|
|
Post by christopher on May 31, 2021 10:32:45 GMT -6
Regarding the UFOs.. I always thought the Nazi ufo stories were a joke, but then I saw where Jack Mullin said the Germans had some secret UFO type tech they used against planes that could appear anywhere and cause the planes to cut out. He said the allies were very interested in that while he dismantled tape machines and boxed them back to US to make copies. Interestingly they were already 30ips, the US invented 15ips for longer recording on a reel. Pretty incredible all tape machines are very similar to those 1930s decks.(and the first thing we did was lower the fidelity for convenience, haha) but anyway, these UFOs seem to fit similar stories by airmen in ww2, so I’m guessing it’s some improved version. I wouldn’t worry about aliens yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 31, 2021 13:53:27 GMT -6
I personally want an apology from every armchair expert who called myself and everyone else conspiracy loons for believing the virus to be genetically altered by man. As the saying goes…what’s the difference between a conspiracy theory & the truth? About 6-12 months 😂 Haha.  Or maybe 18 months? Every day, we see more information popping up related to "unofficial" treatments, the nature of C19, long term effects from infections / treatments / vaccines, where C19 came from, and shenanigans from our own (and other) government and related agencies. I saw today where Mexico City created a "home health care" kit with Ivermectin and other drugs which 2 studies report that they drastically reduced hospitalizations. A 200k people study by the Mexican government showed 50-75% reduction of hospitalizations for those who took ivermectin compared to those that didn't. (I'm sure someone will debunk that too....). Bottom line : time is going to tell us a LOT more about the vaccines, C19 itself, how to treat and long term effects, etc.. There is really no great way to predict so many things.... |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 31, 2021 14:16:16 GMT -6
As the saying goes…what’s the difference between a conspiracy theory & the truth? About 6-12 months 😂 Well, when you find out that the first scientists to claim it was a "natural" virus were some of the same ones working on genetically modifying that very virus.. and the person heading our pandemic response has administration and monetary ties to funding and research at the very place it escaped from.. You start to see why it took so long for the truth to start coming out. That's the problem with asking experts about things.. you have to take their word on it. But if I had a dollar for every time an expert I've worked with was exposed as fudging their way through something or using their position to further themselves by obfuscation of prior work.. I could buy a really nice dinner. Meanwhile the Washington Post quietly backtracks on their “debunked conspiracy theory” Lab Leak claims.  |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 1, 2021 8:25:01 GMT -6
As the saying goes…what’s the difference between a conspiracy theory & the truth? About 6-12 months 😂 Haha. Or maybe 18 months? Every day, we see more information popping up related to "unofficial" treatments, the nature of C19, long term effects from infections / treatments / vaccines, where C19 came from, and shenanigans from our own (and other) government and related agencies. I saw today where Mexico City created a "home health care" kit with Ivermectin and other drugs which 2 studies report that they drastically reduced hospitalizations. A 200k people study by the Mexican government showed 50-75% reduction of hospitalizations for those who took ivermectin compared to those that didn't. (I'm sure someone will debunk that too....). Bottom line : time is going to tell us a LOT more about the vaccines, C19 itself, how to treat and long term effects, etc.. There is really no great way to predict so many things.... It's always so strange how people react opposite to how you think they would. They clamor for a quick and easy fix for a situation, but when confronted with info that says there's a quick and easy fix, they try their best to disprove it or ignore it and get angry at the notion that something simple might work. I've seen it in a lot of places, particularly science that is always positioned as emotional arguments like climate change, etc. Data that shows potentially good outcomes is routinely slandered as propaganda and data that shows bad outcomes is always touted as perfect and reliable. I think it's a bit of emotional investment in something, and to admit that they've been duped there is always a bit of ego protection going on, so they resist it as long as possible. Covid is starting to show though, almost none of the bad data has come to pass and a lot of the good data is starting to be vindicated, yet almost zero media coverage until now. I figure it's part of the MSM cycle: Find something that irrationally scares consumers Constantly run the fearful headlines Ride the ratings/profit as long as possible Position yourself as exalted suppliers of unbiased product Pivot to covering the fear that you created Ride the ratings/profit of the backlash you created Find new thing to headline once ratings start to drop off You can see how they did it with Fauxi. he was once the darling savior of trump's virus mismanagement, but now that election and covid ratings are down, they've turned on him and started using him as headline fodder. Wait until the "lockdowns didn't work, trump destroyed the economy by locking down unnecessarily!!" headlines start to pop up in 6 months to finish the headline arc on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 1, 2021 15:09:36 GMT -6
Constantly run the fearful headlines Yeah, it's hard to keep playing that card. Right now our hospitals are at 06% the amount of Covid patients that they had in December. And although hectic in Dec., they were not full up. When the MSM moves on, the fear can subside and people can get about their normal lives again. No lockdowns here, and the vast majority of people have been maskless for at least a couple of months now. And the hospitalizations continue to drop... |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 1, 2021 16:25:27 GMT -6
As the saying goes…what’s the difference between a conspiracy theory & the truth? About 6-12 months 😂 Haha. Or maybe 18 months? Every day, we see more information popping up related to "unofficial" treatments, the nature of C19, long term effects from infections / treatments / vaccines, where C19 came from, and shenanigans from our own (and other) government and related agencies. I saw today where Mexico City created a "home health care" kit with Ivermectin and other drugs which 2 studies report that they drastically reduced hospitalizations. A 200k people study by the Mexican government showed 50-75% reduction of hospitalizations for those who took ivermectin compared to those that didn't. (I'm sure someone will debunk that too....). Bottom line : time is going to tell us a LOT more about the vaccines, C19 itself, how to treat and long term effects, etc.. There is really no great way to predict so many things.... Wait a second, have "INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS" been by to censor this, I mean verify this information yet? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 2, 2021 6:57:24 GMT -6
Haha. Or maybe 18 months? Every day, we see more information popping up related to "unofficial" treatments, the nature of C19, long term effects from infections / treatments / vaccines, where C19 came from, and shenanigans from our own (and other) government and related agencies. I saw today where Mexico City created a "home health care" kit with Ivermectin and other drugs which 2 studies report that they drastically reduced hospitalizations. A 200k people study by the Mexican government showed 50-75% reduction of hospitalizations for those who took ivermectin compared to those that didn't. (I'm sure someone will debunk that too....). Bottom line : time is going to tell us a LOT more about the vaccines, C19 itself, how to treat and long term effects, etc.. There is really no great way to predict so many things.... Wait a second, have "INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS" been by to censor this, I mean verify this information yet? So apparently there's some FOIA results from Fauci's emails discussing damage control early on when multiple different scientists from around the world started gene sequencing SARS-cov2 and found 4-6 genetic inserts with 100% match to specific sections of HIV-1. They discussed using "not peer reviewed" as their default answer to any questions from the media, and then discussed using a single paper cited in nature as the basis for the "debunked" aspect. |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 2, 2021 7:53:46 GMT -6
Well least Fauci hasn’t been implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sleazy operation... yet.
Unlike just about everybody else... hey Mr Gates?
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 2, 2021 8:37:40 GMT -6
Well least Fauci hasn’t been implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sleazy operation... yet. Unlike just about everybody else... hey Mr Gates? Epstein is a true bipartisan. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 2, 2021 14:46:16 GMT -6
They discussed using "not peer reviewed" as their default answer to any questions from the media, and then discussed using a single paper cited in nature as the basis for the "debunked" aspect. At this point in time - "de-bunked" and "fact checked" carries pretty much no more weight than my 95 y/o neighbor who loves to gossip. True. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 2, 2021 15:29:06 GMT -6
They discussed using "not peer reviewed" as their default answer to any questions from the media, and then discussed using a single paper cited in nature as the basis for the "debunked" aspect. At this point in time - "de-bunked" and "fact checked" carries pretty much no more weight than my 95 y/o neighbor who loves to gossip. True. Peer review typically means "agreed upon by like minded people". I've always found irony in asking people within your specialty to critique something they would likely agree with naturally. Seems less than optimal if your purpose is to find flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 2, 2021 17:56:21 GMT -6
In my experience publishing peer review can be very strenuous. Papers are often being reviewed by the academic equivalent of competitors. I never had a single paper published without one change or another. There is both collegial and competitive motivation to review papers thoroughly.
Then there are people who do nothing but meta analysis and paper critique. And other people who reproduce papers to validate them.
Add on top of that the selective review by the journal editors - and impact factor - and you can figure pretty quickly whether a paper is a big deal or not.
And even then no single paper or study can be truly comprehensive or reliable, which is why meta analysis is so important.
I guess my thought when I see comments like this is - what is your alternative? I did research on nano-scale thin films made by electrostatic self assembly. How do you think a paper in a field like that should be reviewed? It seems like you’re saying “peer review I has flaws” to which I say - yes - but also - even so, is there a better system?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 2, 2021 20:13:31 GMT -6
In my experience publishing peer review can be very strenuous. Papers are often being reviewed by the academic equivalent of competitors. I never had a single paper published without one change or another. There is both collegial and competitive motivation to review papers thoroughly. Then there are people who do nothing but meta analysis and paper critique. And other people who reproduce papers to validate them. Used to be like that! I'm with the good Doctor. It isn't like that anymore. The mutual admiration society gets together to agree. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 4, 2021 9:55:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 4, 2021 10:17:41 GMT -6
This stuff is breaking fast and furious right now..... www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/scientist-center-lab-leak-controversy-put-charge-lancets-task-force-investigate-covidRevered scientific journal The Lancet has created a ‘task force’ to investigate the origins of the coronavirus that caused a global pandemic, yet it has decided to employ as it’s leader the very guy who funded the dangerous gain of function research at the Wuhan lab and subsequently allegedly ‘bullied’ other scientists into avoiding looking into the lab as a potential source of the outbreak.In the wake of renewed scrutiny of the lab leak hypothesis, the Lancet’s task force will reportedly “focus on analyzing data on all of the theories put forward on the origins of COVID, on the reasons why SARS-CoV-2 was able to break out of Wuhan and spread globally, and on the most plausible strategies to prevent future pandemics.” It also states that “The Task Force will review thoroughly and objectively all publicly available evidence, particularly the peer-reviewed literature, and conduct interviews with key leaders in science, medicine, policy and civil society.” Dr Peter Daszak, who is heading up this task force, is perhaps the least suitable scientist on the planet to objectively analyse the data, given his track record. Daszak, as President of the EcoHealth Alliance, shovelled at least $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past few years to play around with coronaviruses inside the lab through the now infamous ‘gain of function’ research. Science at it's finest. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 4, 2021 10:59:22 GMT -6
The problem with science is that, fundamentally, science is only concerned with “what can be done” not “what should be done”. That’s the realm of philosophy, ethics, religion etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 4, 2021 11:09:22 GMT -6
This stuff is breaking fast and furious right now..... www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/scientist-center-lab-leak-controversy-put-charge-lancets-task-force-investigate-covidRevered scientific journal The Lancet has created a ‘task force’ to investigate the origins of the coronavirus that caused a global pandemic, yet it has decided to employ as it’s leader the very guy who funded the dangerous gain of function research at the Wuhan lab and subsequently allegedly ‘bullied’ other scientists into avoiding looking into the lab as a potential source of the outbreak.In the wake of renewed scrutiny of the lab leak hypothesis, the Lancet’s task force will reportedly “focus on analyzing data on all of the theories put forward on the origins of COVID, on the reasons why SARS-CoV-2 was able to break out of Wuhan and spread globally, and on the most plausible strategies to prevent future pandemics.” It also states that “The Task Force will review thoroughly and objectively all publicly available evidence, particularly the peer-reviewed literature, and conduct interviews with key leaders in science, medicine, policy and civil society.” Dr Peter Daszak, who is heading up this task force, is perhaps the least suitable scientist on the planet to objectively analyse the data, given his track record. Daszak, as President of the EcoHealth Alliance, shovelled at least $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past few years to play around with coronaviruses inside the lab through the now infamous ‘gain of function’ research. Science at it's finest. And folks still cling to the idea that "experts" are to be revered and followed at all costs. Baffling. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 4, 2021 11:18:56 GMT -6
The problem with science is that, fundamentally, science is only concerned with “what can be done” not “what should be done”. That’s the realm of philosophy, ethics, religion etc. To me it seems that some follow science as an absolute path to truth much the same as religious dogma. And much like anything else in this world, preaching the idealistic positives of something do not negate the negatives of that thing. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 4, 2021 11:28:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 4, 2021 14:32:06 GMT -6
The problem with science is that, fundamentally, science is only concerned with “what can be done” not “what should be done”. That’s the realm of philosophy, ethics, religion etc. To me it seems that some follow science as an absolute path to truth much the same as religious dogma. And much like anything else in this world, preaching the idealistic positives of something do not negate the negatives of that thing. Totally agree, science IS the new religion. And just like religion it’s both harmful AND beneficial. Maybe it’s just human nature that we like to singularly cling to one narrow avenue when searching for “truth” when there are countless paths taking us there. Art, history, religion, spiritual traditions, human observation, lived experience, philosophy...just to name a few. No matter what the path dogma doesn’t serve anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by cyrano on Jun 4, 2021 16:11:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 4, 2021 16:21:44 GMT -6
Well these are certainly interesting developments!
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 4, 2021 16:56:04 GMT -6
Meanwhile as of this moment the front webpage of the NYT has zero mention of Fauci while the lead headline is Facebook’s two year ban of OMB.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 4, 2021 17:38:32 GMT -6
And there’s a crapload more of this bioweapons research going on than most will ever know... until it escapes or is used by bad actors for nefarious purposes. The stuff that was going on around the 2001 Anthrax attacks is quite terrifying. From the 2009 documentary ‘Anthrax War’. And the rest of the documentary here... www.anthraxwar.com/1/ |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 4, 2021 17:38:38 GMT -6
Well these are certainly interesting developments! It's no "development". It's always been this. Some of us always knew the truth. A lot of people fell into this propaganda trap willingly. They were wooed with suggestions of intellectual and moral superiority. The knowledge they were sold made them feel powerful in times of being powerless. They didn't want to know the truth. That's why so many got so angry at the suggestion that this was a man-created disaster. Emotional responses betrayed their facade and showed us the real feelings of doubt they were hiding behind the "science" they parroted in defense. I don't blame them for being tricked. I blame them for the venomous way they went about defending those who tricked them. |
|
Or maybe 18 months? Every day, we see more information popping up related to "unofficial" treatments, the nature of C19, long term effects from infections / treatments / vaccines, where C19 came from, and shenanigans from our own (and other) government and related agencies.
