Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Dr Robert Malone interview on Joe Rogan podcast


RavenHawk

Recommended Posts

Quote

So to repeat, the first lie was Fauci’s denial that covid did not escape from the Wuhan lab.  That’s been documented.

Raven, you forgot to cite the reference/s.  See right there where you said "That's been documented"?  Here's the thing, this is a discussion forum.  You just said this was documented and normal folks, when they say that, well, it's pretty obvious what you have to do - so they LINK or QUOTE the documents.  Preferably both.  I guess you just forgot.  Happens to the best of us...

Quote

The next was that Fauci was not funding gain of function at Wuhan.  Again, it’s been document through the NIH.

Oh Dearie, Dearie me.  You forgot AGAIN!!  Silly you.  What a bad day you must be having.  Gosh. Darn.

Quote

Another one is his denial of having financial interests in these experimental drugs.

WHOOPSIES, there you go AGAIN!  My, Raven, maybe you need to get a secretary to help you..?  Just so I can help, you need to quote exactly what Fauci said, and give your source.  It's the same problem as the two others above.

I'm sure you'll work it out.

And I'm also sure you don't want us to go looking for what you are claiming, as we'll probably cheat right?

 

So, fix the problem, would you?  Much appreciated, I thank you in advance.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

Raven, you forgot to cite the reference/s.  See right there where you said "That's been documented"?  Here's the thing, this is a discussion forum.  You just said this was documented and normal folks, when they say that, well, it's pretty obvious what you have to do - so they LINK or QUOTE the documents.  Preferably both.  I guess you just forgot.  Happens to the best of us...

 

I didn't check the National Enquirer, Veritas or Breitbart. Could be documented on those toilet rolls. Falsely of course. If the truth is omitted I bet it's been documented on Facebook too. 

Not sure we and RH use the same definition regarding the term 'documented'. It's been documented I'm sure, but not anywhere that counts or relies on accuracy.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Raven, you forgot to cite the reference/s.  See right there where you said "That's been documented"?  Here's the thing, this is a discussion forum.  You just said this was documented and normal folks, when they say that, well, it's pretty obvious what you have to do - so they LINK or QUOTE the documents.  Preferably both.  I guess you just forgot.  Happens to the best of us...

Oh Dearie, Dearie me.  You forgot AGAIN!!  Silly you.  What a bad day you must be having.  Gosh. Darn.

WHOOPSIES, there you go AGAIN!  My, Raven, maybe you need to get a secretary to help you..?  Just so I can help, you need to quote exactly what Fauci said, and give your source.  It's the same problem as the two others above.

I'm sure you'll work it out.

And I'm also sure you don't want us to go looking for what you are claiming, as we'll probably cheat right?

 

So, fix the problem, would you?  Much appreciated, I thank you in advance.

Now, to end your turn, you can draw two cards from the top of the Excuses Pile.

I won't spoonfeed you

You'd just reject any source I provide

 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Now, to end your turn, you can draw two cards from the top of the Excuses Pile.

I won't spoonfeed you

You'd just reject any source I provide

Here's a few quick hints for Ravenhawk, if s/he goes down either or both paths...

1. I don't usually ask questions or invite references on topics that I don't know pretty well.  So whatever might have been offered as spoonfood, I will have seen.

2. When I say 'seen', that means I've looked at it IN CONTEXT and IN DETAIL.

3. I won't simply reject sources. As above, I'll be looking at what those sources claim and whether it is demonstrably correct.  Or not.

 

I look forward to intelligent debate and finding the truth.  And I love learning, so I'm so ready to be schooled!  I trust the other side feels the same.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are waiting, I'll repeat another similar request from a few days back ...

On 1/15/2022 at 9:22 AM, ChrLzs said:

@and then, I know you're a little bit challenged, but I didn't ask for an opinion piece, or someone else's interpretation.

QUOTE Fauci lying.  So we can look at the entire context.

QUOTE.  Q U O T E.  Check a dictionary for the meaning of the word.  Show us what he actually said and CITE it.

The actual words.  The alleged lie/s...

@and then you seem to have abandoned what you earlier thought was a rather important thread...  Remember a page back when I asked you to quote the Fauci lie you were claiming, and you got all uppity and insulting and then, INSTEAD of quoting Fauci, you quoted Rand Paul?

To me, that reeks of dishonesty.   So, here's a reminder (and @RavenHawkappears to be in need of a bit of backup..)

QUOTE the Fauci lie, in other words, tell us what he said, and where you are quoting from.  It's really a very easy thing to do - indeed you should have done it at the time you made the claim - and it is a rather fundamental and ontopic request.  You don't need to give context, I'll do that, don't you worry...

I can only think of one real reason why you won't do as asked...  And think of the plaudits you'll get if you are right.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 7:43 PM, Manwon Lender said:
  • That's kind of strange statement, the only thing that makes this a Complex Dissertation is you lack of knowledge on subject! 

Is that all you’ve got?  Attack the messenger?  You can’t believe in the plain truth when it is right in front of your face because you’re brainwashed by the MSM.

 

Quote

You claim the vaccinations are killing more people than they save, do you have have a source ANY SOURCE to prove that comment?

There’s VAERS.  But if you want more, just give it time.  With each and every booster.

 

Quote

Anyway, I know you never supply sources because you make up your information as you type it, so to be plain your comments above are pure BS, nothing more.

No, I don’t make up my own information.  I surmise from the available data.  I am under no obligation to provide you with links to satisfy some sick unnatural fetish.  If I provide a link, then it’s because *I’ve* determined that it is necessary and proper.  No one ever said that you have to agree.  You just have to deal with it.  This is a casual forum.  If you want to know more then research it.

 

Quote

Next you say twice as many have died in 2021 after the vaccines became available than in all of 2020. That's correct but again the substance of your comments are not mentioned.

That is the substance of my comment.  I am just restating the data.  In 13 months with several of those months that had no vaccine available, under Trump, about 400k perished.  in 12 months with vaccines, 450k have died.  According to the Prick’s own words, he needs to resign.  Wasn't it him that said he would shutdown this virus and now it's up to the states, yet he still pushes edicts through the state (regime)-police?

 

Quote

1.  It took until late 2020 for the Virus to spread to all corners of the globe.

And?  It was here in our corner perhaps as early has Nov/Dec of 2019.  People’s innate immune system was fighting this long before we were aware of it.  It was here as soon as Pandora's Box was opened.

 

Quote

2.  Then starting in late 2021 all the mutations started occurring and this multiplied the number of infections by 100 plus do the infectious nature of these mutations.

The mutations didn’t start to take off until people started getting vaxed in masse.

 

Quote

3.  The Americans who have been dying in droves since the Vaccines came out are the unvaccinated. Since June 2021, a 163,000 Americans died from SARS-Cov-2.

Do you know why?  Because if you are not fully vaxed (with all the shots), you are considered unvaccinated.  Plus the vaccines are weakening people’s immune system, making them vulnerable to other diseases.  Which adds multiple comorbidities.

 

Quote

4. Statistically the mortality rate between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated will never reach 50 / 50 simply because the unvaccinated are dying at approximately 12% mortality rate compared to a approximate mortality rate of 1.8 to 2.3% for the vaccinated. In reality and sadly if things do not change drastically over the next 2 years there will be no Unvaccinated to compare the vaccinated too!

That’s just the current rate.  In time, it will be increasing exponentially.  You also fail to take into consideration that the majority of the unvaccinated, have natural acquired immunity.  So they are not the ones dying.  That is still landing on the under vaxed. 

 

Quote

Again your falsifying data again you stated and I quote "We’ve had 60m cases and 840k deaths" when according to the CDC   146,585,169 Americans have been infected as of Sept 2021 so that number is much higher, it actually approximately 3 times the figure you quoted. So basically everything you said in the paragraph above is in accurate. It is amazing you are so uninformed!

I think you need to go back and look again.  It’s now 64m cases and 850k deaths.  I don’t know how they are calculating ‘infected’ since they have no records from those that have not been tested.  I would estimate that 330m have been infected. 

 

Quote

Currently they are using many drugs to treat hospitalized patients such as, Antiviral Drugs remdesivir, paxlovid, ritonavir,  molnupiravir.  

In general, the only drug approved as a protocol to treat covid is Remdesivir.  And that causes renal failure.  The others can have serious side effects too.  They are used to treat HIV by preventing HIV from replicating.  It doesn’t kill the virus.  And they are for early treatment in mild cases, so it’s not widespread since by the time someone is admitted, it is not early or mild.  In HIV, this cocktail, they replace the person’s immune system with an artificial one, which opens the individual up to other disease.  Now the risk factor for AIDs patients is probably acceptable, in a disease like covid where you have an over 98% survivability rate, the risk is too great.  These drugs are also under a EUA, which means that if there are available alternate treatments, these cannot be used.  Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are still effective and much cheaper.  The Administration can not hide that.

 

Quote

Drugs for Immune based therapy asirivimab, imdevimab, bamlanivimab, etesevimab.  

These are names for Regeneron (monoclonal antibodies).  Not everyone gets them.  You have to go to the hospital (outpatient) to get it.  And you have to have comorbidities before they take you.  The feds are also restricting distribution of it.

 

Quote

Plus many others, so again your information is inaccurate does it ever end, I have an idea do some research and stop making things up.

yawn….  You just keep believing that, please!

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Is that all you’ve got?  Attack the messenger?  You can’t believe in the plain truth when it is right in front of your face because you’re brainwashed by the MSM.

 

There’s VAERS.  But if you want more, just give it time.  With each and every booster.

 

No, I don’t make up my own information.  I surmise from the available data.  I am under no obligation to provide you with links to satisfy some sick unnatural fetish.  If I provide a link, then it’s because *I’ve* determined that it is necessary and proper.  No one ever said that you have to agree.  You just have to deal with it.  This is a casual forum.  If you want to know more then research it.

 

That is the substance of my comment.  I am just restating the data.  In 13 months with several of those months that had no vaccine available, under Trump, about 400k perished.  in 12 months with vaccines, 450k have died.  According to the Prick’s own words, he needs to resign.  Wasn't it him that said he would shutdown this virus and now it's up to the states, yet he still pushes edicts through the state (regime)-police?

 

And?  It was here in our corner perhaps as early has Nov/Dec of 2019.  People’s innate immune system was fighting this long before we were aware of it.  It was here as soon as Pandora's Box was opened.

 

The mutations didn’t start to take off until people started getting vaxed in masse.

 

Do you know why?  Because if you are not fully vaxed (with all the shots), you are considered unvaccinated.  Plus the vaccines are weakening people’s immune system, making them vulnerable to other diseases.  Which adds multiple comorbidities.

 

That’s just the current rate.  In time, it will be increasing exponentially.  You also fail to take into consideration that the majority of the unvaccinated, have natural acquired immunity.  So they are not the ones dying.  That is still landing on the under vaxed. 

 

I think you need to go back and look again.  It’s now 64m cases and 850k deaths.  I don’t know how they are calculating ‘infected’ since they have no records from those that have not been tested.  I would estimate that 330m have been infected. 

 

In general, the only drug approved as a protocol to treat covid is Remdesivir.  And that causes renal failure.  The others can have serious side effects too.  They are used to treat HIV by preventing HIV from replicating.  It doesn’t kill the virus.  And they are for early treatment in mild cases, so it’s not widespread since by the time someone is admitted, it is not early or mild.  In HIV, this cocktail, they replace the person’s immune system with an artificial one, which opens the individual up to other disease.  Now the risk factor for AIDs patients is probably acceptable, in a disease like covid where you have an over 98% survivability rate, the risk is too great.  These drugs are also under a EUA, which means that if there are available alternate treatments, these cannot be used.  Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are still effective and much cheaper.  The Administration can not hide that.

 

These are names for Regeneron (monoclonal antibodies).  Not everyone gets them.  You have to go to the hospital (outpatient) to get it.  And you have to have comorbidities before they take you.  The feds are also restricting distribution of it.

 

yawn….  You just keep believing that, please!

 

No source no response, it’s proper to backup your comments and supply a source when asked!:yes:

Everyone on the forum knows you comments are not science based, except you of course and this is why you CANT offer sources.

So please save your POLITICAL RHETORIC for the true believers!:tu:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Here's a few quick hints for Ravenhawk, if s/he goes down either or both paths...

1. I don't usually ask questions or invite references on topics that I don't know pretty well.  So whatever might have been offered as spoonfood, I will have seen.

2. When I say 'seen', that means I've looked at it IN CONTEXT and IN DETAIL.

3. I won't simply reject sources. As above, I'll be looking at what those sources claim and whether it is demonstrably correct.  Or not.

 

I look forward to intelligent debate and finding the truth.  And I love learning, so I'm so ready to be schooled!  I trust the other side feels the same.

Your wasting your time and we both know it ravenhawk can’t provide sources because sources for her comments would only prove her wrong!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a personal observation from anti-vaxers that I have met in my city is that many of them do designer party drugs cooked up in backrooms under questionable conditions are the ones that shout out against the covid vaccine and for some reason want to demand to know what the long term effects are and why they haven't been published.

We had a big problem with oxycontin here where people were dropping dead like flies and yet people still go to pay to by unregulated and poorly mixed drugs for fun and yet seem to think the vax will kill them?:huh:

Edited by jmccr8
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2022 at 12:33 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

That's the thing, what effect is well known and documented?  As we see it's not 'Mass Formation'; if Mass Formation is equivalent to some other concept, then why not use that label? 

The effect that makes populations believe in things and act in ways they normally would not. You should at least listen to him, it could help make critique more relevant.

Quote

Nah, I'll wait for this to be picked up by some more experts.  I'd be curious to hear answers about what I posted earlier in #83: 

"The description of “mass formation psychosis” offered by Malone resembles discredited concepts, such as “mob mentality” and “group mind,” according to John Drury, a social psychologist at the University of Sussex in the U.K. who studies collective behavior. The ideas suggest that “when people form part of a psychological crowd they lose their identities and their self-control; they become suggestible, and primitive instinctive impulses predominate,” he said in an email.

That notion has been discredited by decades of research on crowd behavior, Drury said. “No respectable psychologist agrees with these ideas now,” he said."

 

That isn't a critique of the "Mass Formation" explanation though. It's a critique of Malones understanding of it. I agree he should defer a lot more to Desmet.

Quote

I'd be interested to know the difference between mob mentality/group mind, terms I have heard before, and Mass Formation.

I get the feeling you're further away than Malone is. You seem to be going to some lengths to discredit him, before even knowing what he is saying?

Social conformity and the way people react to perceived authority is more relevant to what he is studying and theorizing about (which can and does happen at least to an extent, subliminally). Though this particular type (Mass Formation) can lead to some awful outcomes. As is the psychology observed in populations that fall into totalitarianism. Did you know that Milgram wanted to know why a population could be persuaded to act in certain ways, as the basis for his experiment?

There was a study quite a while ago that incorporated fMRI into the Asch conformity experiments. It seemed to indicate that while some go along with the "consensus" simply to conform (social acceptance), for a sizeable group it appears that the mind changed the way it perceives reality, to conform. Desmet's ideas are in some ways a highly specific version of social conformity. 

Not to say there isn't still controversy over these experiments themselves and the ideas arising from them, but that in itself doesn't necessarily discredit what he is saying. 

He mentions all sorts of earlier people (Hannah Arendt for example) and their observations and ideas because it gives his own ideas context.

Quote

I seriously do not know what you are referring to here.  I'm wondering at this point that the idea of Mass Formation is relying on first accepting the above stuff about propaganda, which I think is way too vague, and is therefore offering an explanation for it.  I'll admit this comes across as a little too tidy and convenient too, it drifts too close to 'experts who disagree with me are affected by Mass Formation, experts I agree with are being shut down by the ministry of truth'.

'BLM' comes to mind in my country.

Just a small drop from a vast sea of pseudo science and political based nonsense (propaganda)...

Did you know that masks "can help" reduce your chances of getting covid by >80% ? That's according to the director of the CDC in an "ask an expert" tweet. The fact checkers had a day off that day? I wonder how high the rabbits foot scored in that one?

No mention of what type of mask, where it should be worn, where it shouldn't. No links to anything explaining how it should be worn. Unfortunately people listen to this stuff who haven't yet worked out that these health "experts" are either morons or have another agenda. Especially old people who are the most vulnerable and feel very confident while wearing a mask based on such nonsense and behave in ways that increase their risk of catching the disease.

I'd certainly like to see that meta analysis that reached this conclusion, because while I'm sure masks are helpful in the right situation (and I wear one) I think this claim is misleading enough to be idiotic. Common sense tells you they have some effect. Not for couples taking their dog for a walk in a quiet street though. Or the poor paranoid people driving around with them on. Wearing one into a restaurant only to take it off when seated is a great idea though. It's a scientific fact that the virus doesn't spread when seated lol.

I wonder if she read that study in "Nature" that found after a certain time all masks get saturated and effects waned, with cloth mask ending up worse than wearing no mask at all? It's strange that people who normally require "gold standard" studies before they can pass wind, are confident in the mask studies to the tune of ">80%". Unfortunately such experiments are impossible with masks and are usually not compelling because of all of the confounding variables and possible bias. There's no way to give someone a mask or wear a mask without knowing, and there are no real placebo masks (afaik)? The best studies (IMO) are "proof of concept" ones and although they will never give us a figure, they support what most people know intuitively.

Why not forget politically based objections to masks, just tell the truth and be realistic?

Conversely this one was fact checked and considered "misleading".  Presumably because of who delivered it and the possibility of damage to the vaccine "safety" claims. It was pointed out that it is considered basic to intramuscular injections that the needle be "aspirated" firstly, before administering the drug and wondering why we weren't doing this. Something that any nurse would, or should know (yet disconcerting how many western doctors don't). This is to avoid injecting straight into the blood stream and thus having the vaccine travel throughout the body. While vaccine manufacturers recommend this as the correct way to administer it (at least Pfizer afaik) it seems our genius health experts advise against it. :huh:

The other interesting part was that instead of the fact checkers asking the "tea lady" at facebook, they did actually consult experts. Unsurprisingly one of the experts seemed to not only agree with this advice, going as far as to recommend it as a simple way to avoid certain adverse reactions, but also offered experimental evidence in support ie. that injecting vaccines into the bloodstream caused things like...acute myopericarditis and thrombotic problems in animal studies. The other expert agreed it could be problematic and should be studied...

The "misleading" was given (?) because the experiments weren't conducted in humans yet lol (and never will be for obvious reasons). Fact checks rarely get this threadbare, even for the "ministry of truth". That certain very highly qualified doctors and scientists nutters who have been heavily censored and demonised as "anti vaxxers" were giving warnings about such possible reactions from the beginning, surely has nothing to do with it.

Quote

Which 'official' narrative, I don't think there's just 'one'.  There's lots of them being driven by different media and different bureaucrats.  What specifically are people uncritical of that they should be?  Things probably get attacked simply because of the narrative, but things also get attacked because they are unsupported and/or false, and in the case of some anti-vax stuff potentially dangerous. 

Really? can you supply an example of more than one "official narrative" from the US for example?

Edited by Horta
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horta said:

The effect that makes populations believe in things and act in ways they normally would not. You should at least listen to him, it could help make critique more relevant.

I believe it's an almost hour and a half video?  If you could point out a specific shorter section to listen to I could do that, but no not really motivated to go through the whole thing in hopes he addresses the questions I have.  My hearing sucks also so a video of a person with a foreign accent are strikes one and two for me for listening to someone for long periods of time.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

You seem to be going to some lengths to discredit him, before even knowing what he is saying?

It's not discrediting it's being skeptical, and for Malone at least, as well as just covid information in general, there is ample evidence to support that approach.  As I said before, there is a red flag that 'Mass Formation' doesn't seem to be referenced hardly at all in any scientific literature and has no wikipedia entry.  Again, it's fine to bs and talk about but I'm sure you'd agree that youtube videos does not a scientific theory make. 

1 hour ago, Horta said:

Not to say there isn't still controversy over these experiments themselves and the ideas arising from them, but that in itself doesn't necessarily discredit what he is saying. 

Agreed.  I'm first on the 'what is the support for this idea' and especially 'how pervasive is it in regards to pandemic information'.  I don't disagree that 'some people' do this, but some people do/think almost any ridiculous thing we can dream up.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

Did you know that Milgram wanted to know why a population could be persuaded to act in certain ways, as the basis for his experiment?

There was a study quite a while ago that incorporated fMRI into the Asch conformity experiments.

What is our analogy with widespread pandemic information with these two experiments?  Both of these are interesting experiments but they also both involved things that were much clearer as far as being something that a person would not normally do or think. Everyone should be able to tell how long a line is, most everyone does not want to give people electric shocks; what with the pandemic are people doing is an analog to this?  I think it's difficult to find a comparison because a lot of the decisions people are making is not based on their own personal expertise or knowledge unlike these experiments, a lot of it is rightly based on experts, perceived or not.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

Did you know that masks "can help" reduce your chances of getting covid by >80% ? That's according to the director of the CDC in an "ask an expert" tweet. The fact checkers had a day off that day? I wonder how high the rabbits foot scored in that one?

No mention of what type of mask, where it should be worn, where it shouldn't. No links to anything explaining how it should be worn. Unfortunately people listen to this stuff who haven't yet worked out that these health "experts" are either morons or have another agenda.

Note the word 'can', not 'will'.  Are you saying that there are no masks and conditions under which a mask can reduce your chances of getting covid by 80%?  Do you have a link to something where this was shown? 

You're criticizing a tweet, there is only so much text you can put in there so no it is not the medium for providing all the details you think should be included.  Of course all the information you ask about are on CDC site, here's the info you requested on masks and here's a link to the 80% reference:

Quote

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment,3-6 along with any microorganisms associated with these particles.7, 8 Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger),9 but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns3, 5 which increase in number with the volume of speech10-12 and specific types of phonation.13 Multi-layer cloth masks can both block 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles3, 14 and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.5, 6, 15, 16 Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments,4 with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control

Why are these experts 'morons' again?  

1 hour ago, Horta said:

Wearing one into a restaurant only to take it off when seated is a great idea though. It's a scientific fact that the virus doesn't spread when seated lol.

Is that the only reason you can think of that people wear masks into restaurants?  I think you are making too many presumptions about people you don't know.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

Really? can you supply an example of more than one "official narrative" from the US for example?

What the official narrative is and what people think the official narrative is can be different, there's lots of evidence for that too.  The amount of official narrative is also large, what specific thing about the 'official narrative' is just so obviously false that we should then start to consider mindless conformity/Mass Formation as an explanation for why people believe it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2022 at 2:43 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

More 'science' from Prof. (not Dr) Desmet:

Well, there must be another "Prof. Dr. Mattias Desmet" in the "Faculty of Psychology/ Dept. of Psycho Analysis and Clinical Consulting"" at Ghent University. Possible, surely a huge coincidence though? Wonder if he holds a Masters degree in statistics the same as the "not a doctor"?

Did you read this part?

Quote

"In addition to my master’s degree in clinical psychology, I earned a master’s in statistics. My doctorate dealt with measurement problems in the field of psychology."

Wonder what this is?...https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/471796

Quote

"Materialistic science starts from the idea that the world consists of material particles. Yet precisely this science reveals that matter is a form of consciousness"

https://dailysceptic.org/interview-with-mattias-desmet-professor-of-clinical-psychology/

'Materialistic science' (also known as 'science') has determined that matter is a form of consciousness now? 

That's all you took out of that article? So far it seems you you don't like the sound of "Mass Formation" so you better discredit him lol? 

In context, he is talking about the intrinsic nature matter. Can you demonstrate that he is wrong?

Whether he is right or wrong, panpsychism is not as uncommon amongst Philosophers as you might think (and even some physicists). It seems unlikely, but it's interesting and worth having at least some academics exploring the possibility.

Quote

"So it turns out that there is a huge hole in our scientific story. The proposal of the panpsychist is to put consciousness in that hole. Consciousness, for the panpsychist, is the intrinsic nature of matter. There’s just matter, on this view, nothing supernatural or spiritual. But matter can be described from two perspectives. Physical science describes matter “from the outside,” in terms of its behavior. But matter “from the inside”—i.e., in terms of its intrinsic nature—is constituted of forms of consciousness."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Horta said:

Wonder if he holds a Masters degree in statistics the same as the "not a doctor"?

My mistake, he is a doctor.

44 minutes ago, Horta said:

In context, he is talking about the intrinsic nature matter. Can you demonstrate that he is wrong?

That ain't how things are done; his claim, his burden of proof.

44 minutes ago, Horta said:

Whether he is right or wrong, panpsychism is not as uncommon amongst Philosophers as you might think

I'm aware of panpsychism but he didn't mention philosophy, he mentioned materialistic science.  

44 minutes ago, Horta said:

That's all you took out of that article? So far it seems you you don't like the sound of "Mass Formation" so you better discredit him lol? 

I've explained in the previous post I'm not discrediting, and your psychological analysis/attempted telepathy of my motivations is duly noted.  I also took from his article that he has a lot of opinions about totalitarianism, dystopia, et al.  But this is all handwaving with regards to what I quoted - true or false: has science revealed that matter is a form of consciousness?  Matter may be a form of consciousness, that is an open question with no evidence for it that I'm aware of which is partly why we've started to now consult philosophers, but there is not really a question about whether science has revealed that notion to be true, it hasn't.  I don't know why you are even asking 'that's all you took from the article' like pointing out something false is irrelevant, you did after all just complain about a very specific statement in a tweet - 'is that all you took out of CDC's recommendations?'

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What is our analogy with widespread pandemic information with these two experiments?

That one section of the community is being marginalized. That the narrative is being used this way and it is unnecessary and irrational. As usual the poorest and already suffering are the ones bearing the brunt. Governments are veering ever more towards totalitarian policy.

Quote

Note the word 'can', not 'will'.  Are you saying that there are no masks and conditions under which a mask can reduce your chances of getting covid by 80%?  Do you have a link to something where this was shown? 

You're criticizing a tweet, there is only so much text you can put in there so no it is not the medium for providing all the details you think should be included.  Of course all the information you ask about are on CDC site, here's the info you requested on masks and here's a link to the 80% reference:

Why are these experts 'morons' again?  

I most certainly did note that. It's usually a giveaway in shonky sales pitches. The ones that have a little * where you need to look at the fine print for the reality.

There probably are very specific situations and masks that could reduce chances of contracting covid by >80%. This isn't relevant to population mask use though and I didn't notice in your link where it is claimed that masks can reduce the chances of contracting covid by >80%. Telling people that is disingenuous, has no basis in reality and gives them a false sense of security.

The best studies, such as the one in Bangladesh show a marginal effect (depending on mask type) and isn't that compelling anyway because of potential bias and all sorts of variables that can't be controlled. If you have a good meta analysis, that would be more convincing but the ones I have seen aren't flattering for respiratory viruses in general and don't support the claim re the flu either. The mask studies in that link are little better than anecdotes (some actually seem to be anecdotes).

For every claim where a correlation exists between population wide mask use and lower covid, the opposite can also be claimed. There appears to be no real correlation.

So yes, that tweet was moronic and unhelpful. If it said to wear a surgical mask at a minimum (and change it at regular intervals) because well fitting masks are better than nothing (unless they are cloth masks) it might be more realistic.

It's good that they no longer recommend face masks outdoors in general.

What a shame that the really helpful things that nearly everybody could do and which would greatly increase their chances against covid are never mentioned. Not only that but they would help cure a far worse plague that kills far more people than covid, shortens/affects quality of life and has been for decades.

Quote

Is that the only reason you can think of that people wear masks into restaurants?  I think you are making too many presumptions about people you don't know.

What the official narrative is and what people think the official narrative is can be different, there's lots of evidence for that too.  The amount of official narrative is also large, what specific thing about the 'official narrative' is just so obviously false that we should then start to consider mindless conformity/Mass Formation as an explanation for why people believe it?

 

So people are actually wearing masks to walk into restaurants, then taking them off when they sit down to eat, for non pandemic reasons? Not because they have to? That's fascinating, what reasons?

"I am going to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated"  (Biden).

"I am going to p*** off the unvaccinated" (Macron). Now there's a strategy.

“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?" Trudeau (according to the media).

"This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated".

This is the basic narrative, it's not only a very dangerous one but it doesn't seem consistent with reality.  "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States" seems more in line with reality. In fact there was recently some figures in the UK indicating that the vaccinated might be more vulnerable than the unvaccinated in some age groups. There are murmurs of "forced vaccination" which will probably end up badly. Countries in places such as sub Saharan Africa further muddy the waters.

We have had ridiculous lockdowns until 90% vaxxed (originally was going to be 70%). At 95% now and within about 10 days of trying to open up were getting more cases per day than in the previous 22 months of the pandemic with deaths at an alarming rate. Hospitals are filling. Mass vaccination was going to be our "ticket out of the pandemic". There are still people blaming the unvaccinated (all 5% of them) and the only advice is to get a booster when it's time lol. After a lockdown that would have made Stalin blush there is no possibility of locking down again. I think there would be revolt.

Sacking thousands of healthcare workers (with many who don't want the extra risk of vaccine as they have had covid) during the middle of a pandemic and generally making life miserable for the unvaxed in this instance is irrational and not based on science. We are sacking unvaxxed health care workers (many of whom have natural immunity) while letting covid positive vaccinated workers carry on to make up for the shortfall. That seems based on vindictiveness.

The fact is there doesn't appear any strong evidence based reasons any longer to demand that anyone anyone be vaccinated. Our experts have continually been wrong. We were never going to reach herd immunity. Our strategy of putting all the eggs in the vaccine basket had some promise but is now failing IMO. I also find the mortality statistics problematic, but that's for another thread.

By the way, I am fully vaccinated and wear a mask wherever required. I would probably wear it even if it wasn't a requirement if I thought it would make people feel more comfortable. It's just that I don't care what other people do, that's a decision for them to make.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That ain't how things are done; his claim, his burden of proof.

I doubt that. He is giving opinion on the intrinsic nature of matter. Opinions don't carry a burden of proof. Unless you think he shouldn't have one?

Quote

I'm aware of panpsychism but he didn't mention philosophy, he mentioned materialistic science.  

As do all panpsychists. It isn't restricted to philosophy. Then again Psychology is far closer to Philosophy anyway (IMO). 

Quote

I've explained in the previous post I'm not discrediting, and your psychological analysis/attempted telepathy of my motivations is duly noted. 

Yes you are. Seems unusual for you but you have done little else.

Quote

I also took from his article that he has a lot of opinions about totalitarianism, dystopia, et al.  But this is all handwaving with regards to what I quoted - true or false: has science revealed that matter is a form of consciousness?  Matter may be a form of consciousness, that is an open question with no evidence for it that I'm aware of which is partly why we've started to now consult philosophers, but there is not really a question about whether science has revealed that notion to be true, it hasn't. 

Of course it hasn't.

What has that got to do with Mass Formation?

Quote

I don't know why you are even asking 'that's all you took from the article' like pointing out something false is irrelevant,

There you go claiming it is false again. How do you know that? Few would have a more materialistic view of consciousness than I do, but I don't claim to really "know" he is wrong.

Quote

you did after all just complain about a very specific statement in a tweet - 'is that all you took out of CDC's recommendations?'

No, but that wasn't in the tweet. lol.

Now that you have pointed it out and I have had a look, the CDC recommendations didn't seem to support her claims anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Horta said:

That one section of the community is being marginalized.

That is not an analogy to the experiments you brought up.  I'm missing, again, what people are doing or believing that they know or should logically know is false yet mass formation is making them do or think something they otherwise wouldn't.

55 minutes ago, Horta said:

I most certainly did note that. It's usually a giveaway in shonky sales pitches.

It's actually closer to how doctors and scientists should phrase things.  Nothing deserves a bigger asterisk than a doctor who is guaranteeing things.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

There probably are very specific situations and masks that could reduce chances of contracting covid by >80%. This isn't relevant to population mask use though and I didn't notice in your link where it is claimed that masks can reduce the chances of contracting covid by >80%. Telling people that is disingenuous, has no basis in reality and gives them a false sense of security.

How can it have "no" basis in reality when you agree in the first sentence it does?

1 hour ago, Horta said:

So people are actually wearing masks to walk into restaurants, then taking them off when they sit down to eat, for non pandemic reasons? Not because they have to? That's fascinating, what reasons?

I didn't say anything about 'non-pandemic reasons'.  How about, "I am fully vaccinated and wear a mask wherever required. I would probably wear it even if it wasn't a requirement if I thought it would make people feel more comfortable."

1 hour ago, Horta said:

What a shame that the really helpful things that nearly everybody could do and which would greatly increase their chances against covid are never mentioned. Not only that but they would help cure a far worse plague that kills far more people than covid, shortens/affects quality of life and has been for decades.

Come on, they are too mentioned and have been for decades, that's why you are aware of them.  Maybe it's because it's really easy to wear a mask and get a vaccine, if you have some way to convince people to not be obese then have at it.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

 "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States" seems more in line with reality. In fact there was recently some figures in the UK indicating that the vaccinated might be more vulnerable than the unvaccinated in some age groups.

More vulnerable to what?  Not all infections are equal.  Isn't the increased risk of hospitalization for the unvaccinated vs the vaccinated relevant?

1 hour ago, Horta said:

We have had ridiculous lockdowns until 90% vaxxed (originally was going to be 70%). At 95% now and within about 10 days of trying to open up were getting more cases per day than in the previous 22 months of the pandemic with deaths at an alarming rate. Hospitals are filling. Mass vaccination was going to be our "ticket out of the pandemic". There are still people blaming the unvaccinated (all 5% of them) and the only advice is to get a booster when it's time lol. After a lockdown that would have made Stalin blush there is no possibility of locking down again. I think there would be revolt.

Not sure where you are so can't speak to this, the above isn't for the US.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

Sacking thousands of healthcare workers (with many who don't want the extra risk of vaccine as they have had covid) during the middle of a pandemic and generally making life miserable for the unvaxed in this instance is irrational and not based on science.

It's based on science if your goal is to reduce hospitalization.  Vaccinated people typically do not have as much virus circulating when they do become infected, thus decreasing the overall amount of virus circulating, thus it would seem to decrease our variant risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horta said:

I doubt that. He is giving opinion on the intrinsic nature of matter. Opinions don't carry a burden of proof. Unless you think he shouldn't have one?

Depends on the opinion, if your opinion includes a claim then yes it carries a burden of proof. 

1 hour ago, Horta said:

What has that got to do with Mass Formation?

I assumed that you offered this Dr's opinion because of his scientific expertise, and not just solely because he's a person with an opinion.  I don't know what's out of bounds or irrelevant about looking to other things he's said about science in evaluating his scientific expertise and opinions.

1 hour ago, Horta said:

There you go claiming it is false again. How do you know that? Few would have a more materialistic view of consciousness than I do, but I don't claim to really "know" he is wrong.

Again, I don't know if he's wrong that matter is 'a form of consciousness', I do know he's wrong about science revealing that that statement is true.  Yes, I do go claiming that is false and since as you just said, 'of course it hasn't', it would seem I'm in good company.

Anyway, I think it'd be interesting to focus more on the Mass Formation questions since we're both kinda touching on a lot of other subjects.  I'm still stuck on this basic question, what are people believing that is obviously not true that we need Mass Formation as a theory to explain their behavior?  Again, I'm not finding anything that's close to, or maybe just not as concise as, judging how long a line is like in the conformity experiment.  The quotes you provided from politicians about the unvaccinated are a bit more vague than that, and again I see a very big difference between what I understand of Mass Formation as opposed to people coming to possibly unsupported conclusions about the unvaccinated's contribution to the pandemic.  Applying vaccination mandates has a lot more reasoning for it that go way beyond 'give this person a shock because I told you to', we already have lots of 'mandates'/laws that we 'force' on other people in place even though some people believe it unreasonably infringes on their 'freedom'.  I'm not that up to date on all the mandates in other countries, I didn't realize/remember until now that you aren't in the US, so may be better to try to focus on this as it's presumably more science-related.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brain hurts.  I'm not really following this in detail, but something above stuck out to me..  Horta, I normally have respect for your approach, even if we may not agree on all things...

You said:

8 hours ago, Horta said:

No mention of what type of mask, where it should be worn, where it shouldn't.

A valid and extremely important point.  These things are COMPLEX and unless you think about all angles, you will mislead or get misled...

 

But then, you quoted this:

3 hours ago, Horta said:

Ummm. do you not spot the hypocrisy? Increases in Covid-19 WHAT?  Infection rate?  Death rate?  Hospitalisation rate?  Intensive care rate?  Long term effects?

I read the surrounding text, but nope, no clarification.  Maybe the article is better, but most people just read what's presented here, and sadly, many just gobble up the bits that re-inforce their opinion.

From my personal viewpoint (I have health issues), I'm not concerned about catching Covid per se - it is what follows.  Here in Oz we were able to largely control the earlier variants, but Omicron is now becoming widespread.  But we're pretty much letting that happen - it is a choice we've made on the basis of our now high vaccination rate, and that Omicron is way more infectious but nowhere near as lethal (especially if you are vaxed).  If you look at the *results* of what is happening here, the rate of people requiring IC is currently about 20 or more times less for those who are fully vaccinated (like me and about 80% of Oz).  So the new variant is more like the Flu than the original Covid variants.  The US has a significantly lower vaccination rate (63%)~...   If many more people still get infected BUT the vaccinations then save them from a hospital visit or worse, isn't that a much better outcome?

So whether we're talking masks or vaccinations or whatever, each and every aspect must be considered and declared.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

My brain hurts.  I'm not really following this in detail, but something above stuck out to me..  Horta, I normally have respect for your approach, even if we may not agree on all things...

You said:

A valid and extremely important point.  These things are COMPLEX and unless you think about all angles, you will mislead or get misled...

 

But then, you quoted this:

Ummm. do you not spot the hypocrisy? Increases in Covid-19 WHAT?  Infection rate?  Death rate?  Hospitalisation rate?  Intensive care rate?  Long term effects?

I read the surrounding text, but nope, no clarification.  Maybe the article is better, but most people just read what's presented here, and sadly, many just gobble up the bits that re-inforce their opinion.

From my personal viewpoint (I have health issues), I'm not concerned about catching Covid per se - it is what follows.  Here in Oz we were able to largely control the earlier variants, but Omicron is now becoming widespread.  But we're pretty much letting that happen - it is a choice we've made on the basis of our now high vaccination rate, and that Omicron is way more infectious but nowhere near as lethal (especially if you are vaxed).  If you look at the *results* of what is happening here, the rate of people requiring IC is currently about 20 or more times less for those who are fully vaccinated (like me and about 80% of Oz).  So the new variant is more like the Flu than the original Covid variants.  The US has a significantly lower vaccination rate (63%)~...   If many more people still get infected BUT the vaccinations then save them from a hospital visit or worse, isn't that a much better outcome?

So whether we're talking masks or vaccinations or whatever, each and every aspect must be considered and declared.

I'm not sure that it is Omicron here in Oz.  In the first Coronacast of the year said most of the cases would be due to community spread and therefore likely Delta.  That said that podcast was almost two weeks ago.  But the Omicron spread is not reflected in GISAID/Nextstrain.

So, is there a better source for answers, or do I follow the mass?

I'll probably follow consensus advice.  I've found out that family members - all vaccinated - have recovered from COVID over Christmas.  The parents of my newborn nephew have to isolate and obviously have questions but no need to panic yet.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So, is there a better source for answers, or do I follow the mass?

I tend to trust Auntie...


.. but I admit I haven't followed the stats back to source.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I tend to trust Auntie...


.. but I admit I haven't followed the stats back to source.

Coronacast and Norman Swan ARE just as much "Auntie".  I tend to trust them too.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, RavenHawk said:

It takes a special kind of stupid to willfully and blindly remain ignorant. 

I was thinking the same thing as I read through your responses. 

I am still looking forward to seeing your findings re COVID’s infectious dose in Nature, btw. Maybe you can send me the DOI? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2022 at 7:42 AM, ChrLzs said:

... do you not spot the hypocrisy? Increases in Covid-19 WHAT?  Infection rate?  Death rate?  Hospitalisation rate?  Intensive care rate?  Long term effects?

I read the surrounding text, but nope, no clarification.  Maybe the article is better, but most people just read what's presented here, and sadly, many just gobble up the bits that re-inforce their opinion.

From my personal viewpoint (I have health issues), I'm not concerned about catching Covid per se - it is what follows

...If you look at the *results* of what is happening here, the rate of people requiring IC is currently about 20 or more times less for those who are fully vaccinated (like me and about 80% of Oz).  So the new variant is more like the Flu than the original Covid variants.  The US has a significantly lower vaccination rate (63%)~...   If many more people still get infected BUT the vaccinations then save them from a hospital visit or worse, isn't that a much better outcome?

So whether we're talking masks or vaccinations or whatever, each and every aspect must be considered and declared.

I'm disappointed to note that @Horta has not returned to address my post.

I would also add that in amongst Horta's posts were numerous assertions but only a very few cites which is rather ironic and dare I say, hypocritical.

For example, I'd like to look at this claim and discuss the complexity and context:

Quote

I wonder if she read that study in "Nature" that found after a certain time all masks get saturated and effects waned, with cloth mask ending up worse than wearing no mask at all?

but I can't find a reference...

So it seems one rule for us, and another for @Horta....

And of course it's no surprise that neither @and then or @RavenHawk are going to do what was asked, as in to give the specific Fauci 'lie'.  Yes, they both just throw poop and then run for it.  Frankly, it's abuse of this forum - they are not debating in good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2022 at 7:16 AM, ChrLzs said:

 

For example, I'd like to look at this claim and discuss the complexity and context:

but I can't find a reference...

So it seems one rule for us, and another for @Horta....

C'mon ChrLzs, no need to be like that.

Though my reply that you quoted was sarcasm (even if it wasn't apparent), so I'm not saying anyone should believe it and I haven't studied it to any depth either (as I don't put much faith in masks to begin with). As I have the feeling that Walensky is conflating "particle emission" studies with "risk of infection" studies. At least that was all I found that she would be likely to be basing her "> 80%" claim on.  Which would mean that she also doesn't understand what a non sequitur is. Though I could be wrong as I haven't read from the link in any great depth and am happy to be corrected.

Though I might have mixed this one up with another study that mentioned mask "soaking" and reduced efficiency, it doesn't really matter and if you don't accept the point, that's up to you. I'm not necessarily an anti masker and no doubt they have some effect (not cloth ones though), I consider myself more a realistic one.

Quote

"Surprisingly, wearing an unwashed single layer t-shirt (U-SL-T) mask while breathing yielded a significant increase in measured particle emission rates compared to no mask, increasing to a median of 0.61 particles/s. The rates for some participants (F1 and F4) exceeded 1 particle/s, representing a 384% increase from the median no-mask value. Wearing a double-layer cotton t-shirt (U-DL-T) mask had no statistically significant effect on the particle emission rate, with comparable median and range to that observed with no mask."

"Notably, one individual, M6, emitted up to two orders of magnitude more aerosol particles while coughing than the others, emitting 567 particles/s with no mask. Even when M6 wore a surgical mask he emitted 19.5 particles/s while coughing, substantially above the median value for no mask, although still a substantial decrease compared to no mask for this individual."

"However, for the homemade cotton masks, the measured particle emission rate either remained unchanged (DL-T) or increased by as much as 492% (SL-T) compared to no mask for all of the expiratory activities."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

 

Though while listening to a scientist lamenting the bs "I don't have that data with me" Walensky and "I am science" Fauci were giving to congress re VAERS, one of them mentioned a discredited mask study still supported by the CDC. If I'm not mistaken it is still there. This is only from a journalistic source, but reading it is hilarious.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/12/mask-guidelines-cdc-walensky/621035/

 

ps. If I don't get straight back to you don't worry too much. I still struggle to type for very long as certain vaccine side effects have left me with neuropathy.

 

Edited by Horta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2022 at 8:42 AM, ChrLzs said:

But then, you quoted this:

Ummm. do you not spot the hypocrisy? Increases in Covid-19 WHAT?  Infection rate?  Death rate?  Hospitalisation rate?  Intensive care rate?  Long term effects?

I read the surrounding text, but nope, no clarification.  Maybe the article is better, but most people just read what's presented here, and sadly, many just gobble up the bits that re-inforce their opinion.

 

 

Quote

"At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated."

?

Seems simple enough. How is that not self explanatory?

If you're saying the term it is not terribly meaningful, no argument there. It's ridiculous, but then so is a lot of other nonsense claims. There seems no standard definition between regions, let alone states and countries. A common definition for "covid dashboard" type data is a positive PCR test, similarly a covid death "any death, for any reason, within 28 days of a positive PCR test". So even leaving alone there is no consistency in things like amplification levels and (for whatever reason) these tests give a high level of false positives for people who never develop symptoms (that seem to be passed of as "asymptomatic") seems to make it worse.

This is part of the problem when people throw stats around. Getting good ones with clear (and reasonable) definitions isn't easy and often involves FOI requests. There's rarely an honest base to start from. That is certainly what much of the present narrative is based on though.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.