The coronavirus scam

[Jefferson]

This is one of the many untruths you guys spew out over and over again. You have no credible evidence for this. Sure, you will post anecdotes. And you will post videos from some unidentified person. And so on.

Unidentified? As the video shows, the speaker is the Illinois Department of Health Director.

 

[expos4ever]

Nobody seems to dispute the reported fact that only 6% or so of all deaths attributed to covid had no other equally or more deadly accompanying causes, such as gunshot wounds.

First, I doubt you can support this claim but we'll see. Second, your statement is exceedingly misleading. Here is why: this part:

no other equally or more deadly accompanying causes

Let's say a 60 year old guy (Fred) with diabetes gets covid. And he dies. Is this an example of what you are referring to? Are you saying that Fred's diabetes is a "deadly accompanying cause"? since diabetes will ultimately likely do him in?

Well, the "ultimately" part is key: if Fred was going to die of diabetes at 70, but instead dies of covid that would not have killed him if he did not have diabetes, it is not fair to say Fred really died of diabetes - the fact is, Fred would have 10 more years if not for covid. So in any reasonable sense, covid did him in.

 

[expos4ever]

What we should all learn from this is that increased testing does not mean the danger of infections is increasing. That is why I totally condemn stupid or dishonest democrats for manipulating the evidence in efforts to prolong their unnecessary, oppressive, fascist grip on the country, claiming increased restrictions were necessary to combat rising numbers of infections.

Who is saying that increased testing means the danger of infections is increasing? Instead of venom-laced rhetoric - "stupid or dishonest democrats for manipulating the evidence in efforts to prolong their unnecessary, oppressive, fascist grip on the country" - how about some actual data, without hiding important facts, from a remotely credible source.

Just point us to one post, just one, where you believe anyone has presented anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude any of the imaginative claims you guys are making actually play out in reality.

 

[expos4ever]

Unidentified? As the video shows, the speaker is the Illinois Department of Health Director.

Nice try. My objection was in response to this claim of yours:

95% of those 600,000 died with covid. They didn't die from covid. See the OP of this thread.

If you can point me to anything that shows that the Illinois Department of Health Director believes this nonsense, I will leave this thread permanently.

You are trying to dupe readers into believing I have denied that what the woman from Illinois said was true. Where did I do that, prithee?

 

[marke]

First, I doubt you can support this claim but we'll see. Second, your statement is exceedingly misleading. Here is why: this part:

no other equally or more deadly accompanying causes

Let's say a 60 year old guy (Fred) with diabetes gets covid. And he dies. Is this an example of what you are referring to? Are you saying that Fred's diabetes is a "deadly accompanying cause"? since diabetes will ultimately likely do him in?

Well, the "ultimately" part is key: if Fred was going to die of diabetes at 70, but instead dies of covid that would not have killed him if he did not have diabetes, it is not fair to say Fred really died of diabetes - the fact is, Fred would have 10 more years if not for covid. So in any reasonable sense, covid did him in.

If so, then we can likewise claim that cigarettes are the cause of death for every smoker and alcohol is the cause of death for every drinker regardless of other health issues.

 

[expos4ever]

CDC Director Finally Admits that COVID Cases are Hugely Over-Counted​

Massively deceiving, of course. And consider your source - that e-rag known as gateway pundit. Here are some gems about this august publication:

In August 2019, journalism professors Erik P. Bucy and John E. Newhagen observed that "The most aggressive fake news sites and associated YouTube channels, such as InfoWars, The Gateway Pundit, and Daily Stormer, are routinely sued by victims of these published reports for libel and defamation."

Let me ask you a serious question - are you not just a little embarrassed that you are using this "publication" as a source?

Anyhoo, in case any innocent soul is remotely taken in by this headline that is, in any reasonable construal, a bald-faced lie, note the following from the story:

The gist of the report was that COVID-19 is not nearly as deadly as first projected by the WHO and then by Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Debra Birx. Based on CDC numbers in Ausust only 6% of all deaths attributed to COVID-19 were instances where the only factor in the individual’s death was due to COVI9-19.

Well no kidding. No one ever denied that covid usually kills by combining with other factors!!!

What, of course, you are hiding from the readers, is that in the absence of Covid, those people would not have died, at least not now and perhaps not for many years.

Think people, think! The argument that is being made in this disreputable rag is like me arguing that forcing a 60 year old fat guy to run a marathon in 2 hours did not kill him - it was his excess weight and weak heart that killed him.

 

[expos4ever]

masks haven't worked for preventing wuflu

Of course, you wouldn't be using the term "wuflu" to stir up xenophobic sentiment, would you? Perish the thought.

Anyhoo, it would be kind of nice if you presented, you know, actual credible evidence to support this statement.

 

[expos4ever]

Let me review. Dr. Fauci funded gain-of-function genetic research on bat viruses at the Wuhan lab. That much is a fact. Debunk that fact and we can add further evidence and further discussion.

Oy vey. I think I see what you are trying to do here. Congratulations, you have developed quite the repertoire of misleading arguments. This one, I will admit, is rather subtle. Well-played.

I have not done my homework on this but I can pretty much guarantee you are making this (invalid) argument.

1. Fauci funded research on topic X at a Wuhan lab.
2. The knowledge that was developed from such research was used to develop coronavirus and release it in the world
3. Therefore Dr. Fauci "co-invented" the coronavirus.

I leave it to any high school students here to point out the error in such reasoning.

Hint: If you can make the case that Dr. Fauci knew, or reasonably should have known, that step 2 would happen, then the argument might at least have a prayer.

 

[way 2 go]

Why worry about facts, responsible science, evidence, and data when you have a compelling story to believe in - a word populated by Satan-worshippers, dark councils drawing up fake data by dint of moonlight, and Bill Gates fabricating chips to track your every move?

This thread is not about the coronavirus - it is about the foibles of human psychology.

more confession through projection

 

[way 2 go]

Of course, you wouldn't be using the term "wuflu" to stir up xenophobic sentiment, would you? Perish the thought.

confession through projection

Anyhoo, it would be kind of nice if you presented, you know, actual credible evidence to support this statement.

masks haven't worked for preventing chicom virus


Covid-19 Was Consuming India, Until Nearly Everyone Started Wearing Masks

 

[marke]

Oy vey. I think I see what you are trying to do here. Congratulations, you have developed quite the repertoire of misleading arguments. This one, I will admit, is rather subtle. Well-played.

I have not done my homework on this but I can pretty much guarantee you are making this (invalid) argument.

1. Fauci funded research on topic X at a Wuhan lab.
2. The knowledge that was developed from such research was used to develop coronavirus and release it in the world
3. Therefore Dr. Fauci "co-invented" the coronavirus.

I leave it to any high school students here to point out the error in such reasoning.

Hint: If you can make the case that Dr. Fauci knew, or reasonably should have known, that step 2 would happen, then the argument might at least have a prayer.

Note to high school students: You can question my conclusions but should not declare them wrong unless you can show evidence that the conclusions are wrong. Claiming someone is wrong is not the same thing as proving someone wrong.

 

[expos4ever]

Masks do not stop the passage of most covid particles. Claiming they do is unscientific and wrong.

It's difficult to keep track of your abject falsehoods - there so many. So perhaps I have answered before.

The facts are these: what evidence there is clearly shows that properly worn masks do have a benefit, overall. To assert otherwise is incorrect. But prove me wrong. Point me to a post, any post, where science (that is not deceptive, anecdotal, or otherwise misleading) has shown that they have an insignificant effect.

 

[expos4ever]

The unearthed conference follows a heated exchange between Fauci and Senator Rand Paul, where the NIAID Director denied providing funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct gain of function research.

NIH grant records reveal, however, that money sent to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance was used for research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Let's say this is true. What is your point? Unless you can make a case that Dr. Fauci knew, or should reasonably have known, that such money would be used to produce the coronavirus, I see point to all this.

 

[expos4ever]

It's a waste of time bothering further with people who act like children posting stupid gifs.

I know I do not need to tell you this, but it needs to be said that when you are trying to defend a position that cannot be sustained with reliable evidence, you have no choice but to do things like post provocative gifs and cartoons, or post videos of people with unknown credentials, or use demonizing language, or appeal to vast dark conspiracies.

 

[expos4ever]

I have no burden to prove anything to the blind who refuse to see.

Ah yes, the all-too-familiar argument-by-slogan. You, and others, do this a lot - you cannot support your claims with credible evidence so you speculate that those who disagree with you are somehow biased. Must be nice to read minds.

The simple fact is this: in the normal world, as contrasted with isolated corners of the internet where conspiracy-theorists gather together to endorse each other's delusions, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.

 

[marke]

It's difficult to keep track of your abject falsehoods - there so many. So perhaps I have answered before.

The facts are these: what evidence there is clearly shows that properly worn masks do have a benefit, overall. To assert otherwise is incorrect. But prove me wrong. Point me to a post, any post, where science (that is not deceptive, anecdotal, or otherwise misleading) has shown that they have an insignificant effect.

I have seen no evidence which shows cloth masks stop the majority of covid particles, much less which say they stop more than 50% of covid particles in breathing. I have seen lots of reports which say something like "everyone says the same thing, masks are effective and even essential in stopping the spread of covid."

 

[marke]

Let's say this is true. What is your point? Unless you can make a case that Dr. Fauci knew, or should reasonably have known, that such money would be used to produce the coronavirus, I see point to all this.

Leftist supporter of the American democrat socialist fascist shutdown of the economy: "Fauci may have funded the Wuhan lab during their development of the covid virus, but you cannot prove he knew anything about what they were doing there."

 

[marke]

Ah yes, the all-too-familiar argument-by-slogan. You, and others, do this a lot - you cannot support your claims with credible evidence so you speculate that those who disagree with you are somehow biased. Must be nice to read minds.

The simple fact is this: in the normal world, as contrasted with isolated corners of the internet where conspiracy-theorists gather together to endorse each other's delusions, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.

Leftist bigot: 'You cannot prove Fauci knew anything about what researchers were doing in the Wuhan lab during the time he provided US funding to the lab over Obama's objections.'

 

[expos4ever]

If so, then we can likewise claim that cigarettes are the cause of death for every smoker and alcohol is the cause of death for every drinker regardless of other health issues.

Consider a 60 year old named Fred born with heart disease that would kill him at 70 if he does not otherwise get sick with something.

Covid Situation: Fred gets Covid and dies in 2 weeks. We can reasonably say that Covid killed Fred even though his heart disease played a role. Fred would have lived till 70 before his heart disease killed him. So it is reasonable to say that Covid killed Fred.

Smoking Situation: Fred is a smoker, there is no pandemic and Fred dies at 60, due to the interaction of smoking with heart disease, instead of 70, when he would have died had he not smoked.

So, yes, to be consistent, we would need to attribute smoking Fred's death to smoking.

So what? How does that help you escape the accusation that you are misleading people by suggesting the people die with covid, and not from it.

The simple fact that torpedoes your argument is that those people would have lived longer in the absence of covid.

 

[expos4ever]

Leftist bigot: 'You cannot prove Fauci knew anything about what researchers were doing in the Wuhan lab during the time he provided US funding to the lab over Obama's objections.'

....and the right winger fails to understand that he (or she) needs to actually make a case that Fauci knew, or should have known, that such funding would lead to the coronavirus (if this is indeed what happened).

Once more, the right-winger equates correlation with causation.