Group of doctors claim pandemic is a sham

[stereologist]

On 11/4/2020 at 1:59 AM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

There are dozens of reports in the link I've posted.

You can't be bothered to read anything that doesn't support your already outdated views.

The science is increasingly turning away from the propaganda messaging and realising that they are wrong in their pursuit of masks and lcokdown in what is a fast transmitting, tragic but otherwise seasonally normal virus. 

The team that the UK government use to help aid their decisions has a woeful record in these areas. In fact, wrong every time.

History doesn't repeat itself but it chimes rather well.

Now read the evidence. I've posted a useful link in a previous post. I've made sure it is very, very easy to follow to match your intellect, intelligence and EQ.

Perhaps if you read and listen you can explain why you don't think they're correct. 

As I suspected you lied. It was obvious form the start that you lied about the sources.

I will red it if it exists but as you and I both know you lied and there are no sources for you to provide.

There really isn't any need for you to continue with your lie. Everyone and I mean everyone reading this thread knows you lied. If you actually had something you would have posted it and yelled gotcha, but you lied - there is nothing for you to post.

 

[stereologist]

On 11/4/2020 at 9:42 AM, InconceivableThoughts said:

How am I the problem? Each person can control if they are infected. The problem is people going around not caring if they get infected. It is so easy to not be infected. If infected its because the individual is at fault, not the the already infected. Precaution is everything when trying to stop this virus. If an individual is not then they are more likely do catch it. How is that hard to understand? Not holding the individual accoutable is the problem. 

Your statement is only partially correct. It is not just a matter of each person controlling if they are infected, but also dealing with people who are infected and don't care as they go out and infect people.

The issue is not as simple as you would like to present: "If infected its because the individual is at fault, not the the already infected. " Let's say you are trying to be careful and are at the supermarket and before you know it I walk up behind you and despite your best efforts I callously cough inches behind your back. Does that make you at fault or me at fault?

I do agree with you that each person should make a best effort at avoiding the virus, but as I pointed out you run into the self serving jerk that knows they are infected and either doesn't care or goes out to see how many people they can infect.

[stereologist]

On 11/4/2020 at 11:55 AM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

I have.

I've given the links to over 25 peer-reviewed articles. And then some emerging articles for good measure and also to reflect that there are clearer thinking scientists who can interpret data within its context.

These include many reviews stretching, in some cases, to over four decades.

You, on the other than, have nothing but short term dataset based articles.

So when you're ready, come back with your piffle lightweight data assumptions and then let me have a look.

Point out your best because no one believes you. Point out the specific parts of the papers are relevant to your claims.

I don't believe anything you are stating. How hard can that be to show us that you have the credible evidence?

[stereologist]

On 11/4/2020 at 2:44 PM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

There's an interesting and useful guy on YouTube that'll save you a bunch of time. He's done some great research based in journals and white papers and research. He's Ivor Cummins, Google him and covid. He's pretty much on the money.

 

I think you got this baloney story of yours from him didn't you and that is why you can't point anything out to us.

So far you have struck out repeatedly. And pointing to youtube just tells me you lied about the papers.

[stereologist]

On 11/4/2020 at 6:50 PM, SKINWALKER19 said:

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee guys n gals !

Useless points, completely useless.

The genetic sequence of this virus has been studied and compared since at least mid January. You are nearly 10 months behind.

SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus. That is well established. 

Just because you are clueless about how virologists do their work does not any bearing on how real scientists do their work. 

Your wee issues here have been addressed by real scientists for over half a century. You should take a basic course in virology if you want to point out actual issues in research instead of the goofy long ago solved issues you think real scientists missed.

[stereologist]

On 11/4/2020 at 9:32 PM, ian hacktorp said:

From today:

November 4, 2020
COVID testing: We've been duped

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/covid_testing_weve_been_duped.html#.X6KqmfXp_Ek.mailto

Junk from a filth outlet. 

More garbage from political wingnuts. How droll.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 

I think you got this baloney story of yours from him didn't you and that is why you can't point anything out to us.

So far you have struck out repeatedly. And pointing to youtube just tells me you lied about the papers.

What have you offered?

I've read a great deal of reports, articles, white papers and asked the questions. 

I then find a guy asking similar questions and offer it to you as it is at a level that you might be bale to grasp.

No wonder over 40,000 recognised scientists globally agree with me. 

You offer nothing but media-led headlines.

Get real. Get wise. Read. Think. Point to your basis for your stance, like I've done. You need to find something credible.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

On 11/5/2020 at 12:44 PM, Setton said:

Sadly, only if the source can be trusted. Otherwise it's the quickest way to misunderstanding.

I have no reason to trust an unqualified stranger on YouTube except your word, another unqualified stranger.

See if you were actually familiar with scientific literature, you'd know that they all link together. If you give me a couple of key studies, I can follow up on the articles they have cited and been cited in.

And yet he remains an unqualified stranger on YouTube.

I have no doubt you can find one of those to support any claim.

Peer reviewed research though? Not quite so easy.

You do realise that in the time you've written these posts, you could have just posted the articles you claim to be so familiar with?

You sound desperate.

Where's your links to papers?

[OpenMindedSceptic]

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Point out your best because no one believes you. Point out the specific parts of the papers are relevant to your claims.

I don't believe anything you are stating. How hard can that be to show us that you have the credible evidence?

Put up your evidence. You're about to be trounced.

[stereologist]

On 11/5/2020 at 7:39 AM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

The videos condense quite a weight of evidenced base research. It is the quickest way to get up to speed.

You're asking me to then highlight short bits and pieces for some sort of online critique. Errrrm, no. You need to read all the evidence first. You need to read quite bit to catch up. 

As for Ivor Cummins being an unqualified stranger. He's actually pieces the evidence together extremely coherently. I've only just stumbled upon him but he'd have saved so much time. He has even put the research into a Dropbox folder. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Many of his videos are short, most under an hour. 

It backs up what I've been saying here.

Lockdowns have negligible impact.

Masks are a bit of a farce.

This is a seasonal virus.

The pandemic finished months ago.

The dreaded consequences are within a normal range.

The sheer vandalism of society by politicians in most countries round the world understand guise of protection from the virus is criminal.

I love this stupidity: "The pandemic finished months ago."

Do you really think that is the case. LOL. That just reveals what a nutcase you are using. Below is a the total cases worldwide and as we see the graph is getting ever steeper.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/#total-cases

[stereologist]

On 11/5/2020 at 12:10 PM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

The material is in the videos. There is a whole load of studies and papers that are downloadable. He quotes the link in nearly every video.

 

If you can't be bothered then, what have you been relying on to say that what I've said is wrong? After all I only need a few key studies.

Thanks in advance 

So you now admit that you didn't post what you claimed? 

Thank you for admitting that you never posted what you claimed to have posted.

And no one is going to watch some dumb youtube video to look for what you can't be bothered to post.

At least you are pointing out that you lied about posting some papers.

[stereologist]

23 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

I've found an accessible condensed location to access the material.

You have provided precisely nothing. 

You don't have anything do you.

You made the claim. You have now pointed out that you lied about the things you posted.

That was obvious and now you want people to go off on some wild goose chase to cover up the fact you lied.

 

 

[OpenMindedSceptic]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So you now admit that you didn't post what you claimed? 

Thank you for admitting that you never posted what you claimed to have posted.

And no one is going to watch some dumb youtube video to look for what you can't be bothered to post.

At least you are pointing out that you lied about posting some papers.

I never admitted that. Read it again.

Then put up your evidence.

You are about to be trounced.

Edited November 6, 2020 by OpenMindedSceptic
Aid readability for slow readers

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Then don't bother yourself and don't read the tons of research that I've sent the links for and remain in your localised heavily censored datasets. 

Good day.

You lied about posting the research which is why you are not able to show us something and pull a gotcha on us.

 

[OpenMindedSceptic]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You made the claim. You have now pointed out that you lied about the things you posted.

That was obvious and now you want people to go off on some wild goose chase to cover up the fact you lied.

 

 

Your evidence now please.

You're about to be trounced.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I love this stupidity: "The pandemic finished months ago."

Do you really think that is the case. LOL. That just reveals what a nutcase you are using. Below is a the total cases worldwide and as we see the graph is getting ever steeper.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/#total-cases

Why are you counting cumulative number of cases? Is that it? That's all you've got? I ask for evidence, you post one poxy, irrelevant graph? 

Jeez.

[stereologist]

11 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

What have you offered?

I've read a great deal of reports, articles, white papers and asked the questions. 

I then find a guy asking similar questions and offer it to you as it is at a level that you might be bale to grasp.

No wonder over 40,000 recognised scientists globally agree with me. 

You offer nothing but media-led headlines.

Get real. Get wise. Read. Think. Point to your basis for your stance, like I've done. You need to find something credible.

Why would I believe any of this crapola you posted here when it is clear you lied about posting the research?

Here is a rather inane lie on your part: "You offer nothing but media-led headlines."

You clearly have a problem with being truthful. You are not open minded. You are not a skeptic. 

I have read many articles and posted those articles in various threads. You have done nothing but be untruthful

 

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

You sound desperate.

Where's your links to papers?

The burden is on you to support your stance. No one needs to provide evidence to show that you are wrong.

It is up to each claimant to support their own stance and you have lied and lied about having such evidence.

 

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Put up your evidence. You're about to be trounced.

The burden is on you to support your stance. No one needs to provide evidence to show that you are wrong.

It is up to each claimant to support their own stance and you have lied and lied about having such evidence.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

Just now, stereologist said:

The burden is on you to support your stance. No one needs to provide evidence to show that you are wrong.

It is up to each claimant to support their own stance and you have lied and lied about having such evidence.

 

I have. I even posted the links. Over 25 peer reviewed papers. Backing up what over 40,000 scientists are saying. 

You mustered up one graph. One irrelevant graph. One poxy graph. 

Lol

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

I never admitted that. Read it again.

Then put up your evidence.

You are about to be trounced.

You lied. End of story. There is no question anymore that you lied and have been caught lying.

Due to your early teen years I will let you in on a simple idea. 

Don't stick to the lie. The smart thing would have been to drop it.

[stereologist]

Just now, OpenMindedSceptic said:

I have. I even posted the links. Over 25 peer reviewed papers. Backing up what over 40,000 scientists are saying. 

You mustered up one graph. One irrelevant graph. One poxy graph. 

Lol

Liar. You have nothing. If you did you could post it. You have not which shows you are a liar.

[ian hacktorp]

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Junk from a filth outlet. 

More garbage from political wingnuts. How droll.

If insults were facts, you might have a leg to stand on.

Sadly, you're intellectually confined to a wheelchair...

[stereologist]

I post evidence to support my case and the liar continues their lie. How bizarre is that? Well, I guess that matches up with them being a teenager.

[stereologist]

Just now, ian hacktorp said:

If insults were facts, you might have a leg to stand on.

Sadly, you're intellectually confined to a wheelchair...

Sadly, you post nothing but useless political garbage from your filth outlets