Covid-19 response

bulkbiker said:
Then again Health Nerd has been pushing jabs, masks and multiple other pro govt propaganda for the past 3 years.
Click to expand...
Mostly he's been looking at preprints and papers and similar promoting Ivermectin, HCQ, Vitamin-D and so on and pointing out their errors. (In a non-trivial proportion of cases the preprints were withdrawn and papers retracted. In some cases because the alleged trials never actually happened.)

I haven't seen him particularly promoting vaccines, masks, or anything else. I'm sure he does support those when the evidence supports them; it's just not something I've noticed him writing about.
bulkbiker said:
Maybe he just doesn't like being outed.
Click to expand...
I think the simpler explanation is that he enjoys pointing out errors in papers.
 
Amity Island said:
One may wonder, if they could of instead just advised people who are sick to stay home as a means to reduce transmission to help the nhs, then why did they lockdown, turf the elderly out, close businesses, impose social distancing, masks, furlough, business loans, ruin the nhs for everyone, cancel essential hospital appointments, close schools, testing, covid passports, test and trace, put the country into billions of debt? And ignore natural immunity?

The answer provided by fauci was

"Lockdowns are to get people vaccinated"
Click to expand...
For me one of the most interesting things was the early official reactions that were quite sober - Whitty gave an early presentation that set out the true level of risk (much better known than is credited) before everything spiralled off into hysteria.
 
JohnnyRam said:
For me one of the most interesting things was the early official reactions that were quite sober - Whitty gave an early presentation that set out the true level of risk (much better known than is credited) before everything spiralled off into hysteria.
Click to expand...
It was his statement I followed and to this day still think it was a fair assessment.

Chris Whitty- Government Daily Briefing 11/05/2020.

“A significant proportion of people will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all- asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens.

Of those that get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80%, will have a mild or moderate disease,-might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have go to the doctor.

An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen, and will then will leave hospital, and then a minority of those will end up have to go to severe and critical care, and some of those sadly will die, but that’s a minority, it’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall, and even in the higher risk group..Uh..this will be significantly less than 20% i.e. the great majority, even the very highest groups, if they catch the virus will not die”
 
Interview about natural immunity (which was bascially ignored during the pandemic by those leading the response) with the chap who headed the institiute which funded the Wuhan Lab. The lab was carrying out coronavirus research (aka gain of function (how to make viruses more dangerous)), the same chap back in 11th Jan 2017 who had no doubts about a global pandemic "surprise" during Trumps administration.


 
Last edited:
Breaking News. U.S. House coronavirus committee trying to establish why the public were lied to.

Such great lengths were made to cover this up. The Lancet also joined in with their statement.

"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin"


https://twitter.com/x/status/1230060677588451328
 
nonethewiser said:
At start they said likely cause of virus was from bats didn't they?
Click to expand...
@nonethewiser @everydayupsanddowns

Please watch the 5min clip from the US committee hearing, or if you haven't got 5 mins just skip to 4mins onwards in the video. It's clear what the top people were dicussiing amongst themselves (private emails etc) believed about the origin (man made) wasn't what they told the public (wildlife).


1:12:49 Robert Redfield, former CDC director: "I think there's no doubt that NIH was funding gain of function research." "Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain of function research that created this virus?" (SARS-CoV-2) Redfield: "I think it did, and not only from NIH, but the state department, USAID and from DOD."

It's all in here if you have time to listen to the select sub-committee hearing below.


Or if you haven't got 2.5hrs see 1min clip below.

 
The Lancet disagrees.

"Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent...overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife"

I'm happy to wait until the scientific consensus shifts tbh. There's too much vested political interest in the US government discussions for me to get any clarity.
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
I'm happy to wait until the scientific consensus shifts tbh. There's too much vested political interest in the US government discussions for me to get any clarity.
Click to expand...
I think it has been shifting, and perhaps that Lancet article (the one from early 2020) was a bit too confident for the time. But it really seems to have been shifting more strongly towards two spillovers in that market.

There's a good discussion on Decoding the Gurus (episode 67), either in your favourite podcast app or here: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-worobey-andersen-holmes-the-lab-leak

It's very much not a balanced discussion between both sides; it's three scientists who (now) believe strongly it's a spillover talking at length with each other, being questioned by non-experts.
 
Yes I've sensed the picture might be shifting somewhat - but I don’t have any skin in the game of proving it was something made deliberately in China, vs something that naturally hopped species in China - before spreading worldwide.

I guess I‘m just not that interested in its origins right now? And I’m happy for the picture to clarify over time through expert scientific discussion, and any potential ramifications from that clarification to unfold.
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
And I’m happy for the picture to clarify over time through expert scientific discussion, and any potential ramifications from that clarification to unfold.
Click to expand...
They are trying to establish why in private they (but excluded the head of the CDC!) were considering lab leak and natural origin, but in public making unequivocal statements and publishing a paper (the scientific journal Nature Medicine published March 17 titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”) stating it is of natural origin.

He submitted the peer-reviewed paper to Nature Medicine on February 12, 2020 with a cover email reading, 'There has been a lot of speculation, fear-mongering and conspiracies put forward in this space.

Fauci told the public at a white house news conference, that "a" report showed that it was of natural origin. What he didn't say was that he commissioned "that" same paper and edited it. Nor did he say that the NIAID (which he was head of at the time) was also funding the Lab adjacent to where the outbreak began.


www.dailymail.co.uk

Dr. Fauci commissioned a paper to disprove COVID leaked from a lab

Dr Anthony Fauci commissioned and edited the report he cited to disprove the lab leak theory, House Republicans found.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:
everydayupsanddowns said:
The Lancet are saying the source of the virus was wildlife.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1233529669166751745

I haven’t watched the ‘lied to’ vid.
Click to expand...
Like most people I think who really knows? But I am inclined to be suspicious when the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is raised defensively. It was coined by the CIA to discredit people who questioned the official narrative on the assassination of JFK. These were people who doubted that a bullet could turn a corner in mid-flight, yet that remains the official story. There is nothing weird about questioning official narratives, nor is there anything unusual or strange about those narratives being full of holes, or containing vested interests. Challenging them is an uncomfortable but essential part of an open society, and over recent years too man6 journalists have failed to lead that challenge.
 
JohnnyRam said:
Like most people I think who really knows? But I am inclined to be suspicious when the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is raised defensively. It was coined by the CIA to discredit people who questioned the official narrative on the assassination of JFK. These were people who doubted that a bullet could turn a corner in mid-flight, yet that remains the official story. There is nothing weird about questioning official narratives, nor is there anything unusual or strange about those narratives being full of holes, or containing vested interests. Challenging them is an uncomfortable but essential part of an open society, and over recent years too man6 journalists have failed to lead that challenge.
Click to expand...

I quite agree. Though unfortunately things have evolved such that there are vested interests concealed on all sides, and disinformation has become actively and enthusiastically created and distributed for all manner of reasons. Some simply financial (down to an individual level), others political (including internationally and state sponsored acts), and even, sadly, just out of malice.

So now everything has to be doubted and questioned, and you struggle to believe any of it. Just because something is compellingly ‘revealed’ that runs against the official or mainstream narrative does not guarantee that it is not entirely made up or simply a willing distortion and misrepresentation of the facts to suit a particular narrative. Nor is it guaranteed that the official version isn’t a twist of the truth with an agenda behind it.

As you say, high quality investigative journalism is sorely needed.
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
I quite agree. Though unfortunately things have evolved such that there are vested interests concealed on all sides, and disinformation has become actively and enthusiastically created and distributed for all manner of reasons. Some simply financial (down to an individual level), others political (including internationally and state sponsored acts), and even, sadly, just out of malice.

So now everything has to be doubted and questioned, and you struggle to believe any of it. Just because something is compellingly ‘revealed’ that runs against the official or mainstream narrative does not guarantee that it is not entirely made up or simply a willing distortion and misrepresentation of the facts to suit a particular narrative. Nor is it guaranteed that the official version isn’t a twist of the truth with an agenda behind it.

As you say, high quality investigative journalism is sorely needed.
Click to expand...
Mike, you've changed your tune. You've always been counter everything i've posted on this subject. Never once have you agreed or even been on the fence. Always posting contrary ( as @Bruce Stephens does) stories or opinion to the one I post, like the lancet opinion piece.
 
Amity Island said:
Mike, you've changed your tune. You've always been counter everything i've posted on this subject. Never once have you agreed or even been on the fence. Always posting contrary ( as @Bruce Stephens does) stories or opinion to the one I post, like the lancet opinion piece.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I’ve always tried to take a balanced view, and go with the majority evidence that is available at the time. And also accept that our understanding may change and improve as more information becomes available.

If I have shared sources or links that offer an alternative (more mainstream) viewpoint to sources or links you have shared it has been with the intention of widening the ‘echo chamber‘ to try to find the majority position. Which is also what I see @Bruce Stephens trying to do.

I was struck by something in the video @Eddy Edson shared about seed oils the other day - where one study found something that wasn’t found in the majority of other studies. If you only share that one study (peer reviewed… published evidence… blah blah) you can create one impression of the subject. But when you view that one study in the context of 5 or 6 larger studies that don’t find that same result, then your understanding improves and you may reach the opposite conclusion.
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
Not at all.
Click to expand...
Not at all? Everytime Mike. I say this, you say the opposite. Not once do I remember you saying perhaps, or that maybe the case, or "I quite agree", or post something to back up what I have said. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems you and @Bruce Stephens only post contrary responses to my posts. I'm not upset by that, but just stating a fact.

I say A or B you say "C"

I try to say how important the difference is between a "positive" sarscov2 test and actually having a case of covid19. You say "I don't find the technicalities between infection with sars cov 2 and 'actual' covid 19 as being particularly crucial". Mike how can it be a covid19 case or death if they had never had covid19 ie no symptoms?

I say lockdowns are harmful -- which they clearly are, you could of just simply not said nothing or agreed, as it was a truthful and blatantly accurate statement. Instead, you respond, "New Zealand’s all cause mortality was lower during the lockdowns than it was in the years before the pandemic".

I post virus came from lab, you post a Lancet opinion saying the opposite, that it came from nature.
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
Q. How many animals at the market tested positive?
A. None.
Click to expand...
How many samples from the lab tested positive? In both cases, how much should we be surprised?

I'm not saying I know the answers to any of those questions. Just that experts who do have relevant expertise (because they've worked on viruses and on tracing outbreaks) mostly think the lab leak is no longer a good bet. (Including some who originally thought a lab leak was a definite possibility.)

Now, maybe they've been leant on by Fauci but they say not (that the suggestion is just silly) or that they're worried about continued funding (but they say that's also silly, that different researches have a range of different funding sources).

I described the hosts of that podcast as non-experts (which they are in this field) but they're academics, one being an anthropologist and the other a psychologist (so they're aware of incentives in academia) and they point out that holding some controversial view (if you can give evidence) is really valuable academically. The retraction crisis in psychology was revealed by psychologists (and it's done them no harm at all).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top