"Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr> wrote in message news:soqb08$cgi$1@dont-email.me...

> There is systematic miscategorisation of the "vaccination" status of
> the deceased. People are not classed as being "vaccinated" until 14
> days after their 2nd jab, so if they die after the jab(s) but before
> that time has elapsed, they go down as an "unvaccinated" death.
> (That's handy for big pharma, isn't it.)

Just to update and clarify this:

You are not classed as "vaccinated" (for purpose of hospitalisation
and death statistics) until 14 days after a 2nd jab has been
administered, and then only if that 2nd jab was less than 6 months
ago.

If you have taken a booster jab, you are not classed as "vaccinated"
until 14 days after the booster jab has been administered.

So in reality, contrary to misleading statistics. less than 1 in 10
people currently in hospital "with covid" are completely unjabbed.

Also, "with covid" simply means they tested positive while in hospital,
using a test that gives enormous numbers of false positives, because
far too many amplification cycles are being used - the test is
basically bogus.

I would suggest that a significant proportion of these patients
are actually suffering from jab injuries, but thanks to this trickery
with the statistics, they will be portrayed in media as "paying the
price for not taking the jabs", and their suffering will be used to
scare the rest of public into taking more jabs.

Acute jab reactions (of which there have been many) will also not be
recorded in these misleading statistics.

Here is another rare glimpse of the horrific truth on mainstream media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I

"Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA
COVID vaccine."
Again shocking and damning information, shared by a consultant
cardiologist - why wasn't this story on the front page of every
newspaper? (answer: because we don't have a functioning free press)

On 08/12/2021 22:03, Alexander wrote:

[
Covid-19 and vaccine disinformation that has been reported to
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <sora4j$cop$1@dont-email.me>,
Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:

> Just to update and clarify this:

> You are not classed as "vaccinated" (for purpose of hospitalisation
> and death statistics) until 14 days after a 2nd jab has been
> administered, and then only if that 2nd jab was less than 6 months
> ago.

> If you have taken a booster jab, you are not classed as
> "vaccinated" until 14 days after the booster jab has been
> administered.

Yes indeed that does appear to be the case. It is also being shown in
statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
shingles. Looks like the immune system takes a step back.

It's not known how this happens but it's possible that viruses are
lying dormant in the body (inc covid) until the immune system gets
knobbled. Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
decrease. That is why they don't count until 14 days and rumour has
it, this will be increased to 28 days. If you die in that period you
are classified unvaxed.

The Pfizer Booster trial submitted 17/9/21 indicated 34/268 people
tested positive within 28 days of the booster. At the peak 1 in 25
were infected but after covid booster that rises to 1 in 8. FOR A
PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.

Reports I have read claim that our spring peaks of covid that Europe
didn't have (before we opened up) were due to this phenomena and that
our vaccine push was more rapid than Europe's.

> So in reality, contrary to misleading statistics. less than 1 in 10
> people currently in hospital "with covid" are completely unjabbed.

I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people in
hospital could be a significantly different ratio.

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/vaxdeadstatus.jpg

> Also, "with covid" simply means they tested positive while in
> hospital, using a test that gives enormous numbers of false
> positives, because far too many amplification cycles are being
> used - the test is basically bogus.

Yes, I know of two FOI requests that revealed that the test cycles
are absurdly high.

> I would suggest that a significant proportion of these patients
> are actually suffering from jab injuries, but thanks to this
> trickery with the statistics, they will be portrayed in media as
> "paying the price for not taking the jabs", and their suffering
> will be used to scare the rest of public into taking more jabs.

> Acute jab reactions (of which there have been many) will also not
> be recorded in these misleading statistics.

> Here is another rare glimpse of the horrific truth on mainstream
> media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I

> "Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA
> COVID vaccine." Again shocking and damning information, shared by
> a consultant cardiologist -

Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports people
collapsing are now common.

> why wasn't this story on the front page of every newspaper?
> (answer: because we don't have a functioning free press)

True, in the main the media are an agenda following bunch of lockdown
loons, keen for more.

Prime minister, why didn't you lockdown sooner, harder, longer?
When are we going to lockdown?

But never, Prime minister have you done an honest cost benefit
analysis of lockdown considering cancer, heart attacks, child abuse
and murder, spouse abuse, strokes, operations cancelled, schools
closed and business wrecked not forgetting our poor queen all alone
burying her husband like so many others while no.10 party?

Bob.

On 08/12/2021 13:12, Alexander wrote:
>
> Here is an interesting publication:
> h t t p s : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i c a t i o n / 3 5 6 7 5 6 7 1 1 _ L a t e s t _ s t a t i s t i c s _ o n _ E n g l a n d _ m o r t a l i t y _ d a t a _ s u g g e s t _ s y s t e m a t i c _ m i s - c a t e g o r i s a t i o n _ o f _ v a c c i n e _ s t a t u s _ a n d _ u n c e r t a i n _ e f f e c t i v e n e s s _ o f _ C o v i d - 1 9 _ v a c c i n a t i o n

The most interesting thing about that is who the authors are:

Martin Neil
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science BSc PhD

Not an epidemiologist.

Norman Elliott Fenton
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science
PhD Mathematics (Sheffield University)

Not an epidemiologist.

Scott Mclachlan
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science
PDRA in Computer and Information Science: Research Fellow in Law

Not an epidemiologist.

Joshua Guetzkow
Hebrew University of Jerusalem | HUJI · Department of Sociology and
Anthropology and Institute of Criminology
Doctor of Philosophy

Not an epidemiologist.

Joel Smalley's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is a blank page,
because he's best known as a lockdown denialist on Shitter ...

h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r . c o m / r e a l j o e l s m a l l e y

.... whose profile when last looked up used loaded terminology like ...

"More important things to do than argue the toss with bedwetters"

.... so clearly a very biased source, and this is born out by the fact
that he appears to be the same faker who as early as April 2020 was
trying to claim that Democratic-run states were having worse outcomes
than Republican-run states, but reading the article shows so many hidden
but bigoted assumptions that his so-called 'study' was clearly worthless
and irresponsible politicking about the catastrophe that was already
beginning to unfold in the US, and has only got many times worse since
then.

Dr Clare Craig's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is also a
blank page, because she's best known as a lockdown denialist who seems
to spend more time on Shitter than someone with a full-time job should
be able, and who is already famous in this ng as having had at one time
five provable errors in the first page of her Shitter feed.

So, of the authors we can identify, we have a bunch of non-experts in
epidemiology, all known to have a right-wing bias, and therefore should
be suspicious from the outset, but how much credence should be given
them can only be determined by looking at the paper itself. Here is its
abstract:

"The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately measured
by an all-cause mortality rate comparison of vaccinated against
unvaccinated, since it not only avoids most confounders relating to case
definition but also fulfils the WHO/CDC definition of “vaccine
effectiveness” for mortality. We examine the latest UK ONS vaccine
mortality surveillance report which provides the necessary information
to monitor this crucial comparison over time. At first glance the ONS
data suggest that, in each of the older age groups, all-cause mortality
is lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Despite this apparent
evidence to support vaccine effectiveness - at least for the older age
groups - on closer inspection of this data, this conclusion is cast into
doubt because of a range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in
the data. Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear
that it is both unreliable and misleading. While socio-demographical
and behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated have
been proposed as possible explanations, there is no evidence to support
any of these. By Occam’s razor we believe the most likely explanations
are systemic miscategorisation of deaths between the different
categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated; delayed or non-reporting of
vaccinations; systemic underestimation of the proportion of
unvaccinated; and/or incorrect population selection for Covid deaths."

This starts off well enough, by which I mean free from value-judgement,
except perhaps the word 'arguably' in the first sentence, but then they
draw upon the WHO to justify that, so we'll buy it. The real trouble
begins with "Whatever the explanations for the observed data [...]" adn
goes right to the end, all of which is the authors' own value judgements
completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

> and an LBC radio interview with one of its authors (very rare to
> hear the uncomfortable truth on LBC or on any other MSM):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = J x k b 2 y h d L i A

02:05 Interviewer: "You're saying that the vaccines, the evidence is
indicating a spike in all-cause mortality after vaccination?"

Fenton: "Yeah, it occurs shortly after the initial big rollout of the
vaccination in each of the different age groups. It's crucial to
separate out the different age groups [...]"

But the graph being discussed on screen doesn't seem to be doing that,
certainly at least not accurately. Its caption reads "Adjusted
non-Covid mortality rate in unvaccinated and unvaccinated versus %
vaccinated for age group 60-69 (weeks 1-38, 2021)" which is quite a lot
to discuss in itself ...

For a start, what does "unvaccinated and unvaccinated versus %
vaccinated" actually mean? It would seem to imply that there should be
two curves on the graph, labelled accordingly, but there are four, none
of which have the second label! They are:
Adjusted unvaccinated no-covid mortality rate
Adjusted vaccinated no-covid mortality rate
1 dose
2 dose

Secondly, they seem unaware that the the age group 60-69 were not done
as one group. The UK governments delivery plan is still displayed in
this government document from Spring 2021 ...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-_Spring_2021.pdf

.... and the relevant section, p156, Table 2, & later para 41, reads ...

5 All those 65-69 years of age 2.9M

6 All those aged 16 years to 64 years
with underlying health conditions 7.3M

7 all those aged 60-64 years of age 1.8M

.... so how come their figures have apparently combined these three
groups into one?

Thirdly, the spikes in the graphs of each dose don't coincide with
"shortly after the initial big rollout of the vaccination" for this age
group, as claimed in the video, as I well know because I happened to be
in it at the time. The spike in the '1 dose' curve is about week 6-7,
about half way through February, but I didn't have my first dose until
the second week in March, and I am not alone, because from the para in
the above document we have:

"The Government’s ambition to offer everyone in JCVI cohorts 1 to 4 at
least one dose of the vaccine by 15 February was met two days early."

So the 70+ age range had just been been completed at the peak of the
spike, and 65-70 year olds were just beginning to be done, so the
maximum of this spike for the 60-69 age range, and therefore probably
the rest of it, can have *NOTHING* to do with their just having been
vaccinated, indeed *NOTHING* to do with their vaccination status at all.

Similarly the spike in the '2 dose' curve is about week 18, first week
in May, which again is not "shortly after the initial big rollout of the
vaccination", this time the second dose, for this age group. I didn't
receive mine until a week later, add another week or two for me to get
complications from it and ultimately die from them, and again the peak
is much too early.

So their analysis is riddled with mistakes, as might be expected from
the fact that it was it was done by a group of people whose political
motivations are already well known to override their scientific
impartiality.

No need to watch further!

> In a nutshell:

It's crap, like everything else you post.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/12/2021 16:05, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sora4j$cop$1@dont-email.me>,
> Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:

[A load of crap mostly debunked elsewhere]

> Yes indeed that does appear to be the case. It is also being shown in
> statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
> surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
> shingles. Looks like the immune system takes a step back.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> It's not known how this happens but it's possible that viruses are
> lying dormant in the body (inc covid) until the immune system gets
> knobbled. Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
> decrease. That is why they don't count until 14 days and rumour has
> it, this will be increased to 28 days. If you die in that period you
> are classified unvaxed.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> The Pfizer Booster trial submitted 17/9/21 indicated 34/268 people
> tested positive within 28 days of the booster. At the peak 1 in 25
> were infected but after covid booster that rises to 1 in 8. FOR A
> PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> Reports I have read claim that our spring peaks of covid that Europe
> didn't have (before we opened up) were due to this phenomena and that
> our vaccine push was more rapid than Europe's.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
> figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
> overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people in
> hospital could be a significantly different ratio.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/vaxdeadstatus.jpg

Look up "Simpson's paradox". Vaccines are never 100% preventative, so
some vaccinated people will still get the disease, and some of those
will get it severely enough to die, and as the vast majority of the
people in the country have been vaccinated now, the probability is now
that anyone who dies of covid-19 will have had one or more doses of the
vaccine. But that's not what is important here. What is important is
what *PROPORTION* of people who have been vaccinated go on to develop
severe disease and die, as opposed to what *PROPORTION* of unvaccinated
people go on to develop severe disease and die.

Currently in the population as currently vaccinated there are between
40-50,000 thousand cases and less than 200 deaths a day, whereas back in
late December 2020 before the vaccinations had really begun when the
case rate was broadly comparable, the death rate was between 600-700 a
day, more than 3 times as high. That's all you need to know.

>> Also, "with covid" simply means they tested positive while in
>> hospital, using a test that gives enormous numbers of false
>> positives, because far too many amplification cycles are being
>> used - the test is basically bogus.
>
> Yes, I know of two FOI requests that revealed that the test cycles
> are absurdly high.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REPEATED!

1) PCR False Positive Rate measured to be around 0.001%

As Bob so helpfully linked the other day to something that completely
undermines his continuous fake news about the PCR test:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v4

"We in germany do re-testing of positives on a regular basis, and the
result is that false-positive diagnostic findings that are actually
filed to the patient are in the range of 0,001 %. Even if testing
activity of healthy subject was high up to September, the number of
people that had a wrong test result is something like a handful a week
and totally acceptable in the face of the alternative. Especially since
one does a second test some days later."

2) PCR False Positive Rate measured to be around 0.02%

https://nhsproviders.org/topics/covid-19/coronavirus-member-support/national-guidance/government-updates/daily-updates

"Tuesday 21 July

Health and Social Care Committee oral evidence: Management of the
Coronavirus outbreak

[...]

[Sir] Paul Nurse [...].

He didn’t think that false positive tests are much of a problem – their
research shows that they have 1 false positive for every 5000."
[= 0.02%]

3) PCR False Positive Rate cannot be greater than around 0.045%

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-false-positives-testing-covid-19-test-b550133.html

"Speaking to the BBC, Professor David Spiegelhalter from the University
of Cambridge said that the figure touted for a false positive rate of
0.8 per cent “seems far too high” when looking at other ONS surveys.

“The ONS survey [from June] did 112,000 tests and only got 50 positive
tests out of it," [=0.045%] he said, noting that even if all of these
were false positives, the rate would be under 0.05 per cent.

He described the false positive issue as “a complete red herring” that
was distracting from the actual issue of a rapidly spreading virus."

>> Here is another rare glimpse of the horrific truth on mainstream
>> media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I
>>
>> "Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA
>> COVID vaccine." Again shocking and damning information, shared by
>> a consultant cardiologist -

TROLL! PROVEN LIE ALREADY DEBUNKED REPEATED AGAIN!

People die in a variety of ways and/or of various conditions all the
time, it's an ongoing fact of life. Some of these people will have been
recently vaxed but died in car accidents, are you going to try and claim
that the vax caused their car accident? With people dying all the time
in multiple ways, and people being vaxxed all the time in an ongoing
roll-out, it is inevitable that some people will die shortly after
receiving a vaccine, but it's just co-incidence.

> Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports people
> collapsing are now common.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

>> why wasn't this story on the front page of every newspaper?
>> (answer: because we don't have a functioning free press)

The real answer is that it's a crazed conspiracy theory, like all the
other crap you post.

> True, in the main the media are an agenda following bunch of lockdown
> loons, keen for more.
>
> Prime minister, why didn't you lockdown sooner, harder, longer?
> When are we going to lockdown?
>
> But never, Prime minister have you done an honest cost benefit
> analysis of lockdown considering cancer, heart attacks, child abuse
> and murder, spouse abuse, strokes, operations cancelled, schools
> closed and business wrecked not forgetting our poor queen all alone
> burying her husband like so many others while no.10 party?

More of Bob's absurd and childish paranoia left in for normal sane
people to have a good laugh at.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <5998318742bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> But never, Prime minister have you done an honest cost benefit analysis
> of lockdown considering cancer, heart attacks, child abuse and murder,
> spouse abuse, strokes, operations cancelled, schools closed and business
> wrecked not forgetting our poor queen all alone burying her husband like
> so many others while no.10 party?

Oddly selective question given that it has for many years been quite clear
that BloJo has no real intersection with reality or concern for honesty.
Should have been obvious from the days of misleading claims painted on buses!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sou3h2$m45$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> The most interesting thing about that is who the authors are:

> Martin Neil Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of
> Electronic Engineering and Computer Science BSc PhD

> Not an epidemiologist.

> Norman Elliott Fenton Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School
> of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science PhD Mathematics
> (Sheffield University)

> Not an epidemiologist.

> Scott Mclachlan Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of
> Electronic Engineering and Computer Science PDRA in Computer and
> Information Science: Research Fellow in Law

> Not an epidemiologist.

Interesting to see such a collection from my old 'firm'. :-) I wonder if
they're all Millwall fans. 8-] I recall KevDon was - so good for a wind-up
from a Hammers fan when in the SCR. His taste in Football teams didn't
stop him becoming a Prof, though.

The fact that none of the authors are Epidemiologists doesn't automatically
mean their results must be wrong. Even a stopped clock is right on occasion.
However...

It is one thing to be able to write computer programmes and have them
crunch data. It is something else to determine the meaning of the data and
the presented 'results'. Data and Information are not synonyms.

And as we have found, being an 'expert' in one field - e.g. archeology -
doesn't ensure you really understand some other field. Thus, to be alert
for such mistakes you need to survey the field *as a whole* and understand
what it shows. Not just cherry pick and publish.

Bob should realise this given all the time he devotes to trying to rubbish
the results of people processing CC data. However he seems a tad, erm,
'selective' when it comes to his 'likes' or 'hates'. Seems to prefer
judging on that basis over studying and *understanding* the overall bulk of
what has been done. e.g. as outlined in great depth and variety with many
references in a book I've occasionally recommended... which he seems very
anxious NOT to read.

Oh well, no accounting for taste. Some people *like* sour cherries, I guess.

Is Bob a Millwall supporter?... Their old chant was IIRC "Everybody hates us,
and we don't care!"

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5998318742bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <sora4j$cop$1@dont-email.me>,
> Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>
>> Just to update and clarify this:
>
>> You are not classed as "vaccinated" (for purpose of hospitalisation
>> and death statistics) until 14 days after a 2nd jab has been
>> administered, and then only if that 2nd jab was less than 6 months
>> ago.
>
>> If you have taken a booster jab, you are not classed as
>> "vaccinated" until 14 days after the booster jab has been
>> administered.
>
> Yes indeed that does appear to be the case. It is also being shown in
> statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
> surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
> shingles. Looks like the immune system takes a step back.

Of course "test covid positive" means nothing, because the "tests"
are a joke.

> It's not known how this happens but it's possible that viruses are
> lying dormant in the body (inc covid) until the immune system gets
> knobbled. Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
> decrease. That is why they don't count until 14 days and rumour has
> it, this will be increased to 28 days. If you die in that period you
> are classified unvaxed.

A recent paper published by Prof. Bhakdi and Prof. Burkhardt
may shed some light on this:
https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/end-covax.pdf

In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
the body's immune system to attack itself.

Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/

He is most concerned that this damage to the immune system is
going to cause massive recurrence of dormant diseases that
people carry in their bodies, such as TB.

The immune system is also crucial in fighting tumour cells, and
a 20-fold increase in certain types of cancer (for example
endrometrial cancer) has already been recorded since the
"vaccination" rollout.

"Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr> wrote in message news:sqqrh4$3av$1@dont-email.me...

> A recent paper published by Prof. Bhakdi and Prof. Burkhardt
> may shed some light on this:
> https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/end-covax.pdf

> In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
> system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
> causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
> manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
> role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
> attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
> the body's immune system to attack itself.

> Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video:
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/

Correction: the above is not explicitly covered in the linked
paper (which deals with other jab-related problems) but is
described in the video, from 9m6s.
Specifically the sentinel lymphocytes in the lymph nodes
are thought to be affected.

On 02/01/2022 00:27, Alexander wrote:

> In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
> system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
> causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
> manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
> role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
> attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
> the body's immune system to attack itself.
>
> Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video:
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/

Bitchute may not, however, be the most reliable of sources:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bitchute-far-right-youtube-neo-nazi-terrorism-videos-a9632981.html

On 02/01/2022 00:27, Alexander wrote:

Covid-19 and vaccine quackery and disinformation that has been reported to:
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g

> h t t p s : / / d o c t o r s 4 c o v i d e t h i c s . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 2 1 / 1 2 / e n d - c o v a x . p d f

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics/

"D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Overall, we rate D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s a
quackery level pseudoscience organization based on promoting false and
misleading claims regarding Covid-19 and vaccines.

Bias Rating: PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY LOW

Funded by / Ownership

The website lacks transparency as they do not disclose ownership or funding.

Analysis / Bias

D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s is an advocacy group
that states its mission as “we are demanding the immediate withdrawal of
all experimental gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. We oppose vaccine
passports, which threaten public health and violate Nuremberg and other
protections. We are warning that ‘health passes’ place coercive pressure
on citizens to submit to dangerous medical experimentation, in return
for freedoms that once were human rights.”

The mission statement above begins with two falsehoods; first, the
vaccines are not experimental. Second, they do not violate the Nuremberg
code as vaccine passports do not force people to get vaccinated.

[...]

In general, they are a medical disinformation organization.

Failed Fact Checks

- Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health, because they can
increase the CO2 that you breathe. – False
- VAERS, Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance data show that COVID-19
vaccines are killing people. – False

Overall, we rate Doctors for Covid Ethics a quackery level pseudoscience
organization based on promoting false and misleading claims regarding
Covid-19 and vaccines."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>
> [...]
>
> Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,

I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.

Talk about clutching at straws.

Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.

In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,

> I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
> theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight
> and hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.

> Talk about clutching at straws.

> Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
> paying attention.

Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.

Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the cloth
masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across the
globe there has never been any quality evidence they do anything.

If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
than us, they didn't.

What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
enforcement. The other reason is the government "being seen to do
something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.

A few years ago a local school had a machete attack. The other
schools locally mandated lanyards with ID badges for all staff. They
did something.

Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you getting
the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are
effective, if you're really stupid and gullible at least.

I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this
shit yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
understand how Hitler came to be.

As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid,
ordinary folk see right through it and don't buy any of this
nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of
subjects.

At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had
3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news.
Wow, so a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works
and doesn't stop people being infected. The third shot we're told
will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be
less ill. Anyone know of another vaccine like that?

Bob.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 14:18:56 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:

> In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
>
>> I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
>> theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
>> hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
>
>> Talk about clutching at straws.
>
>> Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
>> paying attention.
>
> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
> point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
> Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
> Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the cloth
> masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across the globe
> there has never been any quality evidence they do anything.
>
> If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
> than us, they didn't.
>
> What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
> enforcement. The other reason is the government "being seen to do
> something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
> actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.
>
> A few years ago a local school had a machete attack. The other schools
> locally mandated lanyards with ID badges for all staff. They did
> something.
>
> Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you getting
> the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are effective,
> if you're really stupid and gullible at least.
>
> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
> yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.
>
> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
> folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
> referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
>
> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3,
> we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
> a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
> stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
> getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
> know of another vaccine like that?
>
>
> Bob.

I purchased 50 high quality masks at 6 weeks into the start of the spread
of Corona Virus.

In article <59a58b8575bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,

> > I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
> > theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
> > hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.

> > Talk about clutching at straws.

> > Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
> > paying attention.

> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
> point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.

News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
country she is in.

[snip initial dribble about 'masks' promped by policial paranoia.]

> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
> yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.

Godwin's Law! :-) However your postings do make it obvious that you are
having problems understanding what logical intelligent people think!
Nothing new there, though, alas.

> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
> folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
> referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.

I can't recall what epidemiological knowedge he has. Looks like to be on a
par with yours from the muddles in what you write next...

> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3,
> we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
> a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
> stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
> getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
> know of another vaccine like that?

That's quite a list of misunderstanding, idiotic oversimplications, and
sheer fantasy, even by your poor standards! (sic).

Just one e.g.: The "effectiveness" of a vaccination depends on what is
being referring to in terms of "effect". So you can expect a different
value depending on which of the following you mean:

1) Prevention of any detectable infection for a given viral 'load'
delivered. (Which may mean the person can't infect anyone else.)

2) Prevention of noticable *symptoms*. (But may mean the person
can infect someone else, so is a - potentially unawares - infection
risk for others, making it more useful for them to wear a mask to
protect others.)

3) Prevention of 'serious' symptoms.

4) Prevention of needing ICU or similar.

5) Prevention of death caused by the infection.

It also varies from person to person, and with time after the
vaccination(s). Plus, no doubt other factors.

Sweeping assertions about 'effectiveness' that don't specify these
details are themselves potential symptoms of someone who is wilfully
clueless about the science and simply grabs at straws to back their
wishful thinking, presenting them out of context, etc, etc.

i.e. cherry picking.

Yawn. Oh well, at least your comments suit the thread's title, and
look like the level of 'science' that NO might present on the basis
of his extensive understanding of epidemiology.

If you want to moan that I'm going for the man and not the ball, I
can point out in advance that in science terms you had no actual
ball - only a lot of boxx0x, in your posting. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:09:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <59a58b8575bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>> > >
>> > > [...]
>> > >
>> > > Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
>
>> > I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
>> > theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
>> > hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
>
>> > Talk about clutching at straws.
>
>> > Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
>> > paying attention.
>
>> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
>> point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
>News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
>country she is in.
>
>[snip initial dribble about 'masks' promped by policial paranoia.]
>
>> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
>> yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
>> understand how Hitler came to be.
>
>Godwin's Law! :-) However your postings do make it obvious that you are
>having problems understanding what logical intelligent people think!
>Nothing new there, though, alas.
>
>
>> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
>> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
>> folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
>> referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
>
>I can't recall what epidemiological knowedge he has. Looks like to be on a
>par with yours from the muddles in what you write next...
>
>
>> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
>> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3,
>> we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
>> a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
>> stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
>> getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
>> know of another vaccine like that?
>
>That's quite a list of misunderstanding, idiotic oversimplications, and
>sheer fantasy, even by your poor standards! (sic).
>
>Just one e.g.: The "effectiveness" of a vaccination depends on what is
>being referring to in terms of "effect". So you can expect a different
>value depending on which of the following you mean:
>
> 1) Prevention of any detectable infection for a given viral 'load'
> delivered. (Which may mean the person can't infect anyone else.)
>
> 2) Prevention of noticable *symptoms*. (But may mean the person
> can infect someone else, so is a - potentially unawares - infection
> risk for others, making it more useful for them to wear a mask to
> protect others.)
>
> 3) Prevention of 'serious' symptoms.
>
> 4) Prevention of needing ICU or similar.
>
> 5) Prevention of death caused by the infection.
>
>It also varies from person to person, and with time after the
>vaccination(s). Plus, no doubt other factors.
>
>Sweeping assertions about 'effectiveness' that don't specify these
>details are themselves potential symptoms of someone who is wilfully
>clueless about the science and simply grabs at straws to back their
>wishful thinking, presenting them out of context, etc, etc.
>
>i.e. cherry picking.
>
>Yawn. Oh well, at least your comments suit the thread's title, and
>look like the level of 'science' that NO might present on the basis
>of his extensive understanding of epidemiology.
>
>If you want to moan that I'm going for the man and not the ball, I
>can point out in advance that in science terms you had no actual
>ball - only a lot of boxx0x, in your posting. :-)
>
>Jim

Apparently there's just one person in Scotland in ICU with the latest
lurgy, and it's not even clear if the lurgy was the specific reason
they were admitted, or if they were admitted for something else and
were subsequently tested. Either way, it's just *one* person in
however many millions live in the whole of Scotland. How scared are we
still supposed to be, and why?

Rod.

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
> > point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
> News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
> country she is in.
>
Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live
in.

--
Chris Green
·

On 04/01/2022 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>>>
>>> Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,

I never said what is implied by the misattribution above, the full quote
was:

On 02/01/2022 17:03, Java Jive wrote:
>
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics/
>
> "D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s
> CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
>
> [...]
>
> In general, they are a medical disinformation organization.
>
> Failed Fact Checks
>
> - Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health, because they can
> increase the CO2 that you breathe. – False
> - VAERS, Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance data show that COVID-19
> vaccines are killing people. – False
>
> Overall, we rate Doctors for Covid Ethics a quackery level pseudoscience
> organization based on promoting false and misleading claims regarding
> Covid-19 and vaccines."

>> I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
>> theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight
>> and hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
>
>> Talk about clutching at straws.
>
>> Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
>> paying attention.
>
> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
> no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
> Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
> Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the cloth
> masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across the
> globe there has never been any quality evidence they do anything.
>
> If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
> than us, they didn't.

Germany vs UK - FALSE!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105

Death Rates per 100,000 people:

UK 222.8
Germany 135.4

See also:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data?country=GBR~DEU

England vs Wales - UNCLEAR!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/january2021

Populations
England 56.3m
Wales 3.2m

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=England
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=Wales

Within 28 days of +ve test Covid-19 on death certificate

Total Deaths
England 129,474 146,118
Wales 6,581 9,103

Death Rates / m
England 2,300 2,595
Wales 2,057 2,845

Total Hospital Admissions
England 548,169
Wales 37,496

Hospital Admissions / m
England 9,737
Wales 11,718

So no real pattern favouring either.

> What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
> enforcement.

On the contrary, they provide a sense of security. Going into a public
space were everyone is seen to be wearing masks properly makes one feel
a lot safer than a public space where a significant number of people are
not wearing them and/or wearing them obviously improperly.

> The other reason is the government "being seen to do
> something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
> actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.

There is always an element of that in any government handling of any
difficult situation, and that will just as true of other governments as
well as our own, so makes little difference either way.

> Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you getting
> the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are
> effective, if you're really stupid and gullible at least.

As has already been explained to you at least twice before, vaccines are
clearly helping to control the pandemic both in the UK and in the rest
of the world, one only has to compare the numbers of people ending up in
hospital and/or dying against the number of cases at the time to get a
sense of that. Before the vaccinations, the current record breaking
infection rates in the UK would have been a certain death knell for many
of those being infected, but, despite the recent high case rates, the
hospitalisation and death rates are only just beginning to rise a little
- the situation needs close monitoring, because we know that commonly
both these rates are commonly some 2 - 3 weeks behind the infection
rates, and it's about that time since omicron struck us, but so far at
least things seems to be holding up, and that is certainly largely due
to the vaccines.

> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this
> shit yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.

Yes, he persuaded ignorant shits like you to believe in lies.

> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid,
> ordinary folk see right through it and don't buy any of this
> nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of
> subjects.

He's a BS-er himself, so no change there.

> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> there's not a lot we can do about it.

On the contrary, we already have accomplished quite a lot, and would
have fared better if dishonest shits like you didn't keep pushing
propaganda.

> Even vaccines of which I've had
> 3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news.
> Wow, so a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works
> and doesn't stop people being infected. The third shot we're told
> will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be
> less ill. Anyone know of another vaccine like that?

As has been demonstrated to you with statistics at least twice before,
the vaccines are clearly helping to keep people out of hospital and from
dying, the current low admission and death rates compared with the
higher rates before vaccines became available prove that conclusively.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/01/2022 16:29, Chris Green wrote:
>
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
>> country she is in.
>
> Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live
> in.

In which case Bob should have said 'our government'.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/01/2022 16:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> How scared are we
> still supposed to be, and why?

As far as omicron is concerned, it's a bit too early to say for sure -
it does seem to be less prone to give people severe disease than
previous variants, but that could be because in SA the population is
younger, while in the UK the older population is well vaccinated.
However, the most recent UK stats do suggest the beginnings of a rise in
hospital admissions and deaths, as might be expected 2 - 3 weeks after
such a substantial rise in cases, we'll just have sit tight and see how
much worse things get, meanwhile a certain amount of caution all round,
both at governmental and individual level, seems wise.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14:18 4 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
>
>> I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
>> theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight
>> and hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
>
>> Talk about clutching at straws.
>
>> Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
>> paying attention.
>
> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
> no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
> Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
> Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the
> cloth masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across
> the globe there has never been any quality evidence they do
> anything.
>
> If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
> than us, they didn't.
>
> What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
> enforcement. The other reason is the government "being seen to do
> something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
> actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.
>
> A few years ago a local school had a machete attack. The other
> schools locally mandated lanyards with ID badges for all staff. They
> did something.
>
> Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you
> getting the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are
> effective, if you're really stupid and gullible at least.
>
> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this
> shit yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.
>
> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid,
> ordinary folk see right through it and don't buy any of this
> nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of
> subjects.
>
> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've
> had 3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky
> news. Wow, so a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer
> works and doesn't stop people being infected. The third shot we're
> told will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe
> you'll be less ill. Anyone know of another vaccine like that?
>
> Bob.

Great troll. So many points. There's something for everyone to
correct.

If the replies start to flag then I'm sure you have a few silly points
in reserve.

On 16:29 4 Jan 2022, Chris Green said:

> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there
>> > was no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>>
>> News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
>> what country she is in.
>>
> Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live
> in.

I suspect "your government" means the "government you elected".

As it happens, I didn't vote for Boris or any other Conservative.

In article <a6t8tght5u65amg7hivliollg2b6dccs4v@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:09:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >In article <59a58b8575bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> ><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> >> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> >> > >
> >> > > [...]
> >> > >
> >> > > Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
> >
> >> > I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
> >> > theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
> >> > hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
> >
> >> > Talk about clutching at straws.
> >
> >> > Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
> >> > paying attention.
> >
> >> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
> >> point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
> >
> >News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
> >country she is in.
> >
> >[snip initial dribble about 'masks' promped by policial paranoia.]
> >
> >> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
> >> yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> >> understand how Hitler came to be.
> >
> >Godwin's Law! :-) However your postings do make it obvious that you are
> >having problems understanding what logical intelligent people think!
> >Nothing new there, though, alas.
> >
> >
> >> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> >> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
> >> folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
> >> referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
> >
> >I can't recall what epidemiological knowedge he has. Looks like to be on a
> >par with yours from the muddles in what you write next...
> >
> >
> >> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> >> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3,
> >> we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
> >> a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
> >> stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
> >> getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
> >> know of another vaccine like that?
> >
> >That's quite a list of misunderstanding, idiotic oversimplications, and
> >sheer fantasy, even by your poor standards! (sic).
> >
> >Just one e.g.: The "effectiveness" of a vaccination depends on what is
> >being referring to in terms of "effect". So you can expect a different
> >value depending on which of the following you mean:
> >
> > 1) Prevention of any detectable infection for a given viral 'load'
> > delivered. (Which may mean the person can't infect anyone else.)
> >
> > 2) Prevention of noticable *symptoms*. (But may mean the person
> > can infect someone else, so is a - potentially unawares - infection
> > risk for others, making it more useful for them to wear a mask to
> > protect others.)
> >
> > 3) Prevention of 'serious' symptoms.
> >
> > 4) Prevention of needing ICU or similar.
> >
> > 5) Prevention of death caused by the infection.
> >
> >It also varies from person to person, and with time after the
> >vaccination(s). Plus, no doubt other factors.
> >
> >Sweeping assertions about 'effectiveness' that don't specify these
> >details are themselves potential symptoms of someone who is wilfully
> >clueless about the science and simply grabs at straws to back their
> >wishful thinking, presenting them out of context, etc, etc.
> >
> >i.e. cherry picking.
> >
> >Yawn. Oh well, at least your comments suit the thread's title, and
> >look like the level of 'science' that NO might present on the basis
> >of his extensive understanding of epidemiology.
> >
> >If you want to moan that I'm going for the man and not the ball, I
> >can point out in advance that in science terms you had no actual
> >ball - only a lot of boxx0x, in your posting. :-)
> >
> >Jim

The left in all their glory, hunting in packs, usual suspects.

The left used to care about the poor and workers rights etc. No
longer, all they give a damn about now is their stupid ideologies
that ordinary folk just laugh at.

I can see I need to add people to JJ in my don't bother reading list.

Bob.

On 04/01/2022 17:42, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <a6t8tght5u65amg7hivliollg2b6dccs4v@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:09:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Substantial snip of good sense, obviously anathema to Bob LieToThem]

I note that you replied to Rod, who didn't criticise you, not Jim, who
justly did.

> I can see I need to add people to JJ in my don't bother reading list.

And that's the problem right there, *YOU*. It's *YOUR* choice and
*YOUR* problem that you lack the guts to face up to the truth about your
own failings and your own paranoid mental state.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <q89eai-btgn3.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
> > > no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
> >
> > News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
> > what country she is in.
> >
> Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live in.

Is 'Pamela's' government the same as mine? I live in Scotland, part of the
UK. I can't recall her saying where she lives. If he meant JJ, I can't
recall the Scots Gov saying what Bob said. Mind you he gives no context
or reference, just a sweeping claim.

And as per the rest of my posting the *context* matters. Under what
conditions for what *specific* purpose, when, etc, etc, *who* said what?

As it stands its just a vague and sweeping assertion, with added
ambiguity for luck! :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html