Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus #2: Lockdowns

[Run n Spread]

Imagine if the sheep were as serious about all deaths as they are covid. Only a virus where the average age of death is higher than life expectancy itself gets their attention. Why? Because its in the news

It has nothing to do with anything other than these awful people who like to feel morally superior. Cretins like hawkie still ignoring all logic as to how an isolated island with good weather can behave differently to a densely populated UK. Or ignoring all logic regarding negative effects to lockdowns. Doesnt matter though, despite their hypocrisy and generally being sh*t people, they feel like heroes and they are never giving that up. They never want covid gone

Had to laugh at your last point.
Just came across a slogan/meme
Staying home saving lives.
How are you saving lives? You're not treating patients, conducting a raid to free hostages, rescuing abandoned kittens you are sitting on your couch while collecting a few bucks. Forgive me if I don't support the bids for sainthood.
People want lockdowns and while they like travel eating out and footy they'll accept a trade off.
As to why who knows??? But this is not about public health one smart thing a politician once said was
When it comes to betting pick the horse named self interest. It's the only one really trying.
Answer lays there I guess.

 

[yebiga]

The PCR test is not validated

Many people already know that the PCR test cannot detect a virus, as the inventor Kary B. Mullis himself confirmed. (1) He even called this practice "oxymoron", a contradiction in terms. In order to demand scientific proof, he even met with Prof. Luc Montagnier, the man who, according to...

telegra.ph

In January 2021, the World Health Organisation - the guys that called the Pandemic - stated that the PCR test is flawed at 35 cycles or greater and that retests should be done at 25-30 cycles!. If you check the cycles for test around the world it has been at between 35-45 cycles!

In other words, the Pandemic Case Count is a meaningless number. If the Case Count is Meaningless then as day follows night, the Death Counts are meaningless. Cross reference that data with the lack of a significant increase in mortality rates, the drop in deaths for all other causes - excluding COVID.
What we have is the unavoidable conclusion that this is a monumental ****-up.

Think about it - the same authority that called the Pandemic - is saying the case counts are meaningless because of the way the PCR tests were conducted.
It is impossible to re do all the PCR tests with 25-30 cycles. All we know is that the tests around the globe have been conduced at 35-45 cycles.

The logical foundation of this pandemic is missing. No one, in any government, has the integrity to say the truth and call this nonsense for what it is. No Journalist or Editor of any media has the courage to even raise the speculation, ask the question, draw the possibility. Case and death counts at 35 Plus cycles continue unabated. The media ignore the facts and continue to ratchet up fears of new strains and the deployment of mass vaccination.

None of it makes a blind bit of sense. The Vaccine makers themselves are immune from prosecution, they don't even assert their vaccines will be very efficacious, merely that it will reduce symptoms. The vaccines have been rushed and the normal testing on animals fast tracked.

So we have a half arsed vaccine to a problem that may not even exist and we are threatening people who refuse to take these vaccines with loss of income and excommunication from travel, entertainment and who knows what.

Thru out mainstream and social media making this argument is verboten. The argument itself is based on facts that are logically connected and the conclusion follows of its own accord. Yet it is verboten and if made will attract hysterical condemnation and a tidal wave of ad hominems. This can only be posted here on a conspiracy board. Even here, it will attract mindless criticism, ad hominem attacks absent any logic.

Something is either very wrong in my analysis that I am missing or much of the world has gone completely insane.
For the love of god, I can't see how you could conclude anything other then that COVID is a terrible exaggeration. There is no way to hold an argument together to support it. Ergo, the world is insane and I don't know what that might mean - but it fills me with more dread than this idiotic virus game.

 

[faible]

No one, in any government,

Wait.

Wasn't Sweden the poster child?

Then Brazil?

Then Tanzania?

 

[yebiga]

Wait.

Wasn't Sweden the poster child?

Then Brazil?

Then Tanzania?

Poster child of what Owen?
Could you put together complete sentences and logical inferences?
I have to guess that you are referring to Sweden's refusal to lockdown? But how does that relate to anything in my post regarding invalidity of PCR tests and death counts? If there is a valid point you are trying to make that Sweden somehow validates the PCR tests please help me understand.

 

[faible]

Poster child of what Owen?
Could you put together complete sentences and logical inferences?
I have to guess that you are referring to Sweden's refusal to lockdown? But how does that relate to anything in my post regarding invalidity of PCR tests and death counts? If there is a valid point you are trying to make that Sweden somehow validates the PCR tests please help me understand.

Your argument about PCR tests isn't a genuine line of reasoning though. You're conflating a WHO statement, with your own idelogical position, using it out of context, then trying to make me argue that it's incorrect because you've taken 1+1 and got 3 as a result.

 

[yebiga]

Your argument about PCR tests isn't a genuine line of reasoning though. You're conflating a WHO statement, with your own idelogical position, using it out of context, then trying to make me argue that it's incorrect because you've taken 1+1 and got 3 as a result.

So how should the WHO Statement be interpreted? To avoid conflating, ideology and context to ensure 1 and 1 = 2

 

[faible]

So how should the WHO Statement be interpreted? To avoid conflating, ideology and context to ensure 1 and 1 = 2

Fact check: WHO released guidance on proper use of tests; it did not admit PCR tests showed inflated infection numbers

Social media users have been sharing screenshots purporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidance to laboratories and incorrectly saying this was to reduce the positive test result count in PCR (polymerase chain reaction) COVID-19 tests. The social media...

www.reuters.com

Of course, it doesn't suit your narrative.

 

[MarcMaverick]

Then again the WHO are another one of the CCP's puppets to the point of exonerating the CCP of any wrongdoing in this debacle.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

So how should the WHO Statement be interpreted? To avoid conflating, ideology and context to ensure 1 and 1 = 2

Why would be trust the WHO with anything? They are the biggest conspiracy theorist of all

They literally believe a bat ****ed a pangalin who was eaten by a man caused a bat like virus when that person was literally 500m away from a bat virus producing facility.

We may as well send WHO to investigate the source of the Big Mac. Suspect they would walk into McDonalds, order a burger, eat it and be like "This is definetly from KFC. I can tell by the amount of seeds on the bun"

 

[yebiga]

Fact check: WHO released guidance on proper use of tests; it did not admit PCR tests showed inflated infection numbers

Social media users have been sharing screenshots purporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidance to laboratories and incorrectly saying this was to reduce the positive test result count in PCR (polymerase chain reaction) COVID-19 tests. The social media...

www.reuters.com

Of course, it doesn't suit your narrative.

Yeah I’ve read that already and others i
The Mackay dude says the results would occur way before 40-50 cycles.
Ok - he doesn’t say how many or at what cycle level they are mostly coming at.

It’s an incredible oversight by mackay or the author. If you are going to debunk - why would you be this vague? Whatever the reason what is clear is that the specific results of these tests is consistently not transparent.

Ypu want to give them the benefit of any doubt - so let’s explore this further

As the whole covid show is dependent on this let’s at least pretend to be honest.

 

[yebiga]

Why would be trust the WHO with anything? They are the biggest conspiracy theorist of all

They literally believe a bat f’ed a pangalin who was eaten by a man caused a bat like virus when that person was literally 500m away from a bat virus producing facility.

We may as well send WHO to investigate the source of the Big Mac. Suspect they would walk into McDonalds, order a burger, eat it and be like "This is definetly from KFC. I can tell by the amount of seeds on the bun"

Agree but to fight this mirage and hoax there is no avoiding placing its foundational arguments under scrutiny and hope our fellow humans can begin to question

 

[faible]

Yeah I’ve read that already and others i
The Mackay dude says the results would occur way before 40-50 cycles.
Ok - he doesn’t say how many or at what cycle level they are mostly coming at.

It’s an incredible oversight by mackay or the author. If you are going to debunk - why would you be this vague? Whatever the reason what is clear is that the specific results of these tests is consistently not transparent.

Ypu want to give them the benefit of any doubt - so let’s explore this further

As the whole covid show is dependent on this let’s at least pretend to be honest.

Amazing isn't it.

The level of evidence you demand when something doesn't support your narrative, versus that which does, which - and let's be honest here - you'll accept anything as evidence when it suits your narrative.

 

[yebiga]

Amazing isn't it.

The level of evidence you demand when something doesn't support your narrative, versus that which does, which - and let's be honest here - you'll accept anything as evidence when it suits your narrative.

Let’s not throw judgements around
And descend into the SRP tantrum
This is the foundation of the pandemic - let’s examine it
Dont be afraid

 

[faible]

Let’s not throw judgements around
And descend into the SRP tantrum
This is the foundation of the pandemic - let’s examine it
Dont be afraid

Who's afraid? Those goalposts are so far from where they started that you're kicking at the opposition goals right now.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Agree but to fight this mirage and hoax there is no avoiding placing its foundational arguments under scrutiny and hope our fellow humans can begin to question

owen and co are dodging the question like a whack a mole really. No one has come in here and dare question the stupidity of that claim by WHO

 

[faible]

owen and co are dodging the question like a whack a mole really. No one has come in here and dare question the stupidity of that claim by WHO

Wait.

Your argument is that we shouldn't trust the WHO.

But you're also arguing that the WHO said we shouldn't trust the PCR tests.

You can't pick both of these.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Wait.

Your argument is that we shouldn't trust the WHO.

But you're also arguing that the WHO said we shouldn't trust the PCR tests.

You can't pick both of these.

Im not saying that at all. Someone else is?

Im saying the opposite. Everything they say is irrelevant garbage. Literally everything. If they say its hot in the desert, im going to Qatar World Cup with a rain jacket, thermals, a pitcher of warm coffee and snow gloves.

If you are dumb enough to believe a pangolin gave a bat virus to someone who was 500m from a bat virus producing facility, you are not credible or smart enough to be a part of any topic of discussion.

Ideally I think we should all be looking to ban the phrase WHO in this thread. Its laughably irrelevant. At the very least maybe do autocorrect and change WHO to say CCP ?

 

[faible]

Im not saying that at all. Someone else is?

Im saying the opposite. Everything they say is irrelevant garbage. Literally everything. If they say its hot in the desert, im going to Qatar World Cup with a rain jacket, thermals, a pitcher of warm coffee and snow gloves.

If you are dumb enough to believe a pangolin gave a bat virus to someone who was 500m from a bat virus producing facility, you are not credible or smart enough to be a part of any topic of discussion.

Ideally I think we should all be looking to ban the phrase WHO in this thread. Its laughably irrelevant. At the very least maybe do autocorrect and change WHO to say CCP ?

So we shouldn't trust the WHO. Therefore the PCR test results are valid, because their comments can't be trusted. Glad you've clarified your position.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

So we shouldn't trust the WHO. Therefore the PCR test results are valid, because their comments can't be trusted. Glad you've clarified your position.

No. I wouldnt actually listen to there opinion at all or factor it into any form of discussion about anything because If I began factoring them in id be losing all logic in my decision making ie. wearing thermals in Qatar.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Anyone noticed the irony in that Hawk Dork and co come im, have a discussion with someone else and then when someone interjects assumes that we share the exact same opinion?

Its like a sheep not understanding why we arnt all one big group of sheep. Its cute really

 

[faible]

Anyone noticed the irony in that Hawk Dork and co come im, have a discussion with someone else and then when someone interjects assumes that we share the exact same opinion?

Its like a sheep not understanding why we arnt all one big group of sheep. Its cute really

It's just so easy to confuse the deranged rantings of one madman, with the deranged rantings of another madman.

 

[yebiga]

Why the number of 'cycles' is important in testing for COVID-19

Polymerase chain reaction tests are used globally to identify positive COVID-19 cases, but misinformation on them abounds online. We asked an expert to clear it up for us.

www.abc.net.au

This below is extracted from the above ABC's site: The headline references PCR cycle misinformation - suggesting it is going to debunk claims that there is question about the test counts - but then goes on to say the exact opposite putting into question huge doubt over the veracity of cases and deaths.
Considering this in light of the vague fact checking and debunking and it's difficult to just ignore the smoke here.

Owen, Chief, et all would suggest my ideology is getting in the way. How precisely I would love to know.

Here the ABC quotes Dr Bruce categorically stating PCR tests over 30 are dubious. But we know most countries have used 40+ cycles. If - "most positive results were detected in the range of 20 to 30 per cycles" why not detail what that number is exactly - or as a percentage. If 90% of cases were detected in the 20-30 cycle range that would be great and hardly impact the overall numbers. But after 12 months they still refuse to say.

If we take Dr Bruce at his world - Most could be just 51% effectively halving the cases and death counts.
But it gets worse - Dr Bruce might be saying most tests (say 51%) are detecting in the 20-30 cycles and 49% are detecting 40 plus cycles. So half of the first tests results and all the second test results are over 40 cycles.

The actually number of cases within the 20-30 cycle range would be 26% and Dr Bruce would still not be technically lying - But our case and death counts would need to be reduced by 75%.

The lack of transparency makes it logical to assume the worst (75% are nonsense) and not the best (10% are nonsense). Why should we assume the best case when we are not given clarity and everyone is so desperate to maintain the hysteria. The lack of excess mortality rates and the fall in so many other causes of death make it compelling to believe 75% of the cases and deaths attributed to COVID are not in fact COVID related at all.

Instead, the most probable conclusion is that merely 25% of deaths attributed to covid are in fact COVID related at all - and as the overwhelming number of those deaths have a range of co-morbidities it is hard to say definitively that there is anything we should be worried about at all - except a slightly more virulent variety of what is typically known as influenza

Have I get something wrong?


The Ct value of a positive test is the number of cycles it took before the signal was able to be identified, Dr Druce explained, with higher values equating to a weaker positive due to less virus being present in the sample.

"A strong positive sample has a lower Ct value — so something that comes up at cycle 15, for instance, is very strong, extraordinarily strong. Something that comes up at Ct 30 is quite low."

A person returning a positive PCR test with a Ct value above 30 would be "very unlikely to be infectious", Dr Druce said, before adding that most positive results were detected in the range of 20 to 30 PCR cycles.

 

[faible]

Why the number of 'cycles' is important in testing for COVID-19

Polymerase chain reaction tests are used globally to identify positive COVID-19 cases, but misinformation on them abounds online. We asked an expert to clear it up for us.

www.abc.net.au

This below is extracted from the above ABC's site: The headline references PCR cycle misinformation - suggesting it is going to debunk claims that there is question about the test counts - but then goes on to say the exact opposite putting into question huge doubt over the veracity of cases and deaths.
Considering this in light of the vague fact checking and debunking and it's difficult to just ignore the smoke here.

Owen, Chief, et all would suggest my ideology is getting in the way. How precisely I would love to know.

Here the ABC quotes Dr Bruce categorically stating PCR tests over 30 are dubious. But we know most countries have used 40+ cycles. If - "most positive results were detected in the range of 20 to 30 per cycles" why not detail what that number is exactly - or as a percentage. If 90% of cases were detected in the 20-30 cycle range that would be great and hardly impact the overall numbers. But after 12 months they still refuse to say.

If we take Dr Bruce at his world - Most could be just 51% effectively halving the cases and death counts.
But it gets worse - Dr Bruce might be saying most tests (say 51%) are detecting in the 20-30 cycles and 49% are detecting 40 plus cycles. So half of the first tests results and all the second test results are over 40 cycles.

The actually number of cases within the 20-30 cycle range would be 26% and Dr Bruce would still not be technically lying - But our case and death counts would need to be reduced by 75%.

The lack of transparency makes it logical to assume the worst (75% are nonsense) and not the best (10% are nonsense).

Have I get something wrong?


The Ct value of a positive test is the number of cycles it took before the signal was able to be identified, Dr Druce explained, with higher values equating to a weaker positive due to less virus being present in the sample.

"A strong positive sample has a lower Ct value — so something that comes up at cycle 15, for instance, is very strong, extraordinarily strong. Something that comes up at Ct 30 is quite low."

A person returning a positive PCR test with a Ct value above 30 would be "very unlikely to be infectious", Dr Druce said, before adding that most positive results were detected in the range of 20 to 30 PCR cycles.

So if you read the article. Then make up your own interpretation of his numbers. You get an outcome that suits your ideological position. I'm shocked.

The lack of transparency makes it logical to assume the worst (75% are nonsense) and not the best (10% are nonsense).

No ideology involved here, none at all. Your logic is akin to 1+1 = 3.

 

[yebiga]

So if you read the article. Then make up your own interpretation of his numbers. You get an outcome that suits your ideological position. I'm shocked.



No ideology involved here, none at all. Your logic is akin to 1+1 = 3.

Owen - I asked you to analyse the data and statements
I may be adding 1 and 1 to get 3 - but you haven't presented anything to even suggest how that is possible.
Please consider how unfair that is to me, the board and yourself. And the later is of primary concern.
By engaging in this level of dishonest discourse - you undermine your authentic self. This habituates your mind to ignore details and deal in prepackaged judgements you don't own - and therefore can't fully understand.
Like any muscle, a lack of use means it must become weaker and it will tend towards atrophy. Please come back at me with something challenging.

 

[faible]

Owen - I asked you to analyse the data and statements
I may be adding 1 and 1 to get 3 - but you haven't presented anything to even suggest how that is possible.
Please consider how unfair that is to me, the board and yourself. And the later is of primary concern.
By engaging in this level of dishonest discourse - you undermine your authentic self. Your habituating your mind to ignore details and deal in prepackaged judgements you don't own.
Like any muscle, its lack of use means it must become weaker and will atrophy from disuse. Please come back at me with something challenging.

You're yet to present any factual evidence. Making up numbers isn't fact, nor evidence.

Try harder.