On 17/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
>
> On 16/11/2021 12:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary, I accepted the fact of a Chinese cover up as far back
>> up thread as 7/11, but also at the time besides a lab-leak I gave two
>> other possible reasons for it, and at least one of those fits the
>> entirety of the known evidence better than a lab-leak.
>
> Cobblers.
>
> You seem determined to prove that those who don't heed the lessons of
> history are doomed to repeat them.

Which is a quote I often use myself, where it's *RELEVANT*, here we are
dealing with civilian labs, not military ones, so the cold war history
of secret soviet bio-weapon research is barely if at all relevant.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17/11/2021 16:11, Java Jive wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
>> On 16/11/2021 11:29, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?

>> Which is relevant in what way

> Then why appear to dispute it?

Appealing to the authority of 'a good sci-tech degree' is a fallacious
argument.

Perhaps your degree is in a related subject such as Microbiology For
Military Systems, or Secure Area Management and Operations? Perhaps you
should tell us.

>> to your selective approach to the
>> information about the WIV affair?

> I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence, you're the one welded to a conspiracy
> theory which is unsupported by most of the evidence.

Then why were you demanding 'ROBUST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' for the
lab-leak case, if you already knew it?

>> So your degree is in Secure Area Management and Operation? Thought not.

> The lab is not a military but a civilian institution, and no-one from
> outside China who has seen it or worked in it doubts either its probity
> or its security.

You don't seem to realise that your condemn your own case by saying so.

The Chinese aren't going to tell the foreigners what the real story is,
because they and their families will disappear. It's what happens in
totalitarian Communist countries.

>>> It's giving due weight to the opinion of a scientist who has seen the
>>> lab first hand, the "wishful bloody thinking" here is your belief in a
>>> conspiracy theory unsupported by any real evidence.

>> Your faith is touching, but very naive.

> Your quasi-religious denial of evidence is dangerous and irresponsible.

Your quasi-religious claims of evidence are dangerous and irresponsible.

>>>>> I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
>>>>> Wuhan that you have been unable to counter,

>> You countered it yourself when you shifted from denying SCIENTIFIC
>> EVIDENCE existed in favour of a lab leak, to suggesting it yourself.
>> Don't you remember what you wrote?

> Show me where I've said that scientific evidence supports a lab-leak!

Quote: "I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence".

Quote: "I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2
and Wuhan"

> I can prove that now you're simply lying, the first post in which I
> acknowledged openly and freely that there had been a Chinese cover-up
> was in one of my earliest posts in the thread, 7/11 23:36, which was
> before you had even posted to it at all, 9/11 09:25.

Then ask yourself the question 'What is being covered up?'

>>> ... because I can think of at least two other reasons why they might
>>> wish to cover things up, and on the balance of *all* the evidence at
>>> least one of them seems more likely than a leak from the lab.

>> That's a balance drawn BY YOU.There are other voices that claim a
>> different interpretation.

> So you keep claiming, but despite being challenged a number of times to
> produce evidence, you have never been able to do so.

I don't need to. YOU have claimed to have seen ALL the EVIDENCE.

>> You lost it, perhaps in more ways than one, when you started to shift
>> your ground. Your ad homs and deflection techniques were doubtless mere
>> discourtesy details.

> Yawn, usual hypocrisy in accusing others of your own faults, let's see
> some real *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

So you're now saying you haven't seen ALL the EVIDENCE.

Why are you still pontificating on the topic?

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 10:01, Spike wrote:
>
> On 17/11/2021 16:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 17/11/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/11/2021 11:29, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?
>>>
>>> Which is relevant in what way
>>
>> Then why appear to dispute it?
>
> Appealing to the authority of 'a good sci-tech degree' is a fallacious
> argument.

Then by exactly the same argument so is doubting the worth of he who you
are arguing against just because you can't find any relevant substantive
arguments to use against him.

> Perhaps your degree is in a related subject such as Microbiology For
> Military Systems, or Secure Area Management and Operations? Perhaps you
> should tell us.

It's sci-tech, as I claimed, and if it shows nothing else, it's that I'm
capable of logical thought, the latter of which seems to be beyond you:

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png

>>> to your selective approach to the
>>> information about the WIV affair?
>
>> I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence, you're the one welded to a conspiracy
>> theory which is unsupported by most of the evidence.
>
> Then why were you demanding 'ROBUST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' for the
> lab-leak case,

Because AFAIAA there isn't any, and you *STILL* haven't linked to
anything convincing that proves otherwise.

>>> So your degree is in Secure Area Management and Operation? Thought not.
>>
>> The lab is not a military but a civilian institution, and no-one from
>> outside China who has seen it or worked in it doubts either its probity
>> or its security.
>
> The Chinese aren't going to tell the foreigners what the real story is,
> because they and their families will disappear. It's what happens in
> totalitarian Communist countries.

At *MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are *CIVILIAN*
institutions, at least one of which has a long history of collaboration
with experts outside China.

>>>> It's giving due weight to the opinion of a scientist who has seen the
>>>> lab first hand, the "wishful bloody thinking" here is your belief in a
>>>> conspiracy theory unsupported by any real evidence.
>>
>>> Your faith is touching, but very naive.
>>
>> Your quasi-religious denial of evidence is dangerous and irresponsible.
>
> Your quasi-religious claims of evidence are dangerous and irresponsible.

I've heard of parrots able to reason better than you.

>>>>>> I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
>>>>>> Wuhan that you have been unable to counter,
>>>
>>> You countered it yourself when you shifted from denying SCIENTIFIC
>>> EVIDENCE existed in favour of a lab leak, to suggesting it yourself.
>>> Don't you remember what you wrote?
>>
>> Show me where I've said that scientific evidence supports a lab-leak!
>
> Quote: "I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence".

By which I meant *ALL* the evidence I have been able to discover, and
which, as I keep pointing out to you, *DOESN'T* support a lab leak, and
you have yet to provide anything convincing which does.

> Quote: "I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2
> and Wuhan"

Which, as I keep pointing out to you, *DOESN'T* support a lab leak.

>> I can prove that now you're simply lying, the first post in which I
>> acknowledged openly and freely that there had been a Chinese cover-up
>> was in one of my earliest posts in the thread, 7/11 23:36, which was
>> before you had even posted to it at all, 9/11 09:25.
>
> Then ask yourself the question 'What is being covered up?'

I did, in the post identified above, and a lab leak is not the reason
that best fits all the known facts.

>>>> ... because I can think of at least two other reasons why they might
>>>> wish to cover things up, and on the balance of *all* the evidence at
>>>> least one of them seems more likely than a leak from the lab.
>>>
>>> That's a balance drawn BY YOU.There are other voices that claim a
>>> different interpretation.
>>
>> So you keep claiming, but despite being challenged a number of times to
>> produce evidence, you have never been able to do so.
>
> I don't need to.

Nonsense, in this the adult world to which you are so unaccustomed, you
have to justify your reasoning with evidence, so far you've totally
failed to do so.

> YOU have claimed to have seen ALL the EVIDENCE.

By which I meant *ALL* the evidence I have been able to discover, and
which you are arguing against, therefore to argue against it you must go
out and find contrary evidence for yourself, and so far you have failed
miserably to do so.

>>> You lost it, perhaps in more ways than one, when you started to shift
>>> your ground. Your ad homs and deflection techniques were doubtless mere
>>> discourtesy details.
>
>> Yawn, usual hypocrisy in accusing others of your own faults, let's see
>> some real *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
>
> So you're now saying you haven't seen ALL the EVIDENCE.

Yawn, let's see some real *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

> Why are you still pontificating on the topic?

Why are you still trying to argue a point of view which you cannot
support with *EVIDENCE*? Put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 10:01, Spike wrote:

>> Appealing to the authority of 'a good sci-tech degree' is a fallacious
>> argument.

> Then by exactly the same argument so is doubting the worth of he who you
> are arguing against just because you can't find any relevant substantive
> arguments to use against him.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

>> Perhaps your degree is in a related subject such as Microbiology For
>> Military Systems, or Secure Area Management and Operations? Perhaps you
>> should tell us.

> It's sci-tech, as I claimed, and if it shows nothing else, it's that I'm
> capable of logical thought, the latter of which seems to be beyond you:

Please feel free to bring logic to your case.

> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png

Do I hear the sound of trumpets blowing?

>>> I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence, you're the one welded to a conspiracy
>>> theory which is unsupported by most of the evidence.

>> Then why were you demanding 'ROBUST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' for the
>> lab-leak case,

> Because AFAIAA there isn't any, and you *STILL* haven't linked to
> anything convincing that proves otherwise.

I don't need to. I'm asking you to justify your case, and you seem to be
having a hard time doing that, what with ad-homs, abuse, illogical
arguments, fallacious arguments. and the rest.

>>> The lab is not a military but a civilian institution, and no-one from
>>> outside China who has seen it or worked in it doubts either its probity
>>> or its security.

I don't need to tell you what sort of fallacious argument that is.

>> The Chinese aren't going to tell the foreigners what the real story is,
>> because they and their families will disappear. It's what happens in
>> totalitarian Communist countries.

> At *MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are *CIVILIAN*
> institutions, at least one of which has a long history of collaboration
> with experts outside China.

And so knows how to manipulate them.

>>>>>>> I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
>>>>>>> Wuhan that you have been unable to counter,

>>>> You countered it yourself when you shifted from denying SCIENTIFIC
>>>> EVIDENCE existed in favour of a lab leak, to suggesting it yourself.
>>>> Don't you remember what you wrote?

>>> Show me where I've said that scientific evidence supports a lab-leak!

>> Quote: "I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence".

> By which I meant *ALL* the evidence I have been able to discover, and
> which, as I keep pointing out to you, *DOESN'T* support a lab leak, and
> you have yet to provide anything convincing which does.

Thank goodness there's scientific opinion that differs from yours.

>> Quote: "I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2
>> and Wuhan"

> Which, as I keep pointing out to you, *DOESN'T* support a lab leak.

Only in your opinion.
> I did, in the post identified above, and a lab leak is not the reason
> that best fits all the known facts.

Now you're equivocating.

> Nonsense, in this the adult world to which you are so unaccustomed, you
> have to justify your reasoning with evidence, so far you've totally
> failed to do so.

Latest ad-hom noted.

>> YOU have claimed to have seen ALL the EVIDENCE.

> By which I meant *ALL* the evidence I have been able to discover, and
> which you are arguing against, therefore to argue against it you must go
> out and find contrary evidence for yourself, and so far you have failed
> miserably to do so.

Ah! So you HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE.

> Yawn, let's see some real *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

>> Why are you still pontificating on the topic?

> Why are you still trying to argue a point of view which you cannot
> support with *EVIDENCE*? Put up or shut up.

It's you that has to support your case, and to judge by the above, it's
getting weaker with every post you make.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2021 10:01, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Appealing to the authority of 'a good sci-tech degree' is a fallacious
>>> argument.
>>
>> Then by exactly the same argument so is doubting the worth of he who you
>> are arguing against just because you can't find any relevant substantive
>> arguments to use against him.
>
> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

I don't seem to have as much problems with it as you, and your strongest
suit is hypocrisy; let's see some real *EVIDENCE* supporting your case,
put up or shut up.

>>> Perhaps your degree is in a related subject such as Microbiology For
>>> Military Systems, or Secure Area Management and Operations? Perhaps you
>>> should tell us.
>
>> It's sci-tech, as I claimed, and if it shows nothing else, it's that I'm
>> capable of logical thought, the latter of which seems to be beyond you:
>
> Please feel free to bring logic to your case.

Please feel free to bring some long-overdue *EVIDENCE* to yours, put up
or shut up.

>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png
>
> Do I hear the sound of trumpets blowing?

Only if you suffer from tinnitus; let's see some real *EVIDENCE*
supporting your case, put up or shut up.

>>>> I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence, you're the one welded to a conspiracy
>>>> theory which is unsupported by most of the evidence.
>>>
>>> Then why were you demanding 'ROBUST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' for the
>>> lab-leak case,
>
>> Because AFAIAA there isn't any, and you *STILL* haven't linked to
>> anything convincing that proves otherwise.
>
> I don't need to. I'm asking you to justify your case, and you seem to be
> having a hard time doing that, what with ad-homs, abuse, illogical
> arguments, fallacious arguments. and the rest.

I have already justified my case, you're the one that has produced
nothing in support of your case; let's see some real *EVIDENCE*, put up
or shut up.

>>>> The lab is not a military but a civilian institution, and no-one from
>>>> outside China who has seen it or worked in it doubts either its probity
>>>> or its security.
>
> I don't need to tell you what sort of fallacious argument that is.

Translation: I don't have any argument against it; let's see some real
*EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.

>>> The Chinese aren't going to tell the foreigners what the real story is,
>>> because they and their families will disappear. It's what happens in
>>> totalitarian Communist countries.
>
>> At *MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are *CIVILIAN*
>> institutions, at least one of which has a long history of collaboration
>> with experts outside China.
>
> And so knows how to manipulate them.

Translation: I don't have any argument against it; let's see some real
*EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.

>> By which I meant *ALL* the evidence I have been able to discover, and
>> which, as I keep pointing out to you, *DOESN'T* support a lab leak, and
>> you have yet to provide anything convincing which does.
>
> Thank goodness there's scientific opinion that differs from yours.

Yet you seem unable to provide it; let's see some real *EVIDENCE*
supporting your case, put up or shut up.

>>> Quote: "I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2
>>> and Wuhan"
>
>> Which, as I keep pointing out to you, *DOESN'T* support a lab leak.
>
> Only in your opinion.

In the opinion of most experts in the field, including those who have
visited or worked at the lab; let's see some real *EVIDENCE* supporting
your case, put up or shut up.

>> I did, in the post identified above, and a lab leak is not the reason
>> that best fits all the known facts.
>
> Now you're equivocating.

Now you're bullshitting; let's see some real *EVIDENCE* supporting your
case, put up or shut up.

>> Nonsense, in this the adult world to which you are so unaccustomed, you
>> have to justify your reasoning with evidence, so far you've totally
>> failed to do so.
>
> Latest ad-hom noted.

Hypocrite, let's see some real *EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up
or shut up.

>>> YOU have claimed to have seen ALL the EVIDENCE.
>
>> By which I meant *ALL* the evidence I have been able to discover, and
>> which you are arguing against, therefore to argue against it you must go
>> out and find contrary evidence for yourself, and so far you have failed
>> miserably to do so.
>
> Ah! So you HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE.

I can't see what I can't find and what you don't supply; let's see some
real *EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.

>>> Why are you still pontificating on the topic?
>>
>> Why are you still trying to argue a point of view which you cannot
>> support with *EVIDENCE*? Put up or shut up.
>
> It's you that has to support your case, and to judge by the above, it's
> getting weaker with every post you make.

I've provided *EVIDENCE* which contradicts your case, you've merely
provide at best irrelevance at worst insults; let's see some real
*EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
> At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
> institutions

*EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese Government.
All businesses in China are required by law to deliver to the Chinese
Government any information asked for. That is one of the reasons why
Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.

There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
such an environment.

Jim

On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> At*MILITARY*  institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
>> institutions
>
> *EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese Government.
> All businesses in China are required by law to deliver to the Chinese
> Government any information asked for. That is one of the reasons why
> Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.

Of course.

> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
> such an environment.

That's a non-sequitur. If the Chinese were really investigating
bio-weapons, the very last place they would be doing it would be in a
lab that had scientists from outside China working for long periods
within it, and that was frequently visited and/or inspected and/or
worked in by foreign nationals, that received foreign funding, and whose
staff collaborated over 15 years with other scientists in other
countries, they would be doing it in a military institution completely
under the control of the military.

--

Fake news kills!

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

"Incubus" <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote in message news:slrnsoi73i.ghp.u9536612@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2021-11-05, Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6700ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>>
>>> most people now know the likelihood is that
>>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>>> accidental or not.
>>
>> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
>> fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
>> introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
>> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
>> get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
>> so clearly demonstrated.
>
> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
> concerning.

The virus has been fully sequenced and analysis by a Dr Michael Palmer
and others reveal clear signs of artificial origin. Palmer's analysis is
presented here (at 5m10s):
https://rumble.com/vkmpfy-doctors-for-covid-ethics-symposium-session-1-the-false-pandemic.html

Whether the virus exists in the wild (ie. outside of the lab), is another
matter. As per my previous posts, I could not see any evidence of a
novel threat to human health, anywhere on the planet, prior to the
mass "vaccination" rollout (which DOES represent a threat to
human health).

Whether the virus does exist in the wild is a moot point, because if it
does, then it's proved itself to be no more deadly than a bad seasonal
influenza, the like of which we have dealt with many times before. This
despite massive and ongoing propaganda efforts to make it appear deadly.

People need to wake up and realise they've been conned by the hoax of
the century - the entire narrative has been a pack of lies from start to
finish.
Attention and concern should be directed toward what lies behind it, and
what the REAL motivations are. Needless to say, they are not benign.

I find it curious that nobody was interested in the mass
jab-induced deaths which have been covered up (likely between 170.000
and 1.7 million in the USA alone, based on VAERS data and taking into
account the Under Reporting Factor, which appears to lie betweeen 10
and 100), mentioned in an earlier post.

Equally the mass murder of the elderly and other vulnerable hospital
patients in Mar/April 2020 using Midazolam (a crime which is still
ongoing albeit in smaller numbers), under the guise of a "population
triage", attracted no attention whatsoever.

On 18/11/2021 11:42, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:

>> Ah! So you HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE.

> I can't see what I can't find and what you don't supply; let's see some
> real *EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.

That damns you case, right there.

> I've provided *EVIDENCE* which contradicts your case, you've merely
> provide at best irrelevance at worst insults; let's see some real
> *EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.

You're the one with 'the case', so *you* need to support it, preferably
with something better than assertions, ad-homs, abuse, fallacious
arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, and a good larding of false
authority.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:

>> At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
>> institutions

> *EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese Government.
> All businesses in China are required by law to deliver to the Chinese
> Government any information asked for. That is one of the reasons why
> Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.

> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
> such an environment.

The naivety shown by Java Jive is astounding.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 13:56, Spike wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
>>> institutions
>
>> *EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese Government.
>> All businesses in China are required by law to deliver to the Chinese
>> Government any information asked for. That is one of the reasons why
>> Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.
>
>> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
>> such an environment.
>
> The naivety shown by Java Jive is astounding.
>
>
I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.
I think he as an OCD condition.

Jim

On 18/11/2021 14:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 13:56, Spike wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:

>>>> At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
>>>> institutions

>>> *EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese Government.
>>> All businesses in China are required by law to deliver to the Chinese
>>> Government any information asked for. That is one of the reasons why
>>> Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.

>>> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
>>> such an environment.

>> The naivety shown by Java Jive is astounding.

> I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.

> I think he as an OCD condition.

Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 13:39, Alexander wrote:
> Whether the virus does exist in the wild is a moot point, because if it
> does, then it's proved itself to be no more deadly than a bad seasonal
> influenza, the like of which we have dealt with many times before.

Tell that to the relatives of those grieving over the death of a loved one!

Tell that to the people currently suffering "long Covid"! No case of
influenza has left that legacy.

Tell that to the medical staff in my local hospital looking after the
Covid patients in Intensive Care, who reported that 7 of the 9 people
they were struggling to keep alive had not had the vaccine.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Jim

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn5n6h$acp$1@dont-email.me...
> On 18/11/2021 13:39, Alexander wrote:
>> Whether the virus does exist in the wild is a moot point, because if it
>> does, then it's proved itself to be no more deadly than a bad seasonal
>> influenza, the like of which we have dealt with many times before.
>
> Tell that to the relatives of those grieving over the death of a loved one!
>
> Tell that to the people currently suffering "long Covid"! No case of
> influenza has left that legacy.
>
> Tell that to the medical staff in my local hospital looking after the
> Covid patients in Intensive Care, who reported that 7 of the 9 people
> they were struggling to keep alive had not had the vaccine.
>
> There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
>
> Jim

Your post illustrates the problem we have in waking people up.

You can present facts to those who have bought into the narrative, and
they will just melt down and start jabbering; parroting the propaganda
they've been programmed with. Their reaction is akin to those observed
in cult members, when faced with anything that is challenging their
"reality". A rational discussion can never be had.

xposting snipped

In article <sn5l3h$p7q$1@dont-email.me>, Alexander <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:

> Whether the virus does exist in the wild is a moot point, because if it
> does, then it's proved itself to be no more deadly than a bad seasonal
> influenza, the like of which we have dealt with many times before. This
> despite massive and ongoing propaganda efforts to make it appear deadly.

Erm, I guess it is no surprise that you misunderstand this given that even
something as relatively simple as NICAM + FM stereo is something you've
failed to correctly understand. :-)

Hint: The earlier 'wild' virus variants basically didn't have much, if
any, infectivity for humans. But at some point a change in its structure
made an altered virus which is different. Since then further new variations
have occurred, some of which are more problematic. Say this for others as I
assume you'll deny it. :-)

A problem with having an epidemtc with many infections is that every
infection brings the risk of another variation occurring that has
increased infectivity/seriousness. Natural Selection can lead to
changes that overcome pre-existing vaxs. This is one reason a lot
of work is being done in the UK to monitor the genome of the
infections.

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 18/11/2021 14:42, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn5n6h$acp$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/11/2021 13:39, Alexander wrote:
>>> Whether the virus does exist in the wild is a moot point, because if it
>>> does, then it's proved itself to be no more deadly than a bad seasonal
>>> influenza, the like of which we have dealt with many times before.
>>
>> Tell that to the relatives of those grieving over the death of a loved one!
>>
>> Tell that to the people currently suffering "long Covid"! No case of
>> influenza has left that legacy.
>>
>> Tell that to the medical staff in my local hospital looking after the
>> Covid patients in Intensive Care, who reported that 7 of the 9 people
>> they were struggling to keep alive had not had the vaccine.
>>
>> There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> Your post illustrates the problem we have in waking people up.

So you are not going to tell it to the people I suggested. No surprises
there. You wouldn't want to learn that you are wrong, would you?
My dad had a saying for that attitude: "All mouth and no trousers".
>
> You can present facts to those who have bought into the narrative, and
> they will just melt down and start jabbering; parroting the propaganda
> they've been programmed with. Their reaction is akin to those observed
> in cult members, when faced with anything that is challenging their
> "reality". A rational discussion can never be had.
>
>
I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
experiences. That is real factual information.
It seems that you will have to catch Covid-19 yourself before you will
recognise it feels nothing like influenza.

Influenza isn't as benign as you think either. Google "Spanish Flu" and
see how many people that outbreak killed.

Jim

On 18/11/2021 13:55, Spike wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 11:42, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Ah! So you HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE.
>
>> I can't see what I can't find and what you don't supply; let's see some
>> real *EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.
>
> That damns you case, right there.

It damns yours, because you don't supply *EVIDENCE*; let's see
*EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up..

>> I've provided *EVIDENCE* which contradicts your case, you've merely
>> provide at best irrelevance at worst insults; let's see some real
>> *EVIDENCE* supporting your case, put up or shut up.
>
> You're the one with 'the case', so *you* need to support it, preferably
> with something better than assertions, ad-homs, abuse, fallacious
> arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, and a good larding of false
> authority.

I've supported my case, you're the one with 'the case', but you have yet
to support it with any convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put
up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 13:56, Spike wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
>>> institutions
>>
>> *EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese Government.
>> All businesses in China are required by law to deliver to the Chinese
>> Government any information asked for. That is one of the reasons why
>> Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.
>>
>> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
>> such an environment.
>
> The naivety shown by Java Jive is astounding.

The naivety shown by you in thinking you can win an argument without
presenting relevant an realistic *EVIDENCE* is astounding; let's see
*EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 14:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.

Because usually you lose, which is not surprising, because you're
another adopter of conspiracy theories.

> I think he as an OCD condition.

Another example of a loser abusing the winner because he can't take
losing. It's time to see some convincing *EVIDENCE* from both of you,
either put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
>
> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.

Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
abusing the winner. Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10:01 18 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> On 17/11/2021 16:11, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 17/11/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2021 11:29, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?
>>>
>>> Which is relevant in what way
>
>> Then why appear to dispute it?
>
> Appealing to the authority of 'a good sci-tech degree' is a
> fallacious argument.

Spike, are you going to list (perhaps in Latin) all the entries you
can identify on logical fallacies from your "Critical Thinking"
coursebook and post them in place of a real discussion?

If you numbered them, you could just post the numbers for convenience!

On 18/11/2021 13:39, Alexander wrote:

A great deal of anti-covid anti-vax conspiracy garbage 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

> "Incubus" <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote in message news:slrnsoi73i.ghp.u9536612@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2021-11-05, Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5986c6700ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>>>
>>>> most people now know the likelihood is that
>>>> the virus came from the lab in Wuhan. the only debate is if it was
>>>> accidental or not.
>>>
>>> If it was a deliberately-engineered bio-weapon then it really hasn't
>>> fulfilled its remit very well; the virus was so weak that they had to
>>> introduce medical malpractice, bogus PCR testing (far too many cycles)
>>> and mass rebranding of deaths from other causes as "covid" deaths, to
>>> get any significant "case" and fatality numbers, as your own research
>>> so clearly demonstrated.
>>
>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon. Of course, that research
>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon. That should be genuinely
>> concerning.
>
> The virus has been fully sequenced and analysis by a Dr Michael Palmer
> and others reveal clear signs of artificial origin. Palmer's analysis is
> presented here (at 5m10s):
> h t t p s : / / r u m b l e . c o m / v k m p f y - d o c t o r s - f o r - c o v i d - e t h i c s - s y m p o s i u m - s e s s i o n - 1 - t h e - f a l s e - p a n d e m i c . h t m l

No, forget fake news sites like r u m b l e . c o m and stick to
peer-reviewed researched, or at least research that actually has a
snowball's chance in hell of being peer-reviewed, and it's strange that
if he's really a professor, he doesn't appear to have published a single
research paper that I can find.

> Whether the virus exists in the wild (ie. outside of the lab), is another
> matter. As per my previous posts, I could not see any evidence of a
> novel threat to human health, anywhere on the planet, prior to the
> mass "vaccination" rollout (which DOES represent a threat to
> human health).

Vaccine denialism 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

> Whether the virus does exist in the wild is a moot point, because if it
> does, then it's proved itself to be no more deadly than a bad seasonal
> influenza, the like of which we have dealt with many times before. This
> despite massive and ongoing propaganda efforts to make it appear deadly.

Fake news, see the various web-pages worldwide to the contrary, for example:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

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

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

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data

Etc, etc.

> People need to wake up and realise they've been conned by the hoax of
> the century - the entire narrative has been a pack of lies from start to
> finish.
> Attention and concern should be directed toward what lies behind it, and
> what the REAL motivations are. Needless to say, they are not benign.

They're just very sensibly ignoring paranoid conspiracy nutters like you.

> I find it curious that nobody was interested in the mass
> jab-induced deaths which have been covered up (likely between 170.000
> and 1.7 million in the USA alone, based on VAERS data and taking into
> account the Under Reporting Factor, which appears to lie betweeen 10
> and 100), mentioned in an earlier post.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE RESTATED!

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total

The US population is just under 330m, and currently the proportion of
those vaccinated is ...
1 Dose 67%, this is the correct proportional figure to use
2 Doses 58%, these will be a subset of above
Booster 11%, these will be a subset of above

.... while 100,000 people die of blood clots every year, and 67% of that
is 67,000 ...

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/infographic-impact.html

.... and 659,000 people die of heart attacks every year and 67% of that
is 442,000 ...

https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

.... and 137,000 people die of strokes every year, and 67% of that is 92,000.

Adding up these figures, we have that in a normal 67% subset of the US
population ...

67,000 +
442,000 +
92,000
-------
= 601,000

.... would die of blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes in a normal
year, which is 1,647 people a day, or over 46,000 in any given four week
period, such as in the four week period after receiving a vaccine. The
misleading figure of 17,000 in the article is thus entirely explained away.

This emphasises, yet again, because some time ago Alexander made
*EXACTLY THE SAME MISTAKE* with the UK figures, that post-vaccination
event figures have to be interpreted by knowledgeable experts, rather
than on-line fake quacks. Such figures contain every post-vaccination
event, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS CAUSED BY OR EVEN RELATED TO the
vaccine.

> Equally the mass murder of the elderly and other vulnerable hospital
> patients in Mar/April 2020 using Midazolam (a crime which is still
> ongoing albeit in smaller numbers), under the guise of a "population
> triage", attracted no attention whatsoever.

Because there is no convincing evidence for it. However, there is
convincing evidence that people were removed from hospitals to nursing
homes without any testing to ensure that they weren't going to be
introducing the pandemic to the receiving care homes, which resulted in
the needless deaths of 10s of thousands in those homes. IANAL, but I
believe that may constitute a legal case for manslaughter, though that's
not going to help bring anyone back from the dead.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 14:42, Alexander wrote:
>
> Your post illustrates the problem we have in waking people up.

Yours illustrate your total lack of any sort of grasp of reality, it's
you not others that need waking up.

> You can present facts to those who have bought into the narrative, and
> they will just melt down and start jabbering; parroting the propaganda
> they've been programmed with.

How would you know, when you've yet to produce a single convincing piece
of evidence to support to your conspiracy paranoia!

> Their reaction is akin to those observed
> in cult members, when faced with anything that is challenging their
> "reality". A rational discussion can never be had.

Perfect description of yourself.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:48:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>Yours illustrate your total lack of any sort of grasp of reality, it's
>you not others that need waking up.

>How would you know, when you've yet to produce a single convincing piece
>of evidence to support to your conspiracy paranoia!

>Perfect description of yourself.

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>
> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
> experiences. That is real factual information.

On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.

Various reasons for this. One is that people lie; they pretend to know
lots of people who have "had the virus" and suffered terribly or died -
this is a quick and dirty way to score social points and to show their
loyalty to the narrative.

Others were lied to by doctors regarding cause of death when their
loved one died, because the warped medical guidelines resulted in
deaths from other causes being relabelled as "covid".

> It seems that you will have to catch Covid-19 yourself before you will
> recognise it feels nothing like influenza.

I'm not the slightest bit concerned about catching the virus, if it
even exists in the wild (which remains highly questionable), for the
reasons already given.

If you talk to medical staff (and they're brave enough to risk the sack
by disregarding their gagging orders), they'll tell you that in reality
there was never a "first wave" and the hospitals are now full of people
with jab-related adverse reactions and injuries - including blood clots,
strokes, heart attacks - which many scientists had been warning about
since before the first needle went into the first arm.

> Influenza isn't as benign as you think either. Google "Spanish Flu" and
> see how many people that outbreak killed.

The Spanish Flu was not any more aggressive than any previous (or
subsequent) influenza; in reality the special circumstances of the
epidemic (malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, and
poor hygiene) promoted bacterial superinfection that killed most of the
victims, typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed.