An alternative view - corona virus

[Nudga]

I am looking at individual cases because you could then multiply that number by whatever, hey presto, 20k deaths.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes you could. If every politician, medic and epidemiologist in the world were in on the conspiracy.

[Nudga]

I've already shared Dr July A Mikovits story along with other independent information.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nudga

I assume you are aware of Mikovits's back story?

[Nudga]

Go on.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The fact that she spent years pushing a claim that there was a link between a virus and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which a concerted effort by other researchers was unable to find? And that the key paper she had written on the subject in the journal Science was retracted by them, because of this fact.

That is how the Scientific Method works.

Scientist A makes a claim. Scientists B-Z assess whether the claim makes sense and if it doesn't, publish counter arguments.

In her case, it was pretty well definitively shown that there were features of her results which no other lab in the world could reproduce, despite following exactly the approach she reported.

The conclusion when that happens is that Scientist A is wrong. Hopefully through being sloppy. In a worst case, through being deceitful.

Either way, your credibility is shot when that happens.

[Nudga]

Did she go against the narrative of the cooperation?
I can't find anything to support my post so 1 nil BST 😉

https://learntherisk.org/diseases/

You like graphs don't you.

[Nudga]

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/03/08/cdc-admits-in-federal-court-they-have-no-evidence-vaccines-dont-cause-autism/

[Nudga]

https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/vaccinegate-italian-researchers-find-fraud-with-6-combo-vaccine-given-to-babies/

Hey, I don't know, I said I'd share alternative news for your perusal.

[Copps is Magic]

Nudga.

Most of them WILL be CV-19 deaths. Yes, they will get a few wrong. Both ways. You need to look at the overall big picture, not individual cases.

And yes, there's an increase in other deaths because the health services all round the world are overstretched.

I'm not so naive as to think that there's never nefarious stuff going one, but for this to be a conspiracy, you'd need pretty much every (sane) politician, medic and epidemiologist in the world to be in on it.

I think you are being too restrained here.

The number of excess deaths not attributed to covid-19 when in fact they should be (due to lack of testing etc.) will be far far greater than deaths associated with covid-19 that were wrongfully attributed.

Far greater.

[Nudga]

https://youtu.be/s53XByRrXGw

I haven't had the chance to watch all the way through but it's good to share.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No Nudga. She went against some of the basic principles of science.

It's a good principle. If someone is pushing a line that is a long, long way outside the scientific consensus, look at their back story. Some DO change the world because they are right. The overwhelming majority are cranks or frauds.

As for your graphs, I don't have any problem with the fact that public health, sanitation, better health treatment, better education and better nutrition all had significant effects on reducing deaths from infectious diseases.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether vaccination also adds to that improvement.

And, critically, whether it can be a key improvement in societies where they don't have the benefits of wealth that Western countries have, and investment in those other improvements is patchy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way, that Learn the Risk website. It does something that I use as an automatic filter.

It cites a sentence from a paper. But it does so selectively.

The website says:
"Vaccination does NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available."

The actual quote from the original paper says:
"Vaccination does NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available."

You decide why they didn't cite the whole paragraph. Me, when I see that happen, I know the person presenting it is not interested in the truth. They are partisan. That makes me suspicious of their entire motives.

[Sandy Lane]

Hi Nudga, someone was wondering about anti-Vaxers and here is some info about some of them over here in the US.

It started many years ago when they were seeing a significant increase in numbers of kids diagnosed with autism, and initially a doctor said there may be a correlation between some types of vaccinations and autism.  MAY be.  But later it was disproven.  But people didn’t let it go.  So many then refused to vaccinate their kids.

Fast forward to current day and Robert Mueller - of the famous Mueller Report on Russian interference, found that they (Russia) were using health care issues to divide people. He found that anti vaccinations is an area that they have used to stir up people.  They are using Civid19 now, as Billy and CIM said, and they are still at it. See First and second links.

Tbh I also wondered if this unbelievably “perfect” virus - aka virulent and lethal - may have started in a lab, but I could find no evidence of it - just people pushing unfounded theories.

As for the heart attacks and strokes in patients from Covid, it is being noticed that this virus has caused problems with overactive blood clotting.  It’s like the opposite of Ebola where people can bleed to death.  Now the problem is blood is too think and clots, which can break off and travel through your blood stream to your heart or brain.  The problem with your friend (who has been classified as having covid19) fits the pattern with people having pneumonia and heart attack. To be sure they would need to test or as you say a post mortem.  See third link.

P.S.  Re: the links below. CBS news and also the Washington Post are trusted news sources here in the us.  Also, NY Times, ABC News, NBC news.

There is an account on Twitter @Teri_Kanefield - a law professor - who writes that you should always use trusted news organisations to get your facts to avoid fake news.  Also check many different trusted sources, which is the key.

Hope this helps a bit.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-vax-movement-russian-trolls-fueled-anti-vaccination-debate-in-us-by-spreading-misinformation-twitter-study/


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-coronavirus-gives-russia-and-china-another-opportunity-to-spread-their-disinformation/2020/03/29/8423a0f8-6d4c-11ea-a3ec-70d7479d83f0_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/

[BillyStubbsTears]

So I'm afraid Nudga, after that, the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that the rest of your sources aren't spouting unbalanced crap.

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way, that Learn the Risk website. It does something that I use as an automatic filter.

It cites a sentence from a paper. But it does so selectively.

The website says:
"Vaccination does NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available."

The actual quote from the original paper says:
"Vaccination does NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available."

You decide why they didn't cite the whole paragraph. Me, when I see that happen, I know the person presenting it is not interested in the truth. They are partisan. That makes me suspicious of their entire motives.

For some reason I cannot paste the full.quote. It's just pasting the original and that kind of makes my post look stupid. I'll do it a bit later.

[BillyStubbsTears]

OK. Post #42 that I totally ballsed up because the copy/paste wouldn't work. This is what it was meant to say.

By the way, that Learn the Risk website. It does something that I use as an automatic filter.

It cites a sentence from a paper. But it does so selectively.

The website says:
"Vaccination does NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available."

The actual quote from the original paper says:
"Thus vaccination does not (NB: No capitals) account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century. The reductions in vaccine-preventable diseases, however, are impressive. In the early 1920s, diphtheria accounted for about 175 000 cases annually and pertussis for nearly 150 000 cases; measles accounted for about half a million annual cases before the introduction of vaccine in the 1960s. Deaths from these diseases have been virtually eliminated, as have deaths from Haemophilus influenzae, tetanus, and poliomyelitis."

You decide why they didn't cite the whole paragraph. Me, when I see that happen, I know the person presenting it is not interested in the truth. They are partisan. That makes me suspicious of their entire motives.


PS: The "Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available" sentence actually comes BEFORE the sentence that your webpage puts it after. That might be just sloppy, but in general, it is a no-no to move stuff around when you are directly quoting. It gives the impression that you are trying to say something that the original author didn't intend. I don't think that is the case here, but the fact that they chose to put THAT sentence in and not the actual text which follows in the real paper tells you everything you need to know. They are presenting the information is a highly biased way, and having seen that, I wouldn't trust them if they told me it was Monday.

[Nudga]

Thanks Sandy, I appreciate that and nicely written. I'll certainly take that on board and have a good read when I get the chance, going to put the phone away in a bit.

BST, that's how you post a difference of opinion for future reference.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nudga

I'm sorry mate, but the first evidence you gave is from a discredited, crank scientist and the second one is clearly and unequivocally trying to peddle a biased line. I've only got so much patience and I don't think, in the light of that, that I'm being unreasonable in saying the onus is on you to demonstrate that the rest of your sources are not similarly flawed.

And I'd also point out that I did entirely accept the argument that massive improvements happened before vaccines. I'm not trying to start an argument here. But I DO get angry when I see sites that that Learn the Risk one deliberately and consciously misleading intelligent people like you on an issue that is so important. So my apologies if my response comes across as a bit terse.

[NickDRFC]

I think I preferred Nudga when I thought of him as some sort of debased pervert rather than the forum’s answer to David Icke.

[wilts rover]

Nudga.

Most of them WILL be CV-19 deaths. Yes, they will get a few wrong. Both ways. You need to look at the overall big picture, not individual cases.

And yes, there's an increase in other deaths because the health services all round the world are overstretched.

I'm not so naive as to think that there's never nefarious stuff going one, but for this to be a conspiracy, you'd need pretty much every (sane) politician, medic and epidemiologist in the world to be in on it.

I think you are being too restrained here.

The number of excess deaths not attributed to covid-19 when in fact they should be (due to lack of testing etc.) will be far far greater than deaths associated with covid-19 that were wrongfully attributed.

Far greater.

I remember a graph that showed this better than any description will - but as I can't find it now and there will be new figures out tomorrow anyway:

In the week to 10 April, there were 6,213 deaths where Covid19 was mentioned on death certificates, according to the ONS and 7,996 more deaths than the rolling average for that week of the previous five years.

So if these extra 1700 deaths that would not be expected at this time of year are not down to Covid-19 - what are they down to?

We will never really know for sure but the number of deaths being attributed to Covid-19 is far more likely to be an under-estimate than an overestimate.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1252556232646447104

[Nudga]

I think I preferred Nudga when I thought of him as some sort of debased pervert rather than the forum’s answer to David Icke.

Ouch. 🖕

[Nudga]

https://aytubio.com/healight/

I have read that ventilators can exacerbate the problem.
Get outside or get on the sun beds lads and lasses.

[keyser_soze]

I think I preferred Nudga when I thought of him as some sort of debased pervert rather than the forum’s answer to David Icke.

 

[Nudga]

I think I preferred Nudga when I thought of him as some sort of debased pervert rather than the forum’s answer to David Icke.

 

And I haven't even gone down the lizard men path yet 😉

[knockers]

Anyone think it’s just a huge social experiment.

[Nudga]

I didn't like to say 😉

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah. With every Govt in the world in on it, along with every senior medic, every credible epidemiologist and every credible virologist.

Come on lads. As Conspiracy Theories go, this would make faking the moon landings look like a playground game.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWrbErJXgAYbO3f?format=jpg&name=medium

[knockers]

That didn’t take long 

[Nudga]

Who set foot on the moon first?


Answer; The camara man.