Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:54 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

If people are arguing that Covid-19 is not infectious, then can someone explain, in the simplest terms, why just about every country in the world has decided to impose restrictions that have devastated their economies and will do for a long time to come? It would only take a few to step out of line and say, "we're fine, it's not infectious, come and do business here, send your tourists, buy our currency" and they would become much more powerful.

As for the argument about smartphones, most technological advances have a flipside. The internet is one of the world's greatest inventions. It helps us so much in our daily lives, from having all the information you need at your fingertips to booking holidays and to the amount of streaming entertainment available. But it comes at a cost, because all the loons in the world have a voice and access to an audience, so of course some regulation is required. It has always been the same with all technological advances. The car was invented, so we had to invent speed limits to cut death rates.

Smartphones entertain and inform people. Companies want to monetise that entertainment. Someone invents electricity so someone works out how to make electronic billboards. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes, it is just the checks and balances that make the world keep turning.

But if someone sees everything as some huge masterplan, they will interpret everything in that context.

What I see is people dying and becoming ill from a respiratory illness. Also, I see some people who have been in contact with those ill people also become ill. That is the very definition of infectious. It doesn't seem difficult to grasp.

Your argument here fails on so many levels because you are ascribing words and thoughts that I have not seen on here.

e.g.
“Some regulation is required” No argument there.

“Not everything is a conspiracy “ Who said it was

“But if someone sees everything as some huge masterplan,” Nope.

“What I see is people dying and becoming ill from a respiratory illness. Also, I see some people who have been in contact with those ill people also become ill. That is the very definition of infectious. It doesn't seem difficult to grasp.”

Again, not disputed as far as I can see. Questioned maybe.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:33 am  

MatthewTrin wrote:

Surely then by this logic the government have to provide proof to the people of the UK that the NHS is on the brink of being overwhelmed by this virus as they keep claiming. All the government do is give diktat by showing a lack of supportive statistics to support most of their claims. I'm sorry but I will not accept a positive PCR test or a mathematical model as factual evidence. Interestingly when substantiated proof was recently requested in Manchester it was found the number of patients in hospital was lower than this time last year!

It is important not to mix political decisions/dogma with actual science. If the government want to instil a level of panic into the population in order to get across the seriousness of the situation, then that's their choice.

PCR tests are, as any other diagnostic test, not 100% accurate, but they are pretty good. I have written on here before about mathematical quirks of this and truly random testing meaning that more than half of those who receive a positive result would actually not have the virus. It is very much dependent on prevalence of the virus in the community. A doctor's diagnosis is usually based on a balance of probabilities, based on all the facts and data available. If you have symptoms similar to those experiencing covid-19 and have been in contact with someone with the virus and have a positive test (or more than one) they can say with near 100% certainty that you have the virus.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:28 am  

Miro wrote:

Do I believe you would take the trouble to “look at what evidence he has for that treatment being dangerous. What experiments and data he had produced/published and been peer reviewed and what the view of those peers ?“ No I do not. Easy to say, very hard to do. Even if you had the time.

So, lets get this right, no unsubstantiated views are to be allowed on certain privately owned media.
I have to take you to task there. There are millions of unsubstantiated views on privately owned media. I even gave two examples.

The Daily Mail and social media are two wholly different mediums. They are not comparable.

Please define “unsubstantiated” when referring to a viewpoint as opposed to scientific facts (if indeed there is such a thing, the sands of science keeps shifting all the time)
I trust you have no knowledge of just what has been taken down from Dr Coleman's youtube.account.to pass any judgement.

If someone's upload is taken down, is that not censorship?
Censorship..meaning to, to examine in order to suppress'

Please elaborate “unsubstantiated pseudo-science” More than one example please or you allegation is unfounded and meaningless. Please back up your claim so that I may defend them.

And finally, you ask:

What is your main (single) point and what is the evidence for that?
e.g. that a global reset was a premeditated power grab tactic by '?????'.

My answer to that is, if you don't know by now after 46 pages then no amount of explanation here will possibly get through to you.
I'll Pass rather than waste my time repeating myself.

Apologies for the slow reply, but I live on the other side of the world and out of sync with the UK timezone. We are also looking after out 2 year-old granddaughter at the moment, so I'm spending more time watching Peppa Pig than reading this forum.

If you don't believe I would try to check dubious claims using the mighty power of the interweb, there's not much I can do to change your mind. One I've looked up recently is the negative health impacts of mobile phone use. I found no evidence anywhere that there is any significant impact. A few people claimed such things, but their evidence generally relied on flawed data and their findings were not repeatable by others.

What is allowed to be published on privately-owned media is absolutely the choice of the owners. Similarly, the decision to access such information is entirely down to the individual. Exactly the same as the Daily Mail.

As for 'unsubstantiated' I mean not supported or proven by evidence, just the same as a dictionary.

You are correct, there is no such thing as a scientific fact. Anyone who says such a thing is either mistaken, lying, not a scientist or using the term colloquially. Mathematics deals with facts, science is only the best explanation based on the evidence available at the time. It is at its strongest when there is a consensus amongst the scientific community and multiple sources reaffirming the findings. That's how the scientific method works. The ones who show evidence for something that is different to the current picture get Nobel prizes.

"Unsubstantiated pseudo-science" usually takes the form of an assertion passed off as science which is not backed by evidence or open to scrutiny by others. Sometimes it is done by people with qualifications to give it gravitas, but if you dig a little deeper you will generally find there is no basis or a flawed methodology behind it and the person making the claim has some kind of vested interest, even if that is only fame and notoriety. For an example, I'd quote the assertion by some that 5G masts cause covid-19.

As for censorship, I guess that's open to interpretation, but I'd say you have to look at the reasons why something is not allowed. If I wrote a letter to the Daily Mail denigrating the capitalist/consumerist system, I would not expect that letter to be published. Is this censorship? or an editorial decision based on political affiliation?

What I'm asking is for you to offer your main claim and its best evidence. One at a time, not a Gish gallop of whataboutism.

I've not had chance to look at the links in your other post, I'll get back to you.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:48 am  

Miro wrote: Due to the recent introduction of the likes of coco the fullback and Homme Vaste into this thread and their allegations against me (99% is not believed apparently plus the allegation by co co of “unsubstantiated pseudo-science) I would be very interested if they could pick the bones out of this. Way above my head obviously but I have given here a start for anyone interested, those two in particular. Only poisoned monkey kidney cells 'grew' the SARS-CoV-2 'virus' Good headline to start with don't you think? and this: From CDC...centres of Disease Control and Prevention. Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. ... Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection. Notes from a learned friend. What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible "hosts" or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19. And again..... The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this "new coronavirus" is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix. Remember, don't shoot the messenger Full research here. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article Thanks for that. An excellent way to illustrate exactly what I'm getting at. The journal you quote was published in June 2020 by CDC, the research appears to have been carried out on a very early US case of the virus (January 2020). They were investigating the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 including sequencing the whole genome. They were looking at which types of cell support amplification and replication of SARS-CoV-2 and which ones don't. They published their findings so that others could use the information in further studies. A quote: "These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (20–22). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines." Unfortunately, this section seems not to have been picked up. Some fine quote mining and cherry-picking then took place and popped up in an assorted number places on the internet: https://angloamerica101.wordpress.com/2 ... an-beings/ https://ourgreaterdestiny.org/2020/10/a ... ars-cov-2/ https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-mo ... FpbCI6ICJq The power of the internet is huge and many are persuaded by such scandalous headline-grabbing stories. Not many will take the time to check the original source or the background of those promoting the lies. Interestingly, the wording seems to have been copy/pasted in many places. The problem is this was picked up by pseudo-scientists with vested interest and then published on a number of 'blogs' with their own interpretation of what it said. Can you tell me who Sally Fallon Morell is and what are her qualifications? I hope she's not just someone with dubious scientific claims about nutrition trying to sell her books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A. ... lon_Morell Oh and a doctor: Dr. Tom Cowan (the irony just hurts sometimes) https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fact ... -1.5506595 Anyway, check out this thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... ney_cells/ So, is preventing the spread of this fake, and potentially dangerous, information censorship or are people being protected from such myths?

Miro wrote: Due to the recent introduction of the likes of coco the fullback and Homme Vaste into this thread and their allegations against me (99% is not believed apparently plus the allegation by co co of “unsubstantiated pseudo-science) I would be very interested if they could pick the bones out of this. Way above my head obviously but I have given here a start for anyone interested, those two in particular. Only poisoned monkey kidney cells 'grew' the SARS-CoV-2 'virus' Good headline to start with don't you think? and this: From CDC...centres of Disease Control and Prevention. Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. ... Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection. Notes from a learned friend. What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible "hosts" or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19. And again..... The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this "new coronavirus" is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix. Remember, don't shoot the messenger Full research here. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article Thanks for that. An excellent way to illustrate exactly what I'm getting at. The journal you quote was published in June 2020 by CDC, the research appears to have been carried out on a very early US case of the virus (January 2020). They were investigating the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 including sequencing the whole genome. They were looking at which types of cell support amplification and replication of SARS-CoV-2 and which ones don't. They published their findings so that others could use the information in further studies. A quote: "These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (20–22). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines." Unfortunately, this section seems not to have been picked up. Some fine quote mining and cherry-picking then took place and popped up in an assorted number places on the internet: https://angloamerica101.wordpress.com/2 ... an-beings/ https://ourgreaterdestiny.org/2020/10/a ... ars-cov-2/ https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-mo ... FpbCI6ICJq The power of the internet is huge and many are persuaded by such scandalous headline-grabbing stories. Not many will take the time to check the original source or the background of those promoting the lies. Interestingly, the wording seems to have been copy/pasted in many places. The problem is this was picked up by pseudo-scientists with vested interest and then published on a number of 'blogs' with their own interpretation of what it said. Can you tell me who Sally Fallon Morell is and what are her qualifications? I hope she's not just someone with dubious scientific claims about nutrition trying to sell her books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A. ... lon_Morell Oh and a doctor: Dr. Tom Cowan (the irony just hurts sometimes) https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fact ... -1.5506595 Anyway, check out this thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... ney_cells/ So, is preventing the spread of this fake, and potentially dangerous, information censorship or are people being protected from such myths?

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:42 am  

Miro wrote:

Thank you for your interest.
I don't believe I have argued that “covid” is not infectious. I may have questioned it very strongly and even argued that it is a version of flu but for me it's not the big issue anymore. The covid debate is a red herring for the smoke screen.
But I never let things go completely if you are referring to the CDC evidence that just shows I am simply keeping abreast of any developments.

I have said that I believe covid (and the argument has already been done as to just what covid is) is a smokescreen for a re set of the world economy as stated by the World Economic Forum, though they use the word “opportunity” again already explained.

Tipped off the UK Prime Minister? No, they are pulling his strings, just like every PM before him. Blair being a prime example.
As for Trump? I have no clue, I stay clear of anything to do with him. But I will ask this, is he a puppet of the deep state? or a thorn in their side. Is he there to play devils advocate? You choose. He is a proven liar so what can you say?
That takes care of a)

b) People are being misdiagnosed. Again look through the thread for details. Fact, not an opinion.

Again, As I clearly stated elsewhere that in my opinion (the re-set) it is doomed to fail. However, not before great damage is done to the world economy. There are opinions that point to communism rather than socialism being the eventual outcome. Hence the need to destroy the middle class, something that is progressing apace as we speak.

You say:
“The problem with theories about capitalist leaders engaging in conspiracie is ….....”

What do you mean theories.......My theory???? Study Event 201. Note the attendees.

You say:
“Put simply, what you see will depend on which lens to look through, and you can see anything if you want to see it enough.”

Hmm. Nice xmas cracker wisdom but not sure I agree with that. In fact I don't agree with that. If that was the case I've been looking at Wakefield Trinity through the wrong lens for a flaming long time.

Suggesting that "questioning very strongly" whether something is infectious is different to saying it isn't infectious is, ironically, a smokescreen, as it is very much saying, "infectious - I doubt that". The overwhelming evidence is that is that is infectious. If you don't accept that as a proven fact, your views on everything else can be viewed in that context.

Again, you get your wires wrong when you talk about a reset.

For the reset to work, it has to be by design, which means that it is a thought out plan, which means it requires a highly infectious disease for it to work, which means you are wrong to question strongly the whole basis of the reset.

If, however, the major capitalist nations are having to rethink their economies because of an unplanned, highly infectious pandemic, that is common sense. The countries are in economic turmoil with mounting debts. Of course they'll have a rethink of how they do things. They've no choice.

But generally, you're putting things the wrong way round.

The questions are:
1. Was it a pre-determined plan?
Or
2. Is is a worldwide response to unforeseen circumstances?

If the first, the disease has to be highly infectious for the plan to work, even though you strongly question it. And it has to work without anyone breaking ranks, for their own economic advantage, which is highly unlikely, particularly as the country on the economic front-foot appears to be China.

If the second, things are just what they are, with no hidden agenda. And we all know it's the second.

Although the authorities haven't counted on a bloke from Wakefield with an internet connection.....

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:27 am  

coco the fullback wrote: Thanks for that. An excellent way to illustrate exactly what I'm getting at. The journal you quote was published in June 2020 by CDC, the research appears to have been carried out on a very early US case of the virus (January 2020). They were investigating the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 including sequencing the whole genome. They were looking at which types of cell support amplification and replication of SARS-CoV-2 and which ones don't. They published their findings so that others could use the information in further studies. A quote: "These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (20–22). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines." Unfortunately, this section seems not to have been picked up. Some fine quote mining and cherry-picking then took place and popped up in an assorted number places on the internet: https://angloamerica101.wordpress.com/2 ... an-beings/ https://ourgreaterdestiny.org/2020/10/a ... ars-cov-2/ https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-mo ... FpbCI6ICJq The power of the internet is huge and many are persuaded by such scandalous headline-grabbing stories. Not many will take the time to check the original source or the background of those promoting the lies. Interestingly, the wording seems to have been copy/pasted in many places. The problem is this was picked up by pseudo-scientists with vested interest and then published on a number of 'blogs' with their own interpretation of what it said. Can you tell me who Sally Fallon Morell is and what are her qualifications? I hope she's not just someone with dubious scientific claims about nutrition trying to sell her books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A. ... lon_Morell Oh and a doctor: Dr. Tom Cowan (the irony just hurts sometimes) https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fact ... -1.5506595 Anyway, check out this thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... ney_cells/ So, is preventing the spread of this fake, and potentially dangerous, information censorship or are people being protected from such myths? Do you remember, or did you not read my opening statement. I shall re produce it. " I would be very interested if they could pick the bones out of this. Way above my head obviously but I have given here a start for anyone interested, those two in particular. Is that not fair enough? Did I say anywhere that it was truth? I offered it up so that our learned friends on here Poptart /wrencat/RWB/ etc. could maybe clarify it for me. I can't say fairer than that, can I? But again, dig out some apparent "conspiracy theorists" I know nothing about, attach them to my post, or in answer to my post and BINGO you get 3 likes from three folk who cannot be to look for themselves. They must be very relieved someone like yourself has come to their apparent rescue. But I thank you for taking the trouble, such a change from the speed reading, hit and run snipers who usually challenge me. That's not to say I agree with your research, yet. Now a question. You say: "So, is preventing the spread of this fake, and potentially dangerous..............," In what way dangerous. We are not talking nazis with guns here.

coco the fullback wrote: Thanks for that. An excellent way to illustrate exactly what I'm getting at. The journal you quote was published in June 2020 by CDC, the research appears to have been carried out on a very early US case of the virus (January 2020). They were investigating the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 including sequencing the whole genome. They were looking at which types of cell support amplification and replication of SARS-CoV-2 and which ones don't. They published their findings so that others could use the information in further studies. A quote: "These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (20–22). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines." Unfortunately, this section seems not to have been picked up. Some fine quote mining and cherry-picking then took place and popped up in an assorted number places on the internet: https://angloamerica101.wordpress.com/2 ... an-beings/ https://ourgreaterdestiny.org/2020/10/a ... ars-cov-2/ https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-mo ... FpbCI6ICJq The power of the internet is huge and many are persuaded by such scandalous headline-grabbing stories. Not many will take the time to check the original source or the background of those promoting the lies. Interestingly, the wording seems to have been copy/pasted in many places. The problem is this was picked up by pseudo-scientists with vested interest and then published on a number of 'blogs' with their own interpretation of what it said. Can you tell me who Sally Fallon Morell is and what are her qualifications? I hope she's not just someone with dubious scientific claims about nutrition trying to sell her books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A. ... lon_Morell Oh and a doctor: Dr. Tom Cowan (the irony just hurts sometimes) https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fact ... -1.5506595 Anyway, check out this thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... ney_cells/ So, is preventing the spread of this fake, and potentially dangerous, information censorship or are people being protected from such myths? Do you remember, or did you not read my opening statement. I shall re produce it. " I would be very interested if they could pick the bones out of this. Way above my head obviously but I have given here a start for anyone interested, those two in particular. Is that not fair enough? Did I say anywhere that it was truth? I offered it up so that our learned friends on here Poptart /wrencat/RWB/ etc. could maybe clarify it for me. I can't say fairer than that, can I? But again, dig out some apparent "conspiracy theorists" I know nothing about, attach them to my post, or in answer to my post and BINGO you get 3 likes from three folk who cannot be to look for themselves. They must be very relieved someone like yourself has come to their apparent rescue. But I thank you for taking the trouble, such a change from the speed reading, hit and run snipers who usually challenge me. That's not to say I agree with your research, yet. Now a question. You say: "So, is preventing the spread of this fake, and potentially dangerous..............," In what way dangerous. We are not talking nazis with guns here.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:45 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Suggesting that "questioning very strongly" whether something is infectious is different to saying it isn't infectious is, ironically, a smokescreen, as it is very much saying, "infectious - I doubt that". The overwhelming evidence is that is that is infectious. If you don't accept that as a proven fact, your views on everything else can be viewed in that context.

Again, you get your wires wrong when you talk about a reset.

For the reset to work, it has to be by design, which means that it is a thought out plan, which means it requires a highly infectious disease for it to work, which means you are wrong to question strongly the whole basis of the reset.

If, however, the major capitalist nations are having to rethink their economies because of an unplanned, highly infectious pandemic, that is common sense. The countries are in economic turmoil with mounting debts. Of course they'll have a rethink of how they do things. They've no choice.

But generally, you're putting things the wrong way round.

The questions are:
1. Was it a pre-determined plan?
Or
2. Is is a worldwide response to unforeseen circumstances?

If the first, the disease has to be highly infectious for the plan to work, even though you strongly question it. And it has to work without anyone breaking ranks, for their own economic advantage, which is highly unlikely, particularly as the country on the economic front-foot appears to be China.

If the second, things are just what they are, with no hidden agenda. And we all know it's the second.

Although the authorities haven't counted on a bloke from Wakefield with an internet connection.....

You say:
“Although the authorities haven't counted on a bloke from Wakefield with an internet connection....”.

And I reply:

Ah, sarcasm, cant help yourself can you.
No, we can't have ordinary folk questioning the powers that be can we?
What next, deny ordinary folk the vote?

There are many people in this world who started out as “ordinary” but did that stop them trying to make a change, and hell of a lot of them did.
I won't mention any because I'll get the usual snipers dropping in pontificating “Geez, he's comparing himself to.................................fill in the blank.

I'll get back to you, your not off the hook yet.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:27 pm  

Miro wrote:

Do you remember, or did you not read my opening statement. I shall re produce it.

" I would be very interested if they could pick the bones out of this. Way above my head obviously but I have given here a start for anyone interested, those two in particular.

Is that not fair enough?
Did I say anywhere that it was truth? I offered it up so that our learned friends on here Poptart /wrencat/RWB/ etc. could maybe clarify it for me. I can't say fairer than that, can I?
But again, dig out some apparent "conspiracy theorists" I know nothing about, attach them to my post, or in answer to my post and BINGO you get 3 likes from three folk who cannot be to look for themselves.
They must be very relieved someone like yourself has come to their apparent rescue.

But I thank you for taking the trouble, such a change from the speed reading, hit and run snipers who usually challenge me. That's not to say I agree with your research, yet.

Now a question.
You say: "So, is preventing the spread of this fake, and potentially dangerous..............,"
In what way dangerous. We are not talking nazis with guns here.

Are you now saying that only people with guns are dangerous and that a virus that could kill you isn't. ?

You clearly have too much time on your hands or, perhaps you are part of a group that doles out the kind of stuff that you have been posting on here.

Many pages back you said that you didn't know anyone who had the virus or anyone that had died of it.

Well your a lucky man indeed.

If/when you are unfortunate enough to know someone.who has lost their life due to the virus, perhaps your view will change.
Until then, keep copying and pasting, it clearly makes you feel better.

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:29 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote: Suggesting that "questioning very strongly" whether something is infectious is different to saying it isn't infectious is, ironically, a smokescreen, as it is very much saying, "infectious - I doubt that". The overwhelming evidence is that is that is infectious. If you don't accept that as a proven fact, your views on everything else can be viewed in that context. Again, you get your wires wrong when you talk about a reset. For the reset to work, it has to be by design, which means that it is a thought out plan, which means it requires a highly infectious disease for it to work, which means you are wrong to question strongly the whole basis of the reset. If, however, the major capitalist nations are having to rethink their economies because of an unplanned, highly infectious pandemic, that is common sense. The countries are in economic turmoil with mounting debts. Of course they'll have a rethink of how they do things. They've no choice. But generally, you're putting things the wrong way round. The questions are: 1. Was it a pre-determined plan? Or 2. Is is a worldwide response to unforeseen circumstances? If the first, the disease has to be highly infectious for the plan to work, even though you strongly question it. And it has to work without anyone breaking ranks, for their own economic advantage, which is highly unlikely, particularly as the country on the economic front-foot appears to be China. If the second, things are just what they are, with no hidden agenda. And we all know it's the second. Although the authorities haven't counted on a bloke from Wakefield with an internet connection..... You say: Suggesting that "questioning very strongly" whether something is infectious is different to saying it isn't infectious is, ironically, a smokescreen, as it is very much saying, "infectious - I doubt that". And the key phase I used is “I may have questioned it very strongly” Indicating that I have come to a decision since. You, looking at your criticism of me for doing so appear, on the other hand not to have questioned it. Very bad form there Slugger, question everything is my advice. Therefore, in light of the above your comment “. If you don't accept that as a proven fact, your views on everything else can be viewed in that context. “ Is without foundation. You say: “For the reset to work, it has to be by design, which means that it is a thought out plan, which means it requires a highly infectious disease for it to work, which means you are wrong to question strongly the whole basis of the reset. “ I shall give you a highly infectious disease, it's influenza..Now Corona flu comes in many forms but nevertheless it's out there, always will be, and can be used by any powerful group for it's own ends. They can even call it a fancy name should they choose and have Gates paid scientists to give it one. Granted, that's a very simplistic explanation but you will have to go back in the thread to see an elaboration. And as you indicate, you probably haven't questioned it yourself, you being an ordinary bloke from “over there” I mean, how dare you? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/types.htm You ask: “Was it a pre determined plan?” Well, it was certainly planned at least as far back as October 2019. But wait, was it an exercise ? The plan I mean. That's the million dollar question. Can you answer the question? I do mean answer it, not “well it probably was” No, the actual answer. Now, you may say “well how do you know then” But first things first. Your answer please. Have I missed anything?

Slugger McBatt wrote: Suggesting that "questioning very strongly" whether something is infectious is different to saying it isn't infectious is, ironically, a smokescreen, as it is very much saying, "infectious - I doubt that". The overwhelming evidence is that is that is infectious. If you don't accept that as a proven fact, your views on everything else can be viewed in that context. Again, you get your wires wrong when you talk about a reset. For the reset to work, it has to be by design, which means that it is a thought out plan, which means it requires a highly infectious disease for it to work, which means you are wrong to question strongly the whole basis of the reset. If, however, the major capitalist nations are having to rethink their economies because of an unplanned, highly infectious pandemic, that is common sense. The countries are in economic turmoil with mounting debts. Of course they'll have a rethink of how they do things. They've no choice. But generally, you're putting things the wrong way round. The questions are: 1. Was it a pre-determined plan? Or 2. Is is a worldwide response to unforeseen circumstances? If the first, the disease has to be highly infectious for the plan to work, even though you strongly question it. And it has to work without anyone breaking ranks, for their own economic advantage, which is highly unlikely, particularly as the country on the economic front-foot appears to be China. If the second, things are just what they are, with no hidden agenda. And we all know it's the second. Although the authorities haven't counted on a bloke from Wakefield with an internet connection..... You say: Suggesting that "questioning very strongly" whether something is infectious is different to saying it isn't infectious is, ironically, a smokescreen, as it is very much saying, "infectious - I doubt that". And the key phase I used is “I may have questioned it very strongly” Indicating that I have come to a decision since. You, looking at your criticism of me for doing so appear, on the other hand not to have questioned it. Very bad form there Slugger, question everything is my advice. Therefore, in light of the above your comment “. If you don't accept that as a proven fact, your views on everything else can be viewed in that context. “ Is without foundation. You say: “For the reset to work, it has to be by design, which means that it is a thought out plan, which means it requires a highly infectious disease for it to work, which means you are wrong to question strongly the whole basis of the reset. “ I shall give you a highly infectious disease, it's influenza..Now Corona flu comes in many forms but nevertheless it's out there, always will be, and can be used by any powerful group for it's own ends. They can even call it a fancy name should they choose and have Gates paid scientists to give it one. Granted, that's a very simplistic explanation but you will have to go back in the thread to see an elaboration. And as you indicate, you probably haven't questioned it yourself, you being an ordinary bloke from “over there” I mean, how dare you? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/types.htm You ask: “Was it a pre determined plan?” Well, it was certainly planned at least as far back as October 2019. But wait, was it an exercise ? The plan I mean. That's the million dollar question. Can you answer the question? I do mean answer it, not “well it probably was” No, the actual answer. Now, you may say “well how do you know then” But first things first. Your answer please. Have I missed anything?

Re: What now for fans watching ? - Covid chat : Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:44 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Are you now saying that only people with guns are dangerous and that a virus that could kill you isn't. ?

You clearly have too much time on your hands or, perhaps you are part of a group that doles out the kind of stuff that you have been posting on here.

Many pages back you said that you didn't know anyone who had the virus or anyone that had died of it.

Well your a lucky man indeed.

If/when you are unfortunate enough to know someone.who has lost their life due to the virus, perhaps your view will change.
Until then, keep copying and pasting, it clearly makes you feel better.

Yes, I have time on my hands today

You ask:
"Are you now saying that only people with guns are dangerous and that a virus that could kill you isn't. ?"

No, we are talking people debating using words, not even threats. That is rather different to a guy online threatening to come around and shoot you with a gun.

So I'm just lucky am I? And most of the people I meet, are they just lucky too?
And all those people online who say the same, are they just lucky?
Maybe myself and all the folk I meet are part of the 99.9% Not surprising we know no one.
Sorry, I can't change that. It's just fact not a viewpoint in any shape or form.

The .1% and their families have my sympathy, of course they do. But even they would be happy that no one in my acquaintance have died. You on the other hand appear to resent that. Strange.

Disclaimer...the above was not copied and pasted.
In future wrencat, any evidence, good or bad, I come across I shall re type it all. Now, I would need "time on my hands".