Stop Thinking - Just Believe

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 LeeWood 13 Aug 2020

Believe the experts. Yes, but which ones ?

Quote: It’s absolutely foolish to think that you, a non-expert who lacks the very scientific expertise necessary to evaluate the claims of experts, are going to do a better job than the actual, bona fide experts of separating truth from fiction or fraud.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-you...

23
 summo 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

The scientists themselves would say don't believe; question, challenge and scrutinise, then form a judgement on what you know to be best at that point in time. 

Believe is usually a word used for religions, or things totally void of evidence. 

 Stichtplate 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Seems fair enough. Let experts crack on with stuff they're expert at, form a consensus and let that consensus inform policy.

It's how you filter out the nutters Lee.

 profitofdoom 13 Aug 2020
In reply to summo:

> Believe is usually a word used for religions, or things totally void of evidence. 

OK, but what about "I believe the data"? And "I believe in science"?

 Route Adjuster 13 Aug 2020
In reply to profitofdoom:

Trusting the data and trusting the science is perhaps a better position. it's easier to update your thinking on trust than trying to change beliefs which can become quite fixed, perhaps even 'religious' in their hold on people.

 Richard Horn 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Do you have to be an expert to know who is a real expert, and who is an "expert"?

 Pete Pozman 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Scepticism is the keystone of scholarship 

 summo 13 Aug 2020
In reply to profitofdoom:

> OK, but what about "I believe the data"? And "I believe in science"?

Blind faith in science? No you should base a decision by using your own education at whatever level it is to analyse data as best you can. 

Especially as there are a few educated people who happily preach about flat earths, the bible being fact, anti vaxers etc.. 

Edit.. or Lee's favourite. 5g causes covid. 

Post edited at 08:32
cb294 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Richard Horn:

> Do you have to be an expert to know who is a real expert, and who is an "expert"?

Yes, pretty much.

CB

 marsbar 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I believe in looking at a variety of peer reviewed papers with statistically valid sample sizes.  

I believe that youtube isn't "research"

I believe that vaccines don't cause autism.  

I believe the earth is approximately spherical.  

OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to summo:

> Edit.. or Lee's favourite. 5g causes covid. 

If you wish to hold credibility on anything else you just said you must provide a link / ref to this assertion

19
 Harry Jarvis 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Can I ask why you don't use quote marks to show the quotes you're using? 

 Tringa 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Believe the experts. Yes, but which ones ?

> Quote: It’s absolutely foolish to think that you, a non-expert who lacks the very scientific expertise necessary to evaluate the claims of experts, are going to do a better job than the actual, bona fide experts of separating truth from fiction or fraud.


Good quote, but as we all know it has never stopped anyone on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Dave

Removed User 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Scepticism is the keystone of scholarship 

And all present truths are provisional.

 wbo2 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood: 'Wish to hold credibility'!!!   ha ha ha ha

To be blunt. But do you have an opinion on microwaves on the spread of COVID and other diseases?

 lorentz 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:

> And all present truths are provisional.

"Scepticism is the cornerstone of scholarship" is a phrase that has unfortunately been subverted and weaponised by those keen to promote their own bonkers conspiracy theories and those (states) with an agenda and a vested interest in undermining and distorting solid evidence based facts and truth in order to sow discord to their own (political) advantage.

Adam Curtis's film Hypernormalisation which is a permanent feature in the film section on iplayer is a good place to start with all this although it's a little long at 3 hours.

Post edited at 10:12
1
 DerwentDiluted 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

'Do not attempt to think or depression may occur.... the number one enemy of progress is questions. Shut up, be happy, obey all orders without question. The happiness you demanded is now mandatory... at last everything is done for you."

Post edited at 11:11
In reply to LeeWood:

> Quote: It’s absolutely foolish to think that you, a non-expert who lacks the very scientific expertise necessary to evaluate the claims of experts, are going to do a better job than the actual, bona fide experts of separating truth from fiction or fraud.

 'A man's got to know his limitations.'

 Mike Stretford 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood: By all means evaluate the science yourself. You will of course need to get up to speed on your chosen topic, so enrol on an undergraduate degree and complete that to a decent standard. You will then need to specialise through a post graduate degree. (all this can be self taught but that is the standard you should reach)

You will then have the required background to understand all the publications you will need to read and be familiar with.

Sorry, but watching quack youtube videos doesn't count.

2
Removed User 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I think the sentence that follows the one you quote is important.

" When we do "research for ourselves" we almost always end wind up digging deeper into our own knee-jerk positions, rather than deferring to the the professional opinions of the consensus of experts."

If you see something on Facebook or YouTube start from the position that the person is probably wrong, possibly mentally ill and possibly plain lying. Also ask yourself if what you are agreeing with is something that confirms what you think anyway.

1
 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

That’s the headline but it’s not the content. 

As per usual the headline grabs your attention and when you read (and understand) the body you see the whole story. 
 

Which is essentially don’t emotionally invest yourself in an argument just because the narrative suits your agenda. 
 

Be critical but open to new ideas. 
 

As far as COVID goes, no one knows what’s going on. We have 7bn unique individuals with 7bn unique immune systems. The data only indicates areas to look at. 
 

People are inherently lazy. They want to be told what to do and what the answers are. And they want those answers to be comforting and enable to carrying on doing the easy simple tasks they’ve been given to do. 
 

Give people uncomfortable answers that mean their tasks are more onerous or that change their view of their comfortable little world, or that are too complicated for them to understand, and they won’t like it, and will go looking for a ‘better’ answer. 
 

Couple that with people who seem to ride a power trip, by building followers, and you get into a difficult position. 

Post edited at 11:33
1
 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

That’s simply not true. There are some very simple well known theories that just don’t need whole graduate courses to be able to understand. 
 

A graduate course last for 3 years and doesn’t cover one single aspect of one single subject for hours and hours. You can learn most concepts in a couple of hours. YouTube is very good for that. The open university used to have TV programs. It’s how people learn. Small chunks at a time. 
 

If you’re going to come up with a vaccine for Covid then yes you’ll need not only a course but several years of research, experience, a few million pounds and a team of people. But if you just want to understand the basic function of an antibody that’s a 5 minute video. 

6
 Mike Stretford 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> That’s simply not true. There are some very simple well known theories that just don’t need whole graduate courses to be able to understand. 

> A graduate course last for 3 years and doesn’t cover one single aspect of one single subject for hours and hours. You can learn most concepts in a couple of hours. YouTube is very good for that. The open university used to have TV programs. It’s how people learn. Small chunks at a time. 

> If you’re going to come up with a vaccine for Covid then yes you’ll need not only a course but several years of research, experience, a few million pounds and a team of people. But if you just want to understand the basic function of an antibody that’s a 5 minute video. 

The sort of bite sized video you are referring to are very dumbed down.... and that's where the video makers are actually trying to make an objective, educational video. It might give you a basic understanding of the concepts, but it won't give you the knowledge to evaluate the current science..... that's what we are talking about here.

But of course the videos I was actually referring to aren't the objective educational videos.... I'm referring to the modern trend for pseudo-scientific nonsense aimed at conspiracy theorists.

Post edited at 12:03
1
 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

>It might give you a basic understanding of the concepts, but it won't give you the knowledge to evaluate the current science..... that's what we are talking about here.

 

What we have here is people uncomfortable with current science which currently says 1% of us are going to die, and they’re looking for someone to tell them it’s not true, or that it’s only true because the government want it to happen, and therefor can blame someone else and stop wearing masks and not vaccinate their children.

And another group of people making money from people’s fears.

It’s not because they’re unable to grasp basic science. 

Post edited at 12:51
4
OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> And another group of people making money from people’s fears.

> It’s not because they’re unable to grasp basic science. 

And then there's another group who are well informed about the relationship between disease and diet - either directly or via the co-morbidities that pre-dispose fatal attack. All recognised by government - who *might* make regulatory changes by 2025.

Individually people have a basic grasp of dietary inputs and health, but the system makes people complacent because more comfortable solutions are promised.

scott culyer 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

i wonder whatever happened to 'critical analysis' in the general population

OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> But do you have an opinion on microwaves on the spread of COVID and other diseases?

The pandemic has spawned numerous recent articles showing that viral threats originate through human modification or destruction to the natural environment. The proliferation of microwave comms - and their compound effects - is entirely manmade.

But no, I haven't seen any direct causal evidence for covid-19. More general research is ongoing.

'The Influence of Electromagnetic Pollution on Living Organisms: Historical Trends and Forecasting Changes'

Quote: The harm caused by this pollution is still open to question since there is no clear and definitive evidence of its negative influence on human beings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355556/

5
OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Seems fair enough. Let experts crack on with stuff they're expert at, form a consensus and let that consensus inform policy.

> It's how you filter out the nutters Lee.

Astute observations - until you examine party interests. The experts like to be paid, and the people with money to pay them want returns on their investments. 

10
 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

“pollution”
 

They’ve already made up their minds before starting the research. 

 Mike Stretford 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood: At roughly what frequency does electromagnetic radiation become harmful to humans?

Post edited at 13:50
Alyson30 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Problem is we have a lot of pseudo-scientists and fake experts

 Flinticus 13 Aug 2020
In reply to scott culyer:

You're looking in the wrong place!

 seankenny 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Astute observations - until you examine party interests. The experts like to be paid, and the people with money to pay them want returns on their investments. 

So what you’re saying is that everyone in public life is corruptible and corrupted? On what basis do you make this judgement?

 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to seankenny:

You don’t need to corrupt the person, you just corrupt the message. Which is done regularly by ignoring certain messages and highlighting others. 

cb294 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

It is not frequency but intensity that counts. Einstein got his Nobel for that, not relativity!

CB

 wintertree 13 Aug 2020
In reply to cb294:

> It is not frequency but intensity that counts. Einstein got his Nobel for that, not relativity!

Would you like to revisit that?

The frequency of light determines its ability to cause harm by ionisation.  It's intensity defines how much ionisation it can do.

 mondite 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

How do you choose which sources to trust and why?

 Timmd 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> >It might give you a basic understanding of the concepts, but it won't give you the knowledge to evaluate the current science..... that's what we are talking about here.

> What we have here is people uncomfortable with current science which currently says 1% of us are going to die, and they’re looking for someone to tell them it’s not true, or that it’s only true because the government want it to happen, and therefor can blame someone else and stop wearing masks and not vaccinate their children.

> And another group of people making money from people’s fears.

> It’s not because they’re unable to grasp basic science. 

Why couldn't it be all 3?

 Mike Stretford 13 Aug 2020
In reply to cb294:

> It is not frequency but intensity that counts. Einstein got his Nobel for that, not relativity!

Twas for the Photelectric effect....

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einstein-vs-the-nobel-prize

In which case it is about frequency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#20th_century

 seankenny 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Tho Lee is actually saying the experts are corrupt. 

 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Timmd:

1. Because we teach basic science at school. Even primary school children understand most concepts.

2. Because the people who ignore real science seem to be able to understand and often are able to explain the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo quite easily.

I’m willing to believe there are some people who don’t understand but I not willing to believe it’s because they can’t understand.

 Dave Garnett 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> If you see something on Facebook or YouTube start from the position that the person is probably wrong, possibly mentally ill and possibly plain lying. 

Yes, I've been genuinely shocked by some of the examples of dishonesty (or willful ignorance indistinguishable from it) from apparently credible scientists in YouTube clips linked to in discussions on here.

I'm not surprised people are taken in by it.  Even when they were talking about things I'd consider myself pretty well-informed about, I had to really pay attention to figure out why what they were saying just didn't stack up.  That guy who insisted the viral particles were really exosomes, for instance.  Or the Irish professor who was misappropriating data from someone else's paper and saying it meant the opposite to what the paper concluded (I'd read the original paper and recognised the figures).

It's fine to say we should all be skeptical, but if I'm honest I'm far more likely to trust someone I believe is credible - no-one has time personally to review the original data behind every headline.  I was a professional scientist, and I know a lot of people who still are.  I put a lot of weight on the institutional affiliations of anyone I don't know, at least by reputation - it's a bias and it isn't foolproof, but if someone is saying something that sounds unlikely or controversial, I'm a lot less likely to take them seriously if they claim to be at some institution I've never heard of.

That sounds riddled with prejudice, and is no help to normal, rational people who happen not to have a background in the subject.   Of course, a well-written, peer-reviewed paper with good data and a clear Materials & Methods section will always be the gold standard.  Just occasionally (but sadly more frequently than it used to be), even a such a publication is found to be unreproducible and turns out to be a fraud.  However, if it's at all significant this will be found out pretty quickly.  I still believe that the scientific establishment is overwhelmingly sound - but reputable scientists tend not to spend a lot of time giving online seminars to alt-right nutters on YouTube...  

 Stichtplate 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Astute observations - until you examine party interests. The experts like to be paid, and the people with money to pay them want returns on their investments. 

I really enjoy your contributions on here, not just because they’re often so funny but also because they show such a reassuring breadth of naivety as to how the world actually works.

Research scientists at the top of their game, don’t earn the plaudits, kudos and the big money by parroting what everyone else is saying, they do so by discovering new stuff and take the greatest delight of all in proving everyone else in their field wrong. Any new discoveries are presented to their peers, who’ll do their damndest to show that the new discovery is bollocks.

This is how science advances: survival of the fittest, and it’s part of a huge, nebulous system of researchers and academics numbering millions, that is just too vast, too geographically spread and with too varied a set of vested interests every to sit neatly in the pocket of any shadowy cabal, no matter how deep their pockets.

...despite what a few internet basement dwellers might tell you

2
cb294 13 Aug 2020
In reply to cb294:

It was a weak joke....

CB

Andy Gamisou 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Can I ask why you don't use quote marks to show the quotes you're using? 

Quotes cause covid-19?

 Harry Jarvis 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> Quotes cause covid-19?

Don't encourage him! 

 marsbar 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I believe it's time for a nice cup of tea and a piece of cake.  

 wintertree 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Yes, I've been genuinely shocked by some of the examples of dishonesty (or willful ignorance indistinguishable from it) from apparently credible scientists in YouTube clips linked to in discussions on here.

Scientists are people too.  I have been highly put out by some of the apparently deliberate, agenda wielding misrepresentation of data by scientists across the gamut from lowly postdocs to internationally esteemed professor.  It’s a small minority but it’s seized upon, circulated and raised by the alt-right with alarming enthusiasm.  It’s enough to make an observer wonder if it’s pure coincidence.  Pre-print services are sometimes abused to lend a semblance of credibility (and a DOI) to pure shite.

There’s a research institute named after Crick but not Watson, who after co-discovering DNA went on to try and show that black people had smaller brains.  Even being a world renowned Nobel prize winner is no guarantee.  Watson is far from alone in post-Nobel descent into fringe insanity.

Appointment and career progression in academia are strongly helped by an ability to being able to play the system and to self-promotion.  Membership of advisory committees is such the sort of Indicator of Esteem one wants to get their Professorial Band 3 pay rise case through.   Rarely is true excellence in one’s subject area selected for; this much was clear to me when I found out I was leading my cohort in box ticking for the next level...  

There are some truly exceptional researchers, communicators and synthesisers in academia.  There are also others.   Most of the others are still top notch and apply themselves as best they can (putting my talents to shame) but a small fraction are deliberately fraudulent and getting away with it, or have other serious issues in their integrity/conduct; it doesn’t hold them back.

This is why it’s so important to look at a broad base of credible experts, to recognise areas of significant uncertainty and to synthesise a reasonable worst case scenario out of that uncertainty to make sure we’re not caught with our pants down.  The human aspect is why it’s important to challenge oneself and others to look at ones own objectivity and to apply the same energy to testing some counterpoints.  

Post edited at 18:29
OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> At roughly what frequency does electromagnetic radiation become harmful to humans?

No idea. The takeaway from that article appears to be 'we don't know - either way' - so we should remain concerned - without jumping to conclusions

3
 DaveHK 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Can I ask why you don't use quote marks to show the quotes you're using? 

He doesn't believe in them?

I asked the same question a while back just out of curiosity and didn't really get an answer.

OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> 1. Because we teach basic science at school. Even primary school children understand most concepts.

> 2. Because the people who ignore real science seem to be able to understand and often are able to explain the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo quite easily.

> I’m willing to believe there are some people who don’t understand but I not willing to believe it’s because they can’t understand.

Interesting though - the examples in the Forbes article (which mainly focus on covid-19) all depend on statistics ie. group or population results which are collected and processed by experts.

This is a different class of science to that easily demonstrable in the lab at school. eg. does gravity exist ? will paper catch fire ? etc

The Forbes science *does* require belief, and trust, because one single person cannot collect and process all the data needed to make a conclusion. And there *are* always parties with vested interests. 

4
OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I really enjoy your contributions on here, not just because they’re often so funny but also because they show such a reassuring breadth of naivety as to how the world actually works.

Please read my post with citations of 15 May 2020 here, discussing statins

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/great_britain_and_the_shame_of_...

This delves into this article with key conclusion: 

Quote: A key drive for unreliable research he said was “the greater the financial interest in a given field the greater the likelihood the research findings are to be false.” The ‘evidence’ is then incorrectly passed on to patients. No wonder my patient was angry.

https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/features/do-statins-really-work-who-be... 

That is how the world actually works !

7
Removed User 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:

Any thing that is proved is open to be disproved-Popper I believe. The only rub to this is you cant disprove things that haven't been proved eg ghosts.

 DaveHK 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Removed Userjess13:

> Any thing that is proved is open to be disproved-Popper I believe. The only rub to this is you cant disprove things that haven't been proved eg ghosts.

Do you mean the falsification principle? That a theory or such-like is only scientific in nature if it is able to be shown to be false. 

 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Maybe. But my observations and going by the R figures that have universally been accepted, witnessing millions of people using crowded tubes and busses for weeks and seemingly not becoming infected, and reading about how coronaviruses require droplets of a certain size to support them, have lead me to believe that contrary to the article; Coronavirus is not airborne. 
 

What’s more, the above observations have also led me to believe that something is going on with our immune systems that mean some people are naturally immune to it. 
 

That’s really the depth of science I can do with some basic observations and taking some clear data that doesn’t really need my deep analysis at all. 
 

What deeper understanding do I need? 
 

Primary school children understand that light is split by a prism and a rainbow. As they grow older they learn exactly why. They don’t get told it’s magic and too complicated for you to understand, just leave it to the experts. Primary school children have to accept that all prisms split light and all rainbows are the same colour...

Post edited at 21:13
8
cb294 13 Aug 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Don't confuse the guy! Your description of scientists is all wrong.

Here in my secret scientist's lair (it is important to stick to the right terminology) I am trying to stream some CL football, while my minions slave away in the dungeons below finalizing my designs at world domination.

Unfortunately my evil competitors seem to have stolen all my bandwidth downloading cat videos.

Oh well, better switch to the radio coverage and ask my lightly dressed assistants to bring me some beer and forward my orders of the day to Putin, Trump, Gates, and Soros....

Mwuahahhhahhaaa!

More seriously, a friend was asked by the the girls next door whether she climbs to her flat using ropes dangling from the balcony and has laser lip gloss (whatever that may be).

Turns out they had been watching some children's TV show and apparently that kind of kit is de rigeur for scientists of all flavours.

CB

 marsbar 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aerosols-indoors.html

This next one is from May.  So I assume the up to date figure will be higher, depending on when measures were put in place.  

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-for-london-workers-coro...

Post edited at 21:42
Removed User 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

> Do you mean the falsification principle? That a theory or such-like is only scientific in nature if it is able to be shown to be false. 

Erm yes. In its way it tests the robustness of scientific theory and its Laws.

 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to marsbar:

1st point. That’s droplets that have been aerosolised in hospitals due to procedures. We know that. It’s not virus that is airborne. An airborne virus is one that floats in the air and doesn’t require droplets to survive.

2nd point. TFL has 28,000 workers. 44 deaths is remarkably few. 

There are 5million passenger journeys on the tube per day. 
 

5
OP LeeWood 13 Aug 2020
In reply to mondite:

> How do you choose which sources to trust and why?

From a framework of knowledge including the following elements:

Follow the money - if there is a (greater) financial reward involved in the deal, the hackles go up.

America. It has assumed the role of global police for some decades now, too many fingers in other people's pies. Chief players on the global stage W H O & H8, plus the silicon valley crowd.

Real Health. Natural Resistance. All tech solutions will one day break down when infrastructure fails. Those who learn to live without false life support will be better adapted to survive in that day.

Analysis of past, present and future (proposed) events or trends - what did (will) they do to democracy eg. liberty, poverty, equality, human rights, wealth distribution etc

Environment. Similar to the previous - what impact do events have on the environment - for chosen paths.

The BIG issue for the Forbes article is who exactly does the author have in mind as the 'right' experts ? Is every nation supposed to agree with one such set of experts - correct for the whole planet ? This smacks of extremism, the centralisation of control , increase of de-humanised control. Someone playing at God.

Why is it coming now ? Why is it suddenly a hot topic ?

7
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> An airborne virus is one that floats in the air and doesn’t require droplets to survive.

No it isn't.

An airborne virus is one whose primary transmission mechanism is airborne carriage. Not physical contact/subsequent ingestion or body opening insertion. Not liquid injection. Not exchange of bodily fluids. Not transfer via some creature's feeding proboscis.

That airborne transmission might be in aerosol liquid particles, or it could be a robust virion that can survive on its own (though I suspect there aren't many of those).

 DaveHK 13 Aug 2020
In reply to Removed Userjess13:

> Erm yes. In its way it tests the robustness of scientific theory and its Laws.

It does more than that, it tests whether a theory is scientific in nature or not. Popper also thought that theories that could seemingly be applied to any situation and offer explanations for them we're unscientific.  Like conspiracy theories although I think it was Marxism that he was mainly thinking about.

 The New NickB 13 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> 2nd point. TFL has 28,000 workers. 44 deaths is remarkably few. 

It's more than twice the UK average or if you adjust for age based risk, many, many times the average.

 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

No. That’s not the definition. 

4
 DancingOnRock 13 Aug 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

The whole of the U.K. hasn’t been exposed. 

6
 Dave Garnett 13 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Follow the money - if there is a (greater) financial reward involved in the deal, the hackles go up.

This is a basic principle if you are investigating a financial fraud.  It's not so relevant when deciding whether scientific information is credible or not.  Believe it or not, not everything is motivated by money, not even scientific disinformation.

> Real Health. Natural Resistance. All tech solutions will one day break down when infrastructure fails. Those who learn to live without false life support will be better adapted to survive in that day.

Obviously a healthy lifestyle is a good idea but unless you are the victim of some form of violent death while still young, sooner or later you will require some form of 'false life support'.  It's one of the great benefits of being alive right now. 

If you don't believe me, commit to refusing all forms of anaesthesia, analgesia or antibiotics for, say, the next ten years, and then let us know how you get on.  

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The whole of the U.K. hasn’t been exposed. 

But 100% of TFL workers have...?

In reply to captain paranoia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_disease

Seems to be a rather contradictory definition, since it classifies respiratory droplets as being spread through the air, and ingested into the nose and respiratory tract. Airborne infections appear to be those that can be carried over long distances, even though it discusses aerosol creation from toilet flushes, and rivers, very similar to respiratory aerosols.

I guess we'll have to come up with another name for infections that are carried through the air, over short distances.

 Stichtplate 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Please read my post with citations of 15 May 2020 here, discussing statins

> This delves into this article with key conclusion: 

> Quote: A key drive for unreliable research he said was “the greater the financial interest in a given field the greater the likelihood the research findings are to be false.” The ‘evidence’ is then incorrectly passed on to patients. No wonder my patient was angry.

Pharmaceutical companies will often over state how good their products are. Are you really shocked at this? Have you ever encountered salesmen? Ever stepped into an estate agents? a car show room?Statins are effective, but only for about half the people that are prescribed them. There are good reasons for continuing to prescribe though as long as they do no harm to the individual in question; they provide a daily physical reminder that the patient needs to watch their diet (on the whole, patient's don't follow dietary advice), placebo effect and the reassurance provided by the fact that something is being done, this is important for patients that have suffered an MI who've often been traumatised by the experience (stress is a major contributor to cardiac conditions). 

> That is how the world actually works !

If by that you mean commercial companies push bad products, then absolutely. Tamiflu didn't work, Vicodin was highly addictive and thalidomide had horrendous side effects etc, etc. This isn't confined to medicine, look at the car industry.

So yeah, financial interests will often push decisions that are detrimental to the consumer. This is how the World works.

This is a million miles away from the huge Global conspiracy by a shadowy cabal of the hidden elite designed to enslave the masses, which is the batshit crazy line you seem wedded to. 

 Stichtplate 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> From a framework of knowledge including the following elements:

> Follow the money - if there is a (greater) financial reward involved in the deal, the hackles go up.

OK. Follow the money from pharmaceutical companies. It goes to exactly the same places the cash from every other big companies go. So what?

> America. It has assumed the role of global police for some decades now, too many fingers in other people's pies. Chief players on the global stage W H O & H8, plus the silicon valley crowd.

Is this the same America that's just withdrawn from WHO? and what exactly is the obsession conspiracy theorists have with Silicon Valley? This seems especially odd to me since the dissemination of conspiracies and the formation of cults like the anti-vaxxers have only been made possible by their products. Great pressure had to be brought to bear on the likes of FB to even get them to consider cracking down on all the harmful nut jobs they were enabling.

> Real Health. Natural Resistance. All tech solutions will one day break down when infrastructure fails. Those who learn to live without false life support will be better adapted to survive in that day.

Sorry mate, I'm not about to discard every technological advancement of the last 300 years cos Mad Max might happen. Neither are you; you're happily sat there typing on the most cutting edge of human technological advancements, powered by the energy source most vulnerable to the breakdown of society.

If you want a test case of how well organic food eating, natural medicine using, physically active populations do when suddenly confronted by new viruses, just go back a few hundred years to when Europeans first landed in the Americas. Most of the indigenous population was dead of disease in a couple of generations.

> Analysis of past, present and future (proposed) events or trends - what did (will) they do to democracy eg. liberty, poverty, equality, human rights, wealth distribution etc

You haven't been analysing trends. If you had you'd see they aren't going where you think they are.

> Environment. Similar to the previous - what impact do events have on the environment - for chosen paths.

The latest events surrounding CV19 have been unambiguously great for thee environment. What's your point?

> The BIG issue for the Forbes article is who exactly does the author have in mind as the 'right' experts ? Is every nation supposed to agree with one such set of experts - correct for the whole planet ? This smacks of extremism, the centralisation of control , increase of de-humanised control. Someone playing at God.

You're looking at it all wrong. There are no 'right' experts. There is consensus of opinion driving policy and that consensus isn't set in stone, it's ever changing dependent on new events and information.

> Why is it coming now ? Why is it suddenly a hot topic ?

No idea what you mean by this. What's coming now? What topic?

OP LeeWood 14 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> So yeah, financial interests will often push decisions that are detrimental to the consumer. This is how the World works.

> This is a million miles away from the huge Global conspiracy by a shadowy cabal of the hidden elite designed to enslave the masses, which is the batshit crazy line you seem wedded to. 

No, this is not a million miles away. Gilead's success with Remdesivir is built on the suppression of HCQ. But that is just the start.

Quote: Gilead and other big pharma corporations are built on predatory value extraction at the expense of people and public health, in normal times and during pandemics.

Quote: The double-crisis caused by remdesivir’s monopoly ownership of a life-saving drug is no “failure” in the eyes of the company’s executives and stockholders. Calling it a failure obscures the fact that Gilead’s course of action on remdesivir is a smashing success by the terms of a highly financialized industry built on monopoly ownership of science.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/11/34-attorneys-general-call-to-bust-g...

Post edited at 07:15
2
 Stichtplate 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

In other words, big profit making companies act in a manner that ensures they stay big profit making companies and it's down to regulators reigning them in. How is this any different from automotive companies selling dangerous cars and subverting emission regulations? How does any of this tie in with Global conspiracies to control the masses?

It's just human nature. It's not a plot to enslave us all.

Edit: and what about my previous question? No idea what you mean by this. What's coming now? What topic?

Post edited at 07:21
 Blunderbuss 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> From a framework of knowledge including the following elements:

> Follow the money - if there is a (greater) financial reward involved in the deal, the hackles go up.

> America. It has assumed the role of global police for some decades now, too many fingers in other people's pies. Chief players on the global stage W H O & H8, plus the silicon valley crowd.

> Real Health. Natural Resistance. All tech solutions will one day break down when infrastructure fails. Those who learn to live without false life support will be better adapted to survive in that day.

> Analysis of past, present and future (proposed) events or trends - what did (will) they do to democracy eg. liberty, poverty, equality, human rights, wealth distribution etc

> Environment. Similar to the previous - what impact do events have on the environment - for chosen paths.

> The BIG issue for the Forbes article is who exactly does the author have in mind as the 'right' experts ? Is every nation supposed to agree with one such set of experts - correct for the whole planet ? This smacks of extremism, the centralisation of control , increase of de-humanised control. Someone playing at God.

> Why is it coming now ? Why is it suddenly a hot topic ?

Who is this God you talk of? Got any suspects? 

 DaveHK 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Follow the money

A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Post edited at 07:49
 jethro kiernan 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Just been watching the Discovery channels which was on in the background whilst I was waiting for a flight,I focused on it for a couple of “science” programs. Dear me it’s basically Fox News for science, unqualified commentators with books to sell clutching at straws accompanied by dramatic music just in case you missed the point. I found it disturbing it is now common to refer to “mainstream science” in these programs. It’s not just whackos in basements, these are professionals produced programs with big budgets and big audiences.

 DaveHK 14 Aug 2020
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Just been watching the Discovery channels which was on in the background whilst I was waiting for a flight,I focused on it for a couple of “science” programs. Dear me it’s basically Fox News for science, unqualified commentators with books to sell clutching at straws accompanied by dramatic music just in case you missed the point. I found it disturbing it is now common to refer to “mainstream science” in these programs. It’s not just whackos in basements, these are professionals produced programs with big budgets and big audiences.

These are worth a listen: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000l7q1#:~:text=How%20some%20of%20the%....

 DancingOnRock 14 Aug 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

I prefer to use credible sources. It’s not airborne. In certain conditions the droplets can be aerosolised. That doesn’t make it an airborne disease. The problem, yet again, is people read bits and pieces in newspapers and believe what they want to, for whatever reason. 
 

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-...

3
 DancingOnRock 14 Aug 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

A larger %age will have been. A lot of those workers lived in areas of London with high rates. A lot of those workers were involved in face to face contact with customers. A lot of those workers were BAME. 

cb294 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I am not at all a fan of big pharma and their business models, in particular with respect to IP protection and exploitative pricing, and agree with quite a few of your points.

However, I would strongly advise that you should CAREFULLY distinguish between "science"* and industry, in particular biomedical science and big pharma. They are not the same, and mixing them up will undermine your arguments.

* The same goes for distinguishing the abstract scientific method, the practical scientific process, and the resulting scientific knowledge. These concepts should be kept separate, otherwise logical fallacies are inevitable.

CB

 jethro kiernan 14 Aug 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Thanks Dave, I was looking for a good podcast, search over 

 Duncan Bourne 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Astute observations - until you examine party interests. The experts like to be paid, and the people with money to pay them want returns on their investments. 


My observation is that COVID-19 is making a pigs ear of the ecconomy. So if nothing else that is my key to thinking it genuine (aside from it being world wide, blanket coverage in all manner of articles, individual cases i know of etc.) In short while pharma may be making money from it I cannot see any government sending its country crashing into recession in order to make a few companies rich (as opposed to going into recession to stop rich people haemoraging money). The financial down turn from this will be with us for decades

 jethro kiernan 14 Aug 2020
In reply to cb294:

A good point I’ve tried to make to anti vaxxers, removal of oversight and balance in the industrial sciences can have poor outcomes, this is more to do with the almost religious faith that the market is always right than a problem with the scientific method or scientists as individuals. 

 off-duty 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Real Health. Natural Resistance. All tech solutions will one day break down when infrastructure fails. Those who learn to live without false life support will be better adapted to survive in that day.

How can I "learn to live" with a better immune system?

This is gibberish.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I prefer to use credible sources.

You didn't read the wiki article, did you? It agrees with the WHO definition of 'airborne infection', being over long distances. Hence my later post. Having read that article, I can understand why 'airborne infection' is defined as it is.

The WHO report you posted agrees that the primary infection mechanism is droplet generation, transmission and ingestion, through the air, over short distances (and therefore isn't classified as an 'airborne infection'). That short transfer through the air is why the report recommends the wearing of masks in close contact, confined spaces.

Post edited at 11:12
 elsewhere 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Quote: The double-crisis caused by remdesivir’s monopoly ownership of a life-saving drug is no “failure” in the eyes of the company’s executives and stockholders. Calling it a failure obscures the fact that Gilead’s course of action on remdesivir is a smashing success by the terms of a highly financialized industry built on monopoly ownership of science.

It goes deeper than you think, the US constitution (1787) promotes monopoly rights for a limited time (copyright & patents).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause 

Post edited at 11:19
 DancingOnRock 14 Aug 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes. Sorry. There is a load of waffle about conspiracy theories that I skipped over and didn’t expect a second post from you. 
 

The simple answer is not to use the term airborne and use transmitted by respiratory droplets. 
 

The problem is that’s not exciting and snappy so the media won’t use it to get peoples attention. 

 Timmd 14 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> 1. Because we teach basic science at school. Even primary school children understand most concepts.

> 2. Because the people who ignore real science seem to be able to understand and often are able to explain the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo quite easily.

> I’m willing to believe there are some people who don’t understand but I not willing to believe it’s because they can’t understand.

That's possibly true, I was just wondering really.

 bouldery bits 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Hang on.

You've started this thread by sharing some research you've done?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The simple answer is not to use the term airborne and use transmitted by respiratory droplets. 

I think part of the problem is that the 'airborne infection' definition is a bit specialist, and most people (like me and elsewhere, for instance) would probably consider a 'respiratory droplet infection' to be airborne (as indeed we both did). It is transmitted through the air, rather than the other transmission methods I mentioned (as well as some bodily fluid transfers, of course).

Without that understanding of the pedantic technical distinction that defines what is accepted as 'airborne infection', I fear that huge numbers of people would think "well, if it's not airborne, why on earth do we need to wear masks?". Scientists sticking to that definition, and going on to pedantically say "it's not an airborne infection" are going to be making problems for all of us. If scientific terminology pedantry distresses them that much, they would be better to explain that it is transmitted through the air, over a short distance, in respiratory droplets. Or simpler language than 'respiratory'...

OP LeeWood 14 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> In other words, big profit making companies act in a manner that ensures they stay big profit making companies and it's down to regulators reigning them in. How is this any different from automotive companies selling dangerous cars and subverting emission regulations? How does any of this tie in with Global conspiracies to control the masses?

I think you missed the title of the counterpunch article:

'34 Attorneys General Call to Bust Gilead’s Pharma Monopoly on COVID Treatment Remdesivir'

> It's just human nature. It's not a plot to enslave us all.

Hitler's nature was just human. There are people at large now more dangerous than Hitler - those with the power to do great harm, but with the charm to be dismissed as angels. 

> Edit: and what about my previous question? No idea what you mean by this. What's coming now? What topic?

The pandemic is an unprecedented event - why should it now insist on a globally coordinated solutions ?

Otherwise I have noted your resounding efforts, of which this one has genuinely made me think ! 

> If you want a test case of how well organic food eating, natural medicine using, physically active populations do when suddenly confronted by new viruses, just go back a few hundred years to when Europeans first landed in the Americas. Most of the indigenous population was dead of disease in a couple of generations.

3
OP LeeWood 14 Aug 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> It goes deeper than you think, the US constitution (1787) promotes monopoly rights for a limited time (copyright & patents).

Oh yes, Uncle Bill is renowned for his attention to IP rights, notably in contrast to Jonas Salk - inventor of the polio vaccine:

Quote, wikipedia: When Murrow asked him, "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"[36] The vaccine is calculated to be worth $7 billion had it been patented.[37] 

2
OP LeeWood 14 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> How can I "learn to live" with a better immune system?

> This is gibberish.

Naturally, you are right - if you have no knowledge of natural immunity and how to boost it.

5
OP LeeWood 14 Aug 2020
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> My observation is that COVID-19 is making a pigs ear of the ecconomy. So if nothing else that is my key to thinking it genuine (aside from it being world wide, blanket coverage in all manner of articles, individual cases i know of etc.) In short while pharma may be making money from it I cannot see any government sending its country crashing into recession in order to make a few companies rich (as opposed to going into recession to stop rich people haemoraging money). The financial down turn from this will be with us for decades

That is a worthy point of reflection. But all may not be as it seems. Many countries had unsustainable national debt before the pandemic - which will now be blamed for the decades of bad practice.

'Global debt surges to highest level in peacetime' 

https://www.ft.com/content/661f5c8a-dec9-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

(as things were - Sept 2019) 

So it was just waiting to happen :

Quote: Britain, alongside many other mature industrial economies, entered 2020 with many New Year forecasts raising anxious questions. How long would it take the many financial bubbles to start bursting? How long could the huge mismatch between stock markets and real production endure? How long could a recession be delayed? We now know the answers to all of these questions: not long. These prior concerns demonstrate that the shutdown has been as much a trigger for a recession waiting to happen as its proximate cause. The economy was fragile, not ‘sound’, well before the pandemic.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/28/the-making-of-an-economic-crisis/

2
 Stichtplate 14 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> I think you missed the title of the counterpunch article:

> '34 Attorneys General Call to Bust Gilead’s Pharma Monopoly on COVID Treatment Remdesivir'

Cool, legislators busting unfair monopolies. What's not to like?

> Hitler's nature was just human. There are people at large now more dangerous than Hitler - those with the power to do great harm, but with the charm to be dismissed as angels. 

Hitler's nature wasn't "human nature", the man was a hideous anomaly, a total whack job, the cause of more death than any other person in human history. 75 years after his death, to invoke his name is still regarded as a shorthand for the very worst evil humanity has managed to throw up; so go for it Lee, don't be coy, just who are these "people at large now more dangerous than Hitler"???

> The pandemic is an unprecedented event - why should it now insist on a globally coordinated solutions ?

It's a Global pandemic, it needs a Global response. This should be obvious but to help you out consider a crap analogy (it's gone 11 and I've had a long day)...If you inadvertently set the three piece suite on fire in your front room and get bored after extinguishing the armchairs, the sofa alone is still entirely capable of burning your whole house down.

> Otherwise I have noted your resounding efforts, of which this one has genuinely made me think ! 

Great! Small piece of advice then; Stop Believing - Just Think

 elsewhere 14 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity and global debt in successive posts but what about 5G?

OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> It's a Global pandemic, it needs a Global response.

Then thats apparently why we need a world government to deal with it:

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/one-world-government-democracy-covid-19

But will it be democratic ? Big movers on the world block - Johnson, Blair & Brown. How come ex-politicians get the podium ? Whether you are for or against - it seems the best reaction is to jump in and steer - because it's going to happen anyway !

Quote: The COVID-19 pandemic is harrowing enough, but experts warn that we could yet see the emergence of a virus with a much higher fatality rate — a “once-in-a-century” pandemic on par with the Spanish flu that followed World War I. We really have no time to waste. Global statists of the world, unite!

2
OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Great! Small piece of advice then; Stop Believing - Just Think

Exactly. despite your splendid and worrying example, when the 20% mortality novel virus arrives, there will be no vaccine available - so no solution relevant. The measures taken to date for this pandemic sketch sars2 as 'the final threat' - as though all we have to do is get a vaccine for this one and we'll be OK. But on record these new threats pop up regularly, and a long term strategy which expects to lockdown at every threat will not ultimately be helpful.

Promoting natural resistance still offers a strong advantage.

1
 DaveHK 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> just who are these "people at large now more dangerous than Hitler"???

Bill Gates obviously.

 wintertree 15 Aug 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> but what about 5G?

Outdated by Starlink before rollout is even started... ?

I assume the various LEO internet constellations are going to be the focus of the next wave of orchestrated insanity.

Post edited at 08:25
 off-duty 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Naturally, you are right - if you have no knowledge of natural immunity and how to boost it.

Go on then - how can I achieve "natural immunity" to a novel virus?

The most "natural" way to prevent catching this one (NB. Not "immunity") is social distancing, good hand sanitisation, and wearing a mask.  

 elsewhere 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt and world government but what about 5G?

Post edited at 09:02
 Duncan Bourne 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Which beg the question why deliberately make it worse?

Hey the ecconomy is flailing (no argument on that), UK wise we have Brexit looming which is another potential own goal so inventing a global pandemic to make really sure that your ecconomy collapsed seems lack an act of gross insanity.

I would argue that from a conspiracy point of view it would be far more likely that the infection/death rate was higher than reported and that it is being played down to get people out and spending money and stop a panic.

 wintertree 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Go on then - how can I achieve "natural immunity" to a novel virus?

Not in the ways LeeWood is suggesting....  But it can be done by catching another - hopefully less lethal - virus that shares key proteins or protein fragments.  It seems the original SARS and some other yet to be identified virus prime t-cell immunity against this virus.   Of course before this one came along nobody could know what viruse(a) you should have caught for protection against it so best just start working through them all...  You’ll end up dead or Chuck Norris.

Some other animal species also have better innate immunity than humans - alligators I think for example - so perhaps one distant day we’ll engineer that in to us.

 DaveHK 15 Aug 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Some other animal species also have better innate immunity than humans - alligators I think for example - so perhaps one distant day we’ll engineer that in to us.

I read an article about cows producing more multi-purpose (effective against a range of pathogens) antibodies than we generally do.

 off-duty 15 Aug 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Yes, I've read that in some Asian countries - possibly Vietnam (?) - the rates are inexplicably low, which they think might actually be due to a previous, unnoticed, cold/flu type illness that may have been experienced (obviously it's only one possible theory and may be wrong).

As you say, as a mechanism for protecting yourself from some future unknown illness, getting infected by as many current illnesses as possible seems a strategy that is a little...   unwise.

 AllanMac 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Believe the experts. Yes, but which ones ?

> Quote: It’s absolutely foolish to think that you, a non-expert who lacks the very scientific expertise necessary to evaluate the claims of experts, are going to do a better job than the actual, bona fide experts of separating truth from fiction or fraud.

Many people are either too lazy, or have little time to do sufficient research to prove/disprove beliefs and belief systems. The uk’s billionaire-funded media know this only too well, in which ideologies are  seamlessly shifted from belief into science, lies into fact, and voting numbers increased at will on the basis of bullshit.

I despair at how effective this has become, in an era where the likes of the Murdoch empire has managed to subordinate even science, in order to entrench a planet-wrecking, human health-destroying ideology that keeps him and his ilk in a manner to which they have become very accustomed indeed.
 

 wintertree 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> As you say, as a mechanism for protecting yourself from some future unknown illness, getting infected by as many current illnesses as possible seems a strategy that is a little...   unwise.

Yup...; confusingly the opposite - living in a bubble and avoiding all exposure to disease - also seems unwise.  For example:

  • Catching chickenpox as an adult male can be be very dangerous and unpleasant
  • There’s a solid theory forming that an under-primed immune system is one of the key risk factors for childhood leukaemia.  (A specific genetic mutation is also required.)
  • The “hygiene hypothesis” and childhood asthma has support from epidemiological studies and some mechanisms are emerging from molecular biology - partly around t-cells and interferon mediated t-cell inhibition which are areas I think also relate to the cytokine storm part of covid.

It’s all beyond my detailed understanding but it’s a fascinating area: the immune systems (it really should be plural) are very complicated and aren’t anywhere near fully understood yet.  I think we’re on the cusp of that changing though.

In this case, a lot will hinge on what the mystery virus was that may have primed some people - as you say in particular in Vietnam.  It seems the immune triggering protein fragments is well conserved across “bad coronaviruses”; I certainly wouldn’t have caught SARS in the off chance it’d protect me against future respiratory pandemics, but if the mystery virus is real and turns out to be benign...

OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt and world government but what about 5G?

Not sure what you want from me here - to make some blundering observation with which everyone can pigeon-hole ?

The direct danger of microwaves is little researched, esp when prolific ie. when numerous - most likely in a city environment. Nevertheless it's my opinion that the greatest threats to humanity are not directly in radiation, but in the capacity of global coverage - which will enable us to be tracked and surveyed.

Not just that - the further dependence on smartphones and all other automation is an element in the 'best adapted' argument. eg. us oldies will have no prob reverting to paper maps the day the satnav fails (or batteries flat) but not so apparent for the generation which are growing up utterly dependant. My 15yr old recently declined such advice the other day, setting out on a bike ride - 'don't like maps - got my smartphone avec' 

2
OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

> Bill Gates obviously.

But I did say 'a group'. BG has a striking profile among philanthro-capitalists - but they're all in cahoots - perhaps some lesser known are the bigger movers. At any rate it would be impossible for one person alone to act without a significant foundation of support

2
 elsewhere 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Not sure what you want from me here - to make some blundering observation with which everyone can pigeon-hole ?

> The direct danger of microwaves is little researched, esp when prolific ie. when numerous - most likely in a city environment. Nevertheless it's my opinion that the greatest threats to humanity are not directly in radiation, but in the capacity of global coverage - which will enable us to be tracked and surveyed.

Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt, world government and Bill Gates but what about 5G?

Just trying to keep track of the train of thought.

Post edited at 13:00
 DancingOnRock 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

What did we do before paper maps I wonder...

1
 elsewhere 15 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> What did we do before paper maps I wonder...

Slag off the technologically dependant early adopters of new fangled paper maps.

OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Go on then - how can I achieve "natural immunity" to a novel virus?

For sars2 it has been noted with supporting scientific evidence - of increased susceptibility due to other health problems ie. the NCDs, which in turn often depend on what the food industry proposes. 

The flip-side of this is how you can boost resistance by altered eating habits. The popular view is that diet just helps in a vague general sense - but when you are really in trouble there's no alternative but for medical assistance - I'm talking diseases of infection / inflammation here.

Removing junk food from your diet is the 1st step - the next is increasing intake of micro-nutrients, because modern diet is simply too rich in fats, carbs and protein. Diets which focus on fresh and raw food, along with fasting days (3 days works good) hold immense potential to change body chemistry for the better.

Otherwise as several of you have discussed subsequently - exposure to microbes, preferably at modest levels - help to train the immune system. On a global scale, which is now unavoidable, that means all microbes which are airborne - because they're going to come round eventually.

What is hard to accept is how this works - finally at the group level - but this is also true for vaccination programs. We know that some will suffer from vaccination - but that when this minority is small enough the damage becomes acceptable. The pharmaceutical manufacturers well know this too - which is why they insist governments pledge the necessary indemnities to look after the casualties.

5
OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> Which beg the question why deliberately make it worse?

> Hey the ecconomy is flailing (no argument on that), UK wise we have Brexit looming which is another potential own goal so inventing a global pandemic to make really sure that your ecconomy collapsed seems lack an act of gross insanity.

> I would argue that from a conspiracy point of view it would be far more likely that the infection/death rate was higher than reported and that it is being played down to get people out and spending money and stop a panic.

It's too late for such 'normal' tactics. The world (at least, the G20 developed world) has gone bust. The philanthro-capitalists have identified valid ways of exiting this mess, which also (true to nature) puts money in their own pockets. The world's governments are compromised because national debts are unsupportable - and the philanthro-capitalists are effectively the bankers. Exit strategies are win-win for them as always.

And some must suffer - thats true to nature for a predatory bio-system however much we protest. So long as infra-structure exists survival of the fittest will be the survival of the richer tech-savvy 'system' disciples - people who can also put money back in the coffers. No need to worry about my 'best-adapted' arguments - until the day such systems break down.

2
 Duncan Bourne 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Which all tends to support the creation of COVID-19 as a bio-weapon to reduce world population. Best way to reduce your debt kill off those you owe it too. Simples. Of course the deaths are only the short term plan. Long term the virus affects the fertility of those who recover. In twenty years plus you have reduced the population by a third but mechanisation allows you to still manufacture cheaply. All that talk of robots taking our jobs was a precursor to this. The virus works on revolving mutation to prevent any long term immunity. It is basically corporations re-imagining a population.

3
 off-duty 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

It's amazing how your posts are almost a step by step guide on how to build a conspiracy theory.

Take a smidgeon of Google based knowledge out of context from one area, staple it to another half-undwrstood concept from another area and ensure that there is a consistent thread of your favourite theory running through.

Or alternatively, take your pet conspiracy theory and bolt on out-of-context half truths from disparate areas to provide it with some apparent credibility.

> For sars2 it has been noted with supporting scientific evidence - of increased susceptibility due to other health problems ie. the NCDs, which in turn often depend on what the food industry proposes. 

Part 1 - Yes, some NCD's impact on death rates of COVID19. Not hugely surprising. Co-morbidity of illnesses isn't  exactly unknown...

Part 2 "often" = "unproven theories that might link some dietary options to some NCD'S".  And that's a very generous interpretation.

> The flip-side of this is how you can boost resistance by altered eating habits. The popular view is that diet just helps in a vague general sense - but when you are really in trouble there's no alternative but for medical assistance - I'm talking diseases of infection / inflammation here.

Hmm. Unclear what you mean by this flim-flam, but I "think" the take home is actually - "get really ill, get medical assistance".

> Removing junk food from your diet is the 1st step - the next is increasing intake of micro-nutrients, because modern diet is simply too rich in fats, carbs and protein. Diets which focus on fresh and raw food, along with fasting days (3 days works good) hold immense potential to change body chemistry for the better.

Yeah. No. "Healthy living/whole food" woo-woo.  Usually accompanied by selling a book or a "diet plan".

Lose weight so you aren't obese - that's definitely healthy.

Don't eat excess crap to give yourself heart-disease, or drink to excess to give yourself liver damage etc. 

> Otherwise as several of you have discussed subsequently - exposure to microbes, preferably at modest levels - help to train the immune system. On a global scale, which is now unavoidable, that means all microbes which are airborne - because they're going to come round eventually.

Maybe. Some evidence to support not being "over hygienic" - but try training your immune system on tetanus, or toxocariasis.  It's all very "anti-vaxxer".

Other than the last sentence, which is ...."shrugs shoulders"...

> What is hard to accept is how this works - finally at the group level - but this is also true for vaccination programs. We know that some will suffer from vaccination - but that when this minority is small enough the damage becomes acceptable. The pharmaceutical manufacturers well know this too - which is why they insist governments pledge the necessary indemnities to look after the casualties.

That's why we have phase 3 trials. And no, that isn't why the Vaccine injury compensation board exists - it's because it's almost impossible to prove a negative and the vagaries of US law in particular mean that without a protective mechanism no vaccine development would take place at all. (Good explainer here https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/vaccine-safety-program/5... )

A summary of your position would appear to be a healthy eating, anti-vaxx, governmental conspiracy. I think involving some 5G/microwave stuff 

The thread running through it appears to be "natural" is good. Where "natural" is an ill-defined amorphous guff that usually is based more on a feeling than a real in depth knowledge.

I'm off for a drink of hydrogen di-oxide, probably heated to absorb more of the contaminants in my piping system, flavoured with calcium and lactose undoubtedly contaminated with hormones, and mixed with some freeze dried caffeine based powder.  You can prise it out of my cold dead hands...

Post edited at 14:36
 DancingOnRock 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

1% of people, essentially concentrated on old people killed a few years before they’d probably die, isn’t really reducing the world population. It’s roughly how many people die and are born in a year anyway. 

1
 Timmd 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty: Organic milk doesn't have the hormones in it. 

1
 off-duty 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Organic milk doesn't have the hormones in it. 

All milk contains hormones.

Clauso 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> All milk contains hormones.

Milk of Magnesia doesn't. 

 Duncan Bourne 15 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

That's just clearing the dead wood (and the 1% is the low figure they want to to believe) wait till they realise all the kids that caught it are sterile.

I am of course talking British operations linking lockdown of COVID killings scenario

It is definitely Controlled reduction attack protocol

Post edited at 16:06
2
 Timmd 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> All milk contains hormones.

I had in mind the ones given to the cows by humans, the growth hormones they wouldn't otherwise have in their systems. 

2
 DancingOnRock 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Those hormones don’t get into the food chain. 

 Timmd 15 Aug 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Those hormones don’t get into the food chain. 

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormo....

It seems that the hormones used to increase milk yield like used in the US do, but they're not allowed in the EU.

It could be something to keep an eye on now Brexit is looking like happening...

Post edited at 18:12
1
 off-duty 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Did you actually read that article? Particularly the conclusions and summary.

 elsewhere 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt, world government, Bill Gates and 'best adapted' for when systems break down but what about 5G?

Just keeping track.

 DancingOnRock 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Timmd:

It’s not allowed in the EU due to animal welfare concerns. The same reason as we don’t need to chlorinate the chicken. It’s not the chlorine that’s the problem it’s the animal welfare and the conditions they’re reared in which leads to higher bacteria that needs to be washed off. 
 

Bovine growth hormone works on bovines only (cows) and is present naturally in them. It’s not human growth hormone. They just give extra to them to stimulate their growth. 
 

Post edited at 19:34
 Stichtplate 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> That's just clearing the dead wood (and the 1% is the low figure they want to to believe) wait till they realise all the kids that caught it are sterile.

> I am of course talking British operations linking lockdown of COVID killings scenario

> It is definitely Controlled reduction attack protocol

Please tell me you're just taking the piss? "Controlled reduction attack protocol"...did you lift that off Blake's 7 ?

 >The virus works on revolving mutation to prevent any long term immunity. It is basically corporations re-imagining a population.

On the off chance you're not taking the piss and have in fact caught crazy off t'internet, consider the sentence you've written above. A continually mutating virus doesn't have in built safety parameters, if it's designed to mutate then that's what it'll do, even if that means it melts the faces off of every man, women and child on the planet. Unless you're also of the belief that our lizard overlords don't have any human DNA that would render them vulnerable?

 Dave Garnett 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> For sars2 it has been noted with supporting scientific evidence - of increased susceptibility due to other health problems ie. the NCDs, which in turn often depend on what the food industry proposes. 

NCDs?  You've lost me.  Obesity and other comorbidities leading to a bad outcome? Sure.  Does poor diet contribute? Sure.  With better education could more people say no to junk food?  Of course.  Do I think the food industry is making people sick deliberately? No, but they'll do pretty much whatever it takes to boost sales unless there is a regulatory framework to provide a level playing field within sensible limits.

> The flip-side of this is how you can boost resistance by altered eating habits. The popular view is that diet just helps in a vague general sense - but when you are really in trouble there's no alternative but for medical assistance - I'm talking diseases of infection / inflammation here.

Sort of.  A healthy and diverse gut microbiome seems to be very important, most people need much less refined sugar, more fermentable carbohydrate, a bit less fat and just generally less in total.  With a good varied diet no-one should need dietary supplements but some people could probably do with a bit more vitamin D.  Following the 5+2 diet would probably make most people healthier (lower resting glucose and insulin, lower IGF-1, better lipid profile).    

> Otherwise as several of you have discussed subsequently - exposure to microbes, preferably at modest levels - help to train the immune system. On a global scale, which is now unavoidable, that means all microbes which are airborne - because they're going to come round eventually.

Not sure what you think 'train the immune system' means.  My take on it is that exposing infants to a very restricted range of dietary antigens (antigens generally, actually) predisposes the ones with particular genetic backgrounds to allergies, sometimes dangerous ones (to peanuts, for instance).  Picking up a few parasites of the right kinds is probably helpful.  There used to be a theory that the apparent increase in certain types of childhood leukaemias was due to a failure of kids being exposed to a sufficient range of minor childhood infections (apparently on the principle that the devil makes work for idle T-cell progenitors in the absence of proper stimulation and clonal selection) but I never really understood how this was supposed to work.  It sounds suspiciously like the theory that women who didn't get round to making proper use of their uterus would become hysterical to me.  Doesn't being vaccinated count as stimulating their immune systems?  Anyway, I haven't kept up and don't know whether there's anything in this or whether it's all nonsense. 

> What is hard to accept is how this works - finally at the group level - but this is also true for vaccination programs. We know that some will suffer from vaccination - but that when this minority is small enough the damage becomes acceptable. 

That's true.  But keep in mind that the number of people who suffer a genuine serious adverse reaction is tiny.  If they do, they don't get a booster.  The number of lives saved is huge, including those of the small minority who can't be vaccinated for some legitimate reason (like being immunosuppressed) but who are protected by, yes, herd immunity.

OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Just keeping track.

Thats the 4th post of it's ilk - naming five-G. V interesting ?! Is this just a general attempt to cancel me or the post to an in attentive reader ? Or are you helping google detect posts rich in censor terms ? Will google be intelligent enough to look at the posters - the thread author, or will it just brand the whole of UKC as fake ? 

Your attempts (and others) to distract from discussions are blatant evidence of the desperate need to protect something - and can only add to the pieces in the puzzle. My great strength is organising and assimilating apparently disparate evidence - so well done - keep it up !

4
 summo 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Arla pays the standard price for milk at 4.2% and above, drop below and they receive a lower price. So they must feed cows with the right grass, silage etc.  to achieve it, or they are fed additional manufactured food, concentrates. So I wouldn't presume UK or eu practices are vastly better. In order to obtain food at thst level the land is hammered, it's fertilised as so on. Nitrates wash out and add to pollution. 

Arla usually skims 1% plus fat off and sells 3% milk as whole milk! Then selling the cream off elsewhere. 

European hens are so interbred to obtain the fastest growing stock possible they don't need additional hormones. If you let a hen grow to full maturity it wouldn't be able to move properly because it's legs wouldn't be strong enough relative to the size of breast meat. 

Post edited at 20:33
 DaveHK 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Your attempts (and others) to distract from discussions are blatant evidence of the desperate need to protect something - 

We're all in on it apart from you Lee. Join us, join us, join us...

 off-duty 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Thats the 4th post of it's ilk - naming five-G. V interesting ?! Is this just a general attempt to cancel me or the post to an in attentive reader ? Or are you helping google detect posts rich in censor terms ? Will google be intelligent enough to look at the posters - the thread author, or will it just brand the whole of UKC as fake ? 

If you don't link this "conspiracy" to 5G or microwave, then I  for one apologise for throwing it in.

> Your attempts (and others) to distract from discussions are blatant evidence of the desperate need to protect something - and can only add to the pieces in the puzzle.

You are using the words "blatant evidence" when you mean "in your opinion".

Which isn't actually the same thing.

 >My great strength  organising and assimilating apparently disparate evidence - so well done - keep it up !

Personally, I think you may well be assimilating and organising disparate "facts", what you are missing is understanding them and their context.

You are literally decorating the thread of your theory with random crystals of out of context data. It does nothing other than reinforce your own opinion. Its just as close minded as the behaviour you seem to think others are displaying.

OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Unless you're also of the belief that our lizard overlords don't have any human DNA that would render them vulnerable?

Same old patter - stop people questioning - make it all seem like nonsense 

Rank cancel culture !

3
 Stichtplate 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Your attempts (and others) to distract from discussions are blatant evidence of the desperate need to protect something - and can only add to the pieces in the puzzle. My great strength is organising and assimilating apparently disparate evidence - so well done - keep it up !

Hmmm...


OP LeeWood 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> If you don't link this "conspiracy" to 6-4G or microwave, then I  for one apologise for throwing it in.

No apology needed - I know it wouldn't be genuine. You are another biggest offender in this scam. It's time you came clean and renamed yourself - your prose comes direct from the focus and angst of one very much on-duty !

6
In reply to LeeWood:

> My great strength is organising and assimilating apparently disparate evidence...

...that agrees with whatever theory you believe in today.

The point about the 'keeping track' posts is that it is increasingly difficult to keep track of exactly which conspiracy it is that you are complaining about today; it seems to change on a day-to-day basis.

 elsewhere 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt, world government, Bill Gates,  'best adapted' for when systems break down, cancel culture, censor and distract but what about 5G?

Just trying to keep up but it's hard as you distract so much and never develop a coherent thread of thought. Perhaps you should start thinking and stop believing.

 off-duty 15 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> > If you don't link this "conspiracy" to 6-4G or microwave, then I  for one apologise for throwing it in.

> No apology needed - I know it wouldn't be genuine. You are another biggest offender in this scam. It's time you came clean and renamed yourself - your prose comes direct from the focus and angst of one very much on-duty !

Yeah. You aren't clear here. I assure you it is a genuine apology, I disagree with you on sufficient points that the last thing I would want to do is water down your position by accusing you of claims you haven't made.

Not sure what you mean by "biggest offender of this scam".

I disagree with you on your theory(s), and in most of what you are attempting to produce as, in your words, "evidence".

I've got a sufficiently well qualified scientific background (I wasn't always a cop!) that I can have a decent stab at both understanding and interpreting the science, and I've got sufficient experience working for "the man" that I have little truck with conspiracy theories. They never seem to understand the bureaucratic nightmare of any government plan for a start!!!

Personally I find it frustrating having been involved in this as the frontline to read some of the nonsense that's coming out. My frustration perhaps magnified because this pandemic has never been one that could be solved by law or policing, it relies on good sense and communities coming together to do the best thing for others.

With that frustration in mind - could you clarify that you are a mask wearer, hand sanitiser and social distance? 

I appreciate that complying with government guidelines now in terms of gatherings and groups is harder and more complex than ever, so I wouldn't ask that if you are doing that! 

I do recall you very much hedging on the topic of whether you would take a vaccine or not....

Post edited at 22:45
 Timmd 15 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty

> Did you actually read that article? Particularly the conclusions and summary.

It was actually this link I meant to post, which says that some of the hormones used to increase milk yield do find their way into milk.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/growth-hormones-in-milk-2633556#:~:text=Grow....

''The available evidence shows that the use of rBGH can cause adverse health effects in cows. The evidence for potential harm to humans is inconclusive. It is not clear that drinking milk produced using rBGH significantly increases IGF-1 levels in humans or adds to the risk of developing cancer. More research is needed to help better address these concerns.

The increased use of antibiotics to treat rBGH-induced mastitis does promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has no formal position regarding rBGH.''

With me posting about there being hormones in milk (rather than a cancer risk), I'm slightly confused by the questioning tone of your post, but potentially there's a crossed wire somewhere. 

Post edited at 23:08
2
 Duncan Bourne 16 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I am of course talking British Operations Linking Lockdown Of COVID Killings Scenario

 Stichtplate 16 Aug 2020
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I am of course talking British Operations Linking Lockdown Of COVID Killings Scenario

Thank God for that. I also struggle to accept that Lee isn’t taking the piss

 Blunderbuss 16 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> My great strength is organising and assimilating apparently disparate evidence - so well done - keep it up !

This fully confirms you are on a wind up... 

OP LeeWood 16 Aug 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> This fully confirms you are on a wind up... 

Swine Flu 2009 - would you say that was a wind-up ? All of the same elements as our current pandemic - the WHO, pharmaceutical profiteering, and political agenda. As evidenced in excerpts below:

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO's motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the "false pandemic" is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century."

They're right. This wasn't merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

But there's more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.

In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said "ministers of health" should take advantage of the "devastating impact" swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that "changes in the functioning of the global economy" are needed to "distribute wealth on the basis of" values "like community, solidarity, equity and social justice." She further declared it should be used as a weapon against "international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs."

https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pande...

These themes are taken up by Cohen and Carter2 in the British Medical Journal. They found that key scientists had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from advice they gave to WHO. However, declarations made by members of the Emergency Committee, and of other WHO committees that helped produce influenza preparedness plans, have never been disclosed by WHO. Even the identities of the 16 member Emergency Committee remain a closely guarded secret.

When it comes to policies on pandemic flu, there is an inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO and the global health system. Almost inevitably, they all draw on the same pool of experts.

https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/32/3/296/1555409

It's a year since the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared a global pandemic of swine flu, triggering health emergencies across the planet.

But instead of accolades, the WHO and authorities everywhere are facing an avalanche of disturbing questions about the handling of the swine flu, and the influence of vested interests.

To put the key question most crudely: was the world wrongly persuaded to believe it was in the grip of a ghastly and severe pandemic by decision-making bodies unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies hoping to sell billions of dollars worth of vaccines and anti-viral drugs?

A report just out from the Council of Europe has come to some devastating conclusions. The declaration of a pandemic lead to a "waste of huge sums of public money", a "distortion of priorities" in public health services, the "provocation of unjustified fear" and the "creation of health risks through vaccines and medications" that may not have been sufficiently tested.

It identifies three key problems: first, WHO's excessive response and pandemic declaration; second, excessive secrecy surrounding decision-making; and third, the possibility of undue influence by drug companies through financial ties to key decision-makers.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-11/34926

3
 Duncan Bourne 16 Aug 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

That was my thinking. I wondered why these conspiracy theorists take the view that COVID doesn't exist rather than the opposite view. Both are equally nuts in my view.

It's like living next to a jungle and denying the existence of tigers (people who say they see tigers are lying, tiger roars are faked, they put killed by tiger on the death cert when really they died of a heart attack before the tiger bit them, etc. etc.) but if you are wrong then you could end up dead. It's not a cost free belief. The tiger doesn't care if you believe in it or not. So you would think it would be better to be cautious and not go out into the long grass thinking I'll get bitten by a tiger then I'll be naturally immune to tiger bites

 Duncan Bourne 16 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO's motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the "false pandemic" is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century."

No they are not. This is false. There is no information on their website to suggest this is the case

http://semantic-pace.net/?search=KjoqfGNvcnB1c19uYW1lX2VuOk5ld3M=

 elsewhere 16 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt, world government, Bill Gates,  'best adapted' for when systems break down, cancel culture, censor,  distract, swine flu, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and false pandemic but what about 5G?

The pattern is there is no pattern. It's all just screeds of distraction from the fact you are incapable of finding a pattern other than an all encompassing conspiracy that even includes UKC posters intent on censoring your brilliance.

There's no point engaging with any specific point because you will chuck another few like swine flu, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and false pandemic rather than address something specific.

 off-duty 16 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Swine Flu 2009 - would you say that was a wind-up ? All of the same elements as our current pandemic - the WHO, pharmaceutical profiteering, and political agenda. As evidenced in excerpts below:

It's fascinating how you appear unable to differentiate between opinion pieces (Fumento in Forbes) and more evidence driven articles (Carter and Cohen in the BMJ) and appear to place equal weight on each.

What's also interesting is that whilst you quote the Journal of Public Health article (a review of the BMJ paper) - you don't appear to consider the implications of what you quote : " When it comes to policies on pandemic flu, there is an inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO and the global health system. Almost inevitably, they all draw on the same pool of experts."

Which leads to the conclusion - which for some reason you omit entirely : -

" But the swine flu affair smells more of cock-up than conspiracy."

The paper agrees that reform with WHO is needed.

But regardless - 11 years ago the WHO "may" have screwed up it's response. They (and others) defend their position.

You appear to be saying that because WHO got it wrong (wilfully or mistakenly irregardless) in 2009 they must be wrong now. You seem to view it as "the same" situation.

That omits, off the top of my head - the fact that H1N1 was a flu based virus rather than coronavirus with the implications for infectivity, resistance and importantly treatment that go with it (ie swine flu was a lot easier to vaccinate against, there was residual immunity from other flus and there was treatment) as well as ignoring the fatality rate - something like 0.001% to 0.007% of those infected. 

These outbreaks are very much NOT the same, we have a novel virus, essentially untreatable, with a higher fatality rate, and most importantly hundreds of thousands of dead people across the world with no real imminent prospect of an end in sight.

Minimising it or calling it a conspiracy literally puts lives at risk.

In reply to Stichtplate:

He isn't, I have seen some of his posts on Facebook. He did link 5G to COVID on FB, which is strange bearing in mind that he lives in France which does not have a 5G network yet most definately had COVID from fairly early on.

Post edited at 13:35
OP LeeWood 16 Aug 2020
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> He isn't, I have seen some of his posts on Facebook. He did link 5G to COVID on FB, which is strange bearing in mind that he lives in France which does not have a 5G network yet most definately had COVID from fairly early on.

I invite anyone who links me to five-G nonsense to furnish the evidence. If you are incapable then you automatically discredit yourself.

2
 elsewhere 16 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt, world government, Bill Gates,  'best adapted' for when systems break down, cancel culture, censor,  distract, swine flu, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, false pandemic and "I invite anyone who links me to five-G nonsense to furnish the evidence. If you are incapable then you automatically discredit yourself" but what about 5G?

Author: LeeWood
Text: "Nine ways 5G and the IoT will harm humans, the environment, and Earth"
URL: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/is_global_planning_good_for_us-...

Author: LeeWood
Text "The whole package relies on new technology and 5G network - to reach every corner of everywhere." 
URL: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/the_government_is_playing_us_fo...

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/%20l...

In reply to elsewhere:

Brilliant

In reply to LeeWood:

Do I have to provide my own links to prevent being discredited or are you satified with the links that elsewhere has provided?

OP LeeWood 16 Aug 2020
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Do I have to provide my own links to prevent being discredited or are you satified with the links that elsewhere has provided?

You must do as you think best. The search results correctly show that I have discussed five-G - and that discussion agrees with what I said in this thread at 12:30 Sat:

'Nevertheless it's my opinion that the greatest threats to humanity are not directly in radiation, but in the capacity of global coverage - which will enable us to be tracked and surveyed'

The implication of what you wrote is that five-G causes covid-19 - which I otherwise refer to as 'five-G nonsense' - also listed internet as conspiracy. 

3
 off-duty 16 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> You must do as you think best. The search results correctly show that I have discussed five-G - and that discussion agrees with what I said in this thread at 12:30 Sat:

> 'Nevertheless it's my opinion that the greatest threats to humanity are not directly in radiation, but in the capacity of global coverage - which will enable us to be tracked and surveyed'

> The implication of what you wrote is that five-G causes covid-19 - which I otherwise refer to as 'five-G nonsense' - also listed internet as conspiracy. 

I have to agree with Lee here. Certainly my reading of those posts isn't  "5G causes COVID19".

He might be alluding to "harmful 5G radiation" - which I'm sure he can clarify? 

But it seems more about what he believes 5G enables in terms of coverage and accessibility of the internet.

 elsewhere 16 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

But Covid is all part of this world government, Bill Gates, vaccination, international finance and 5G control of the masses conspiracy. Or is it another conspiracy with everything in common except Covid?

OP LeeWood 16 Aug 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> But Covid is all part of this world government, Bill Gates, vaccination, international finance and 5G control of the masses conspiracy. Or is it another conspiracy with everything in common except Covid?

The problem you address here is - in common with the Forbes article - there are a lot of diverse opinions and criticism in circulation about the pandemic ie. criticism at many levels. How much simpler it would be to have everyone agree with the system narrative - all in accord for progress toward system objectives.

Conspiracy is unfounded perception of such events. Many contributors on UKC criticise the UK government - but this does not get labelled conspiracy. Many criticise Trump and the Americans - still no conspiracy. But if I begin to look at international influence in pandemic politics - of a sudden - this is conspiracy !

There are many levels of pandemic criticism - and many perspectives from which it can be said to be damaging ie. in addition to the damage of the virus.

4
OP LeeWood 16 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> He might be alluding to "harmful 5G radiation" - which I'm sure he can clarify? 

as discussed in the topic / thread referenced - 'Nine ways 5G and the IoT will harm humans, the environment, and Earth'

 https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/is_global_planning_good_for_us-... 

 elsewhere 16 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

So according to you Jonas Salk, Pharma monopoly, natural immunity, global debt, world government, Bill Gates,  'best adapted' for when systems break down, cancel culture, censor,  distract, swine flu, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and false pandemic in just one forum "thread" is all pandemic criticism rather than bullshit rapid fire conspiracy overload. 

OP LeeWood 16 Aug 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

you got a like - for not mentioning five-G  

OP LeeWood 17 Aug 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Minimising it or calling it a conspiracy literally puts lives at risk.

Agreed, both are dangerous. It is essential to be realistic about all elements of risk. And no, I never called it conspiracy - that, I leave to others.

But back to topic. No-one has yet told me which sources I'm supposed to take as authoritative. The media as a whole or even within one journal has been diverse in it's apparent view of pandemic politics. The government has changed it's story several times, the SAGE actors have been naughty boys. I read from journals classified Right wing and those classified Left wing. The WHO has changed it's story several times. Which set of experts ?

I would also like to know of what political persuasion are you here on UKC - who protect the system narrative - because I can't work out where I should place my confidence. At a glance you would appear to be protecting the Tories because it's they who are managing the pandemic - and yet popular reaction to government is often derogatory - outside of 'the main story'.

Of course, I could be mistaken in imagining that you who collectively stamp on my posts - are all 'of a mind'.

2
 wbo2 17 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood: do you believe that Bill Gates will inject micro chips via any injected vaccine?

 wbo2 17 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood: I don't think the WHO has changed it's story much?  Stuff evolves a bit with time, that's progress rather than conspiracy.

OP LeeWood 17 Aug 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> do you believe that Bill Gates will inject micro chips via any injected vaccine?

This IS the deep end !!! And I note you are dragging the thread into the extreme fringe. But here is the reality behind:

Conspiracy has flourished from this source because the *real* plans are highly controversial. Bill Gates has named the need for digital certification along with vaccination campaigns ( and joint vaccine-passport - think how this would facilitate international travel) .

Quote: An 18 March Q&A by Gates on the website Reddit provided fuel for the conspiracists: he said digital certificates could be used to prove future COVID-19 vaccination status. This was linked, without evidence, by commentators to the possibility of implants and a range of much wilder hypotheses.

Quote: Gruener said ID2020 would not consider chips or “implantables” because they could be used without the user’s consent. For the same reason, it does not support facial recognition, she said. Gruener insisted that ID2020’s vision is “the opposite” of “deeply frightening... Orwellian” large-scale surveillance systems. ID2020, she said, is trying to put the individual in charge of their data, and allow them to use digital certificates as credentials, for example for driving or for professional qualifications or vaccination records.

The problem is that the real ID2020 initiative cuts both ways for individual liberty. That which will 'put the individual in charge' will also by it's very nature create a system of mass surveillance and control.

NB. Bangladesh is just the lab-stage of such plans - which some actors would like to see rolled out globally. 

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2020/04/15/id2020-coronavirus-vacci...

1
 Dave Garnett 17 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Gruener insisted that ID2020’s vision is “the opposite” of “deeply frightening... Orwellian” large-scale surveillance systems. ID2020, she said, is trying to put the individual in charge of their data, and allow them to use digital certificates as credentials, for example for driving or for professional qualifications or vaccination records.

People seem to be strangely polarised about this kind of thing.  On the one hand you have anti-vaxxers paranoid about having a microchip implanted without their consent (actually, the smallest chips yet made won't fit down the gauge of needles used for vaccination, and wouldn't each chip need to be individually programmed with the frankly pitiful amount of data it could carry?).  At the other extreme you have Kevin Warwick and the transhumanists who can't wait to be fully integrated into the worldwide web as soon as possible.

Post edited at 10:30
 wintertree 17 Aug 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Kevin Warwick

In my view, publicity seeking type who brought nothing to the field beyond a sheen of PR, and who should have been academically censured over his outright disgusting conduct using the Soham murders to further his agenda.  To no great surprise he’s now a Deputy Vice Chancellor of a prestigious university.

Chrissakes his big cyborg media phase consisted of putting the same chip in his arm my cat had under its neck, and connecting a reader to a door.  Similar media whoring stuff followed that was equally disconnected from any actual work going on over direct human machine interfaces.  

Some claim he started important ethical discussions but there’s prior - and higher quality - instances of such discussions across science fiction literature, often with more plausible routes to implementation than his “research”.

Speaking of which, 11 days until the Neuralink update.  

Post edited at 10:52
 Alkis 17 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Conspiracy has flourished from this source because the *real* plans are highly controversial. Bill Gates has named the need for digital certification along with vaccination campaigns ( and joint vaccine-passport - think how this would facilitate international travel) .

You know that is already a thing, right? Good luck getting into many African countries without a Yellow Fever immunisation certificate attached to your passport.

 summo 17 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Big brother wouldn't need to implant chips, everyone carries a computer in their pocket with gps and a microphone etc.. 

I presume you don't have a mobile. You are posting here from a library computer having used a false name to obtain membership and entered the building with an oversized covid mask? 

 wintertree 17 Aug 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

You have said you're good at pulling the information together on this, have you used this ability to determine Bill Gates' motivation?  What is he trying to achieve?  Why is he doing this?  It's certainly not for the money...

 Dave Garnett 17 Aug 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> A publicity seeking type who brought nothing to the field beyond a sheen of PR, and who should have been academically censured over his outright disgusting conduct using the Soham murders to further his agenda.  To no great surprise he’s now a Deputy Vice Chancellor of a prestigious university.

I do remember seeing a embarrassing interview with him and his partner about how they were experimenting with some sort of implanted technology to improve their sex lives., which was considerably more information than I needed.

Did you say 'prestigious'?  I can say that, I'm from Coventry too.

 wintertree 17 Aug 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Yes, that interview is rather hard to forget.  Both from the train crash human angle and the sheer bald faced bulls**ttery of it.  

> Did you say 'prestigious'?  

Okay; perhaps I got a bit carried away with my rant there.  It's a good solid university and it's apparently got healthy finances not weighted down by giant loans predicated on giant growth of international student numbers, so it's more likely to still be here in a year's time than some others...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I do remember seeing a embarrassing interview with him

Before going back to wintertree's post to see who you were discussing, I already had that name in my head. My thoughts have always echoed those of wintertree in this matter...

Post edited at 15:33

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...