraged researchers to publish in 1999 the statistical correlations between the epidemiology of BSE in cattle, scrapie in sheep and vCJD in humans”, and “As more data and research has occurred, Purdey’s theories still appear relevant although untested. As the incidence of BSE and vCJD returns to previous low levels, data which would be useful in determining susceptibility become sparse.”
It’s ironic that conspiracy theorists depict Purdey as having been sidelined and, as Node claimed, “I’ve never found anyone else explore that avenue”. Purdey’s theories were covered by the BBC, the Telegraph and the Ecologist, and gained support and endorsement from Lord King and the Prince of Wales!
But hey, all just lies of the MSM, eh Node? Or not, in this case. See my “What is Conspiracy Theory” thread; “MSM” – (varies at need).
You’re a grade A twit, Node.
Sorry Node, I don’t do youtube. I’ll leave the matter there, have my own experiences of this going back decades having been exposed myself to risk of nv-cjd from medical treatments long ago. Ron Unz’s site is still a bastion of free speech, might see you there. It’s possible, probable no cases are attributable to meat at all. Clark has given his verdict anyway so it’s case closed, he knows best on every subject under the stars, has sycophants and acolytes to back him up if he digs a hole for himself too deep. Hasn’t directly answered his absurd unfounded sweeping generalisation on nv-cjd, have no care anyhow to witness his wriggling and unpleasantness, he lives for argument and denigrating others, to the point of obsession, you’ll always find him on the wrong side of everything, useful only as a bellwether to see where the sheep are being led, nudging the strays -to the slaughter.
Tony M, now I realise I don’t have a proper sort of brain like conspiracy theorists do. I realise that I’m too scared of the implications and could never handle the cognitive dissonance to be capable considering the Truth of which you are so keenly aware, that hundreds of nuclear bombs are buried under prominent buildings all over the US just waiting for the day that Larry Silverstein decides to demolish them. I realise that I could never consider such evil as I simply do not possess your degree of freedom of thought. But before I go and discover the Truth of human corpses laden with growth hormone fed to cattle, and strange things 40 miles from Fort Detrick, there’s a much simpler matter we should clear up.
Tony M, May 10, 16:02, #53165 – “Testing is no better and no more accurate than flipping a coin. We’ve been had, some far more than others.”
Please demonstrate to me that you have a functional brain, and that it’s capable of more than merely sneering down at all around you (apart from other conspiracy theorists of course). Have you seen the huge rise and subsequent fall in this year’s overall death figures, beginning in March? Do you understand why that is significant, and why it renders your “point” above (fallacy actually) entirely irrelevant? Because if you don’t, then you don’t possess sufficient reasoning skills to be taken seriously.
I suppose I should find it amusing, and I suppose if you were grown men believing in Father Christmas or something I might.
But conspiracy theorists seem obsessed with issues of mass death, and there’s something very distasteful about your arrogance. It appals me that you’re trusted to vote.
SA, if I ever get like that, please try and have me put to sleep. I don’t want to live on after my mind had gone.
Bill, I am right, aren’t I?
Of course you are Ben. I’m right too, aren’t I Ben?
Yes, Bill. We’re both right, and Bert’s wrong isn’t he?
Yes Bert’s definitely wrong Ben and we’re right.
Only sometimes I wonder Bill, what if Bert’s right?
Nah na na na na na I didn’t hear that Ben and anyway don’t say it again.
Oh, OK Bill I won’t, anyway he’s definitely wrong isn’t he?
Yes Ben and we’re right, aren’t we?
Yes Bill and anyway Bert’s a spirasist and we don’t have to listen to spirasists.
Yes Bert’s a big smelly spiracist so who cares if he’s right.
Ben, what is a spirasist?
Nobody rightly knows, Bill.
But Ben, Mommy said we’re all spirasists.
Well, maybe we’re good spirasists and Bert is a bad spirisist.
But Ben, we don’t even know what a aspirisist is.
Nah na na na na na. He just is, so there.
OK Ben. But we’re right aren’t we?
Yes, Bill, and Bert’s wrong, isn’t he?
Yes Ben. Only sometimes I wonder … no … nah na na na ..It is such a shame that we are now beginning to sink to the level of comments that you find in OG. There they have a juvenile bunch of self congratulatory upvoters who make inane remarks with no intellectual content whatsoever. Let us hope this does not happen here.
The purpose of my starting this discussion forum and the previous one was to focus on the poor performance of the Government of the UK and on the overwhelming incompetence of how it is dealing with Covid-19. This has been apparent from the start, and yet here we are still discussing whether there is an epidemic that has already officially killed over 30,00 individuals, some say over 50,000 and which is still not being taken seriously. Anyone claiming to be critical of international conspiracies by ‘the PTB’ should really be concentrating on those, not turning inwards to fight a self destructive fight. Some say that is typical of the left. Lenin’s worsts enemies seem to have been the social democrats and the labour party fights any trends towards socialism.
I wish to have a grown up discussion, so I shall ignore any comments that do not contribute to better understanding and better ways to fight this disaster.From the outset it seems that Boris Johnson believes was born to rule, and not in the style of parliamentary democracy, but in an autocratic fashion. The engineered huge parliamentary majority has handed that to him. He chooses how to respond and when to respond. He did not attend the first 5 meetings of the COBR committee, delegating to others. His style in parliament is to deflect and to avoid scrutiny. Now there is a sense that government does not know what it is doing, that there are probably divisions within the government and that we are reeling towards disaster.
To plough through the nonsense we need to understand the manipulations. Boris is hiding behind the science which is selectively being manipulated in order to be ultimately be thrown to the wolves and eventually be the scapegoat for what is government failure. Sadly scientists cannot break rank and come out and say that what is being said and done in their name is nonsense, because they will be marginalised. Even journalists, some long established favourites of the Tories such as Piers Morgan, are now blacklisted by the government because they ask searching questions and take no nonsense. For once the CTs may be right that the system seeks conformity. But this now has become very clear in USA and UK and no where else in the world, science has become politicised and is now the subject of attack, rather than the politicians. So please let us not help Boris and Dominic by attacking science, and let us distinguish between science, real science and the official government sanctioned science.Node, Tony M, what has increased the death rate?
- The topic ‘SARS cov2 and Covid 19’ is closed to new replies.