|
Post by mr potatohead on Apr 25, 2024 16:16:52 GMT
John Enders refuted HIMSELF.Dr Stefan Lanka did the control experiment that shows the same cytopathic effect, with or WITHOUT any "virus" tissue whatsoever.As Mike Stone wrote: "Covid and its vaccine was brought to me by the same charlatans that created virology. On that basis, what are the chances that virology is wholly or substantially untrue and corrupt. I think pretty damn high. Bordering on a certainty."A person doesn't need to be "smart" or a lab tech or have an extensive vocabulary to understand that pathogenic "virus" has not been proven to exist. They only need to be able to think logically, apart from their bias or indoctrination.
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by moxohol on Apr 26, 2024 4:52:08 GMT
John Enders refuted HIMSELF. That's only according to u & still a minority view at that. The linkpage u provided is merely an editorial page. There are no accompanying annotated references or bibliography normally reserved for any true thesis of scientific discussion or inquiry. There's not even a cited author affixed to the article. Who wrote it? Anyone could have & present whatever they like as fact. For all intents & purposes, it's an opinion piece perhaps qualified by some factual data that's either been compromised, corrupted or re-interpreted differently. The original questions or premises having been settled long ago. There's no practical way to vet any of these statements. This linkpage article wouldn't pass muster as a sophomoric term paper for lack of proper annotations. Again u do not grasp outliers or anomalies. John Enders never refuted his work nor embraced ur position or Viroliegy's that viruses are non-existent or non-pathogenic. He simply questioned his work as any good scientist would or should. Something I've done myself on occasion writing up lab reports - rechecking my work & footnoting outliers as necessary. The outliers themselves not necessarily being an indication of new evidence. Dr Stefan Lanka did the control experiment that shows the same cytopathic effect, with or WITHOUT any "virus" tissue whatsoever. Dr Stefan Lanka(1) is a fraud & accomplished no such thing. It was proven in a german court of law. If he had such impeccable proofs or validated experiments then why did he fail to bring them along to his court lawsuit? Surly he would have made his case upon their unassailable merits? Snap! That's right.....he didn't present any. His entire case didn't revolve around any substantive issues. It centered on pro forma ones. Lanka's entire case hinged on that the prize collector, Dr David Bardens failed to meet Lanka's parameters of citing only ONE study to prove the existence of measles virus(which Wanka presented to the court that measles was a psychosomatic disease not a viral/pathogenic one. Yeaaaaaah, BUDDY?). Dr Bardens presented SIX instead. Dr Lanka litigated strictly on his imposed framework requirements which by itself Bardens did not act unreasonable at all given the narrowness of Wanka's demanded scope. Despite this technicality, the lower court still awarded Dr Lanka's 100k prize money to Dr. Bardens. Why do u rely on hacks & quacks as ur impeccable sources? U make it so easy to impeach them. As Mike Stone wrote: "Covid and its vaccine was brought to me by the same charlatans that created virology. On that basis, what are the chances that virology is wholly or substantially untrue and corrupt. I think pretty damn high. Bordering on a certainty." This is an opinion not immutable statement of fact. Although, I can empathize with Mr. Stone's personal tragedies, it doesn't change that the "vaccines" were promoted disingenuously as safe & efficacious when in fact those very same "vaccines" were impugned a decade ago prior to the 2020 pandemic & relegated to the shelf back then. Dr. David Martin has spoken at length about these same corona "vaccines". They are bogus & dangerous. President Trump gave them a platform to re-introduce bad "vaccines" & discredited science again as a loss lender with billions of loot at stake.
They were not even vaccines to begin with. Not in the classic sense as is generally known to the public. mRNA "vaccines" are classified as genome therapies. A person doesn't need to be "smart" or a lab tech or have an extensive vocabulary to understand that pathogenic "virus" has not been proven to exist. They only need to be able to think logically, apart from their bias or indoctrination. Normally, when citing or making appeals to authority or referencing credentials alone, it makes for a bad argument or logical fallacy. However, I'll have to make an exception here & declare that my background experience is at least a credible catalyst if not a source. U obviously have a very superficial understanding of the subject matter at hand u are attempting to discuss. U mindlessly regurgitate or plagerize content directly from ViroLIEgy. That is not an invective or ad hominem. It is an observation of obvious fact. All u have accomplished thus far on the entire topic is merely editorialize & justify ur remarks/themes as self-evident because of ur logical fallacies. "It is because I say it is. " The people & references u use time & again are thoroughly discredited & not part of any mainstream or published science. Certainly, Viroliegy content does not operate by any scientific consensus which is how one normally determines accepted facts. Otherwise, you'll just end up hurling rocks at each other all day. U just make up ur own rules, constructs & facts......in a singular fashion.
Ur entire belief system is based upon junk science infused with prejudices & personal agendas. U need to go back to the drawing board because none of ur cites or people are credible.
If Mike Stone hadn't created the ViroLIEgy website he probably would have gravitated towards the Sovereign Citizens Movement or became a member of the Flat Earth Society & gained a cult following there too. Kool-Aid comes in many flavors. If u want to drink from it then be my guest. I'll pass. Ref: 1)German court orders vaccination cynic to pay for virus proof www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/german-court-orders-vaccination-cynic-to-pay-for-virus-proof-115031301308_1.htmlIndoctrination: the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question
[NOTE: I don't accept flawed epistemology or junk science. I seriously QUESTION ur various principles, prima fascia facts & central theses. A homeless person with mental disorders could do better than u processing information. That's an invective, btw. Could u discern THAT?]
|
|
|
Post by stormshadow on Apr 26, 2024 11:44:45 GMT
I lift therefore I am I enjoy carbs and sometimes jam. Mastering the written word is an art As much as creating the perfect fart Apply yourself with a great deal of zeal Pretty soon your sonnets will make the ladies squeal
|
|
carlson
Caneguru
Jabroni
Posts: 445
|
Post by carlson on Apr 26, 2024 20:34:22 GMT
I wanna hear more from the jabroni who started the thread.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Apr 27, 2024 14:58:13 GMT
John Enders refuted HIMSELF. That's only according to u & still a minority view at that. The linkpage u provided is merely an editorial page. There are no accompanying annotated references or bibliography normally reserved for any true thesis of scientific discussion or inquiry. There's not even a cited author affixed to the article. Who wrote it? Anyone could have & present whatever they like as fact. For all intents & purposes, it's an opinion piece perhaps qualified by some factual data that's either been compromised, corrupted or re-interpreted differently. The original questions or premises having been settled long ago. There's no practical way to vet any of these statements. This linkpage article wouldn't pass muster as a sophomoric term paper for lack of proper annotations. Again u do not grasp outliers or anomalies. John Enders never refuted his work nor embraced ur position or Viroliegy's that viruses are non-existent or non-pathogenic. He simply questioned his work as any good scientist would or should. Something I've done myself on occasion writing up lab reports - rechecking my work & footnoting outliers as necessary. The outliers themselves not necessarily being an indication of new evidence. Dr Stefan Lanka did the control experiment that shows the same cytopathic effect, with or WITHOUT any "virus" tissue whatsoever. Dr Stefan Lanka(1) is a fraud & accomplished no such thing. It was proven in a german court of law. If he had such impeccable proofs or validated experiments then why did he fail to bring them along to his court lawsuit? Surly he would have made his case upon their unassailable merits? Snap! That's right.....he didn't present any. His entire case didn't revolve around any substantive issues. It centered on pro forma ones. Lanka's entire case hinged on that the prize collector, Dr David Bardens failed to meet Lanka's parameters of citing only ONE study to prove the existence of measles virus(which Wanka presented to the court that measles was a psychosomatic disease not a viral/pathogenic one. Yeaaaaaah, BUDDY?). Dr Bardens presented SIX instead. Dr Lanka litigated strictly on his imposed framework requirements which by itself Bardens did not act unreasonable at all given the narrowness of Wanka's demanded scope. Despite this technicality, the lower court still awarded Dr Lanka's 100k prize money to Dr. Bardens. Why do u rely on hacks & quacks as ur impeccable sources? U make it so easy to impeach them. As Mike Stone wrote: "Covid and its vaccine was brought to me by the same charlatans that created virology. On that basis, what are the chances that virology is wholly or substantially untrue and corrupt. I think pretty damn high. Bordering on a certainty." This is an opinion not immutable statement of fact. Although, I can empathize with Mr. Stone's personal tragedies, it doesn't change that the "vaccines" were promoted disingenuously as safe & efficacious when in fact those very same "vaccines" were impugned a decade ago prior to the 2020 pandemic & relegated to the shelf back then. Dr. David Martin has spoken at length about these same corona "vaccines". They are bogus & dangerous. President Trump gave them a platform to re-introduce bad "vaccines" & discredited science again as a loss lender with billions of loot at stake.
They were not even vaccines to begin with. Not in the classic sense as is generally known to the public. mRNA "vaccines" are classified as genome therapies. A person doesn't need to be "smart" or a lab tech or have an extensive vocabulary to understand that pathogenic "virus" has not been proven to exist. They only need to be able to think logically, apart from their bias or indoctrination. Normally, when citing or making appeals to authority or referencing credentials alone, it makes for a bad argument or logical fallacy. However, I'll have to make an exception here & declare that my background experience is at least a credible catalyst if not a source. U obviously have a very superficial understanding of the subject matter at hand u are attempting to discuss. U mindlessly regurgitate or plagerize content directly from ViroLIEgy. That is not an invective or ad hominem. It is an observation of obvious fact. All u have accomplished thus far on the entire topic is merely editorialize & justify ur remarks/themes as self-evident because of ur logical fallacies. "It is because I say it is. " The people & references u use time & again are thoroughly discredited & not part of any mainstream or published science. Certainly, Viroliegy content does not operate by any scientific consensus which is how one normally determines accepted facts. Otherwise, you'll just end up hurling rocks at each other all day. U just make up ur own rules, constructs & facts......in a singular fashion.
Ur entire belief system is based upon junk science infused with prejudices & personal agendas. U need to go back to the drawing board because none of ur cites or people are credible.
If Mike Stone hadn't created the ViroLIEgy website he probably would have gravitated towards the Sovereign Citizens Movement or became a member of the Flat Earth Society & gained a cult following there too. Kool-Aid comes in many flavors. If u want to drink from it then be my guest. I'll pass. Ref: 1)German court orders vaccination cynic to pay for virus proof www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/german-court-orders-vaccination-cynic-to-pay-for-virus-proof-115031301308_1.htmlIndoctrination: the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question
[NOTE: I don't accept flawed epistemology or junk science. I seriously QUESTION ur various principles, prima fascia facts & central theses. A homeless person with mental disorders could do better than u processing information. That's an invective, btw. Could u discern THAT?] Dr Stefan Lanka won the court case and paid nothing:He did the same experiment as John Enders did, using the same cell culture method, materials and control exactly as Enders did and obtained the same results ....... no difference in cytopathic effect with or WITHOUT a diseased tissue sample supposedly containing "virus".That equals FAILURE to prove the existence of pathogenic "virus".If people are being forced to sacrifice their health and their lives due to a threat, it must be 100% REAL and there is no REAL scientific evidence, that has established that with a valid, repeatable experiment confirming the notion that pathogenic "virus" exist or are any threat whatsoever to humans.
John Ender's cell culturing method, the dogmatic standard of biology, is incapable of proving anything because it manufactures whatever result is desired to be "proven". * Here are the 6 documents that Dr Barden claimed "proved" that a measles "virus" existed, all of which were ruled ' failure to prove' in court, either as single publications or taken as a whole; Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85 Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535– Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14. Yes, John Enders refuted HIMSELF, as anyone can see when they read the article and the quoted and referenced "official" documents.So far, all "virology" has managed to show (by creating the result they desire to see) is INDIRECT "evidence" by affirming the consequent ..... "If Santa exists I'll get presents. I get presents, therefore Santa exists."It's too stupid to be more than a "meh".
And, what's this nonsense about "consensus" and "settled" science? Consensus is NOT science and science is NOT consensus. Never has been or will be. The "science" is NEVER settled. Both of your statements are ANTI-science. Not sure if you even know what real science is or how to properly conduct a scientific experiment, m8.
|
|
|
Post by gruntbrain on Apr 27, 2024 19:55:56 GMT
Consult Heir-head Paris Hilton to increase your mental bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Apr 27, 2024 21:06:08 GMT
I read an article on the NHS website about measles. It stated that even though there are many deaths worldwide because of measles this is largely because of a lack of food. They used the fact that a child in the UK that has not had the measles vaccination and has measles is very unlikely to die but a child with measles in a poor country is far more likely to die from it. Much of the food given to UK children isn't all that great either but they are getting enough food to prevent them dying from measles, m8s.
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by moxohol on Apr 27, 2024 21:56:12 GMT
"On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in ONE PUBLICATION, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money."(1) " On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.(1st court of instance)"(2) Sources: (1, 2)The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka – ViroLIEgy viroliegy.com/2022/08/16/the-path-paved-by-dr-lanka/Yup...."Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock"....absolutely gave his medical/scientific testimony at the trial. This is normal. Opposing counsel has their witnesses provide testimony too. However, the panel of judges released a legal judgment/decision/legal opinion on the basis that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his prize announcement not by what Mr. Podbielski testified to. His testimony was good for the home team but not for the judge panel. However, it's perfectly OK to cite it but it's not the legal decision. Back to law skool for u Spuds!This is the 1st set of citations above you've actually provided to me or from anywhere else on ViroLIEgy site. Viroliegy has pretty cartoon diagrams, serious sounding opinion pieces. In fact, it's a very well designed webpage chockful of information but utterly useless as it has NO annotated bibliography posted anywhere for reference to support the written articles. Since u & the fringe science group at ViroLIEgy want to be taken seriously & are simply advocating for the truth to sway the ignorant masses then u ought to footnote ur references so independent minded ppl can vet ur work & decide for themselves on that basis. Like any educated scientific-minded adult open to progress would do. All I see from u is thumping the table & making these pedantic diatribe rants about this, that & the other thing while projecting ur shitty epistemology onto others & at the same time acting as if it's the gold standard. It's going to take more for me or Michael to accept the word of a sycophantic fool & his cohorts if they ain't got no fucking annotated bibliography included with their articles to back their word up. That's not me being trite, cute or making overstatements.......it's accepted & proper protocol for scientific articles which ViroLIEgy purports to be. So tell ur girlfriends at ViroLIEgy if they want to be taken seriously then include some goddam footnotes at the bottom of the goddam page of their articles like proper scientists & affix an author to the same instead of writing like a bunch of goddam amateurs with an axe to grind wbo have nothing better to offer than merely pontificating about the topic!
Have a nice day....
|
|
jonrock
Caneguru
Rock-a-hula
Posts: 971
|
Post by jonrock on Apr 29, 2024 16:09:02 GMT
"...ur own solipsistic worldview ... the Socratic Method..." [/b][/font][/quote] Maieutics and facts over emotions equal the path to learn.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Apr 29, 2024 19:00:41 GMT
"On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in ONE PUBLICATION, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money."(1) " On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.(1st court of instance)"(2) Sources: (1, 2)The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka – ViroLIEgy viroliegy.com/2022/08/16/the-path-paved-by-dr-lanka/Yup...."Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock"....absolutely gave his medical/scientific testimony at the trial. This is normal. Opposing counsel has their witnesses provide testimony too. However, the panel of judges released a legal judgment/decision/legal opinion on the basis that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his prize announcement not by what Mr. Podbielski testified to. His testimony was good for the home team but not for the judge panel. However, it's perfectly OK to cite it but it's not the legal decision. Back to law skool for u Spuds!This is the 1st set of citations above you've actually provided to me or from anywhere else on ViroLIEgy site. Viroliegy has pretty cartoon diagrams, serious sounding opinion pieces. In fact, it's a very well designed webpage chockful of information but utterly useless as it has NO annotated bibliography posted anywhere for reference to support the written articles. Since u & the fringe science group at ViroLIEgy want to be taken seriously & are simply advocating for the truth to sway the ignorant masses then u ought to footnote ur references so independent minded ppl can vet ur work & decide for themselves on that basis. Like any educated scientific-minded adult open to progress would do. All I see from u is thumping the table & making these pedantic diatribe rants about this, that & the other thing while projecting ur shitty epistemology onto others & at the same time acting as if it's the gold standard. It's going to take more for me or Michael to accept the word of a sycophantic fool & his cohorts if they ain't got no fucking annotated bibliography included with their articles to back their word up. That's not me being trite, cute or making overstatements.......it's accepted & proper protocol for scientific articles which ViroLIEgy purports to be. So tell ur girlfriends at ViroLIEgy if they want to be taken seriously then include some goddam footnotes at the bottom of the goddam page of their articles like proper scientists & affix an author to the same instead of writing like a bunch of goddam amateurs with an axe to grind wbo have nothing better to offer than merely pontificating about the topic!
Have a nice day.... I'm not projecting anything onto anyone. I'm asking questions which continue to go unanswered and I'm providing information that I have found to be helpful, since there seems to be no real scientific confirmation of any pathogenic "virus".
The questions raised on the ViroLIEgy site are worth your investigation. References are provided to the official medical, experimental papers and documents. Plus, the quotes from official documents are with context in colored rectangles with reference links.
Mike Stone has done a remarkable job of writing and compiling data. My understanding is that he is motivated by his heart, not by money, unlike those who promote jabs and fake "virus" alarms.
"Outliers" means that they failed to hit the 10X.
Without 100%, absolute, experimentally repeatable, (since all info to duplicate a real experiment is included) scientific proof EVERY TIME of the existence of pathogenic "virus" .... ? ..... there is no excuse to quarantine old folks from visiting with their family before they die, no excuse for leaving people to die in hospitals with a ventilator tube shoved down their throat, no excuse for destroying peoples property in resulting riots, no excuse for mentally, socially and physically harming and killing millions around the world, no excuse for creating fear in the minds of billions of a fantasy threat, no excuse for injecting humans with chemicals, no excuse for the oppression and abuse exercised by "experts", "scientific consensus" and pseudo-science posers.
Let us see the documentation for any human pathogenic "virus". It's either 100% true and absolute, standing alone, hits the repeatable bullseye every time, with no "expert" vote, or it's just another BS pseudo-science religion that one must believe without evidence.
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by moxohol on Apr 30, 2024 7:09:37 GMT
I'm not projecting anything onto anyone. I'm asking questions which continue to go unanswered and I'm providing information that I have found to be helpful, since there seems to be no real scientific confirmation of any pathogenic "virus". You're still NOT getting my DRIFT. U most certainly ARE projecting with the very claims u make about various things related to viruses which is the diametric opposite. For the the record: u are not, u have not nor do not make inqueries about any topic. U constantly present flawed assertions or claims of fact. There's a very simple word that sums up the pedantic rants coming from u, an acolyte, & the amateurs at ViroLIEgy: "pseudoscience". Ur talking drivel.
Pseudoscience is often distinguished from mainstream science by its rejection of scientific facts and methods, its lack of peer review, and its failure to provide accurate and reliable measurement tools. It can also be marked by the use of testimonials and personal anecdotes as evidence, the citation of unrelated scientific publications, and the rejection of mainstream measurement tools. U can flip the script back at me all u like because u as an acolyte & ViroLIEgy are considered by definition fringe not mainstream science. U can bludgeon me all u like with "show me one scientific experiment showing a controlled viral isolate". Ur positions & hypotheses are specious to begin with anyways.
The questions raised on the ViroLIEgy site are worth your investigation. References are provided to the official medical, experimental papers and documents. Plus, the quotes from official documents are with context in colored rectangles with reference links. There are NO questions raised anywhere in ViroLIEgy except make false assertions & claims. It's commonly referred to as "Pseudoscience". The official documentation used are nothing more than blatant misuse of statistics which pervasively asserts their personal confirmation biases & only that. I know how to eyeball a paper & ur sources have not footnoted references just alot of editorials about a passionate belief which unfortunately is WRONG.
Mike Stone has done a remarkable job of writing and compiling data. My understanding is that he is motivated by his heart, not by money, unlike those who promote jabs and fake "virus" alarms. He has done a shit job. There is no annotated bibliography attached to any articles that I can see? It is a proper & accepted SCIENTIFIC format. He may or may not have made excellent points somewhere but if there are NO FOOTNOTES at the bottom of the page referencing/citing his sources so I can vet his statements than it's nothing better than fantasyland with illustrated cartoons(a phrase u like using alot).
"Outliers" means that they failed to hit the 10X.
Without 100%, absolute, experimentally repeatable, (since all info to duplicate a real experiment is included) scientific proof EVERY TIME of the existence of pathogenic "virus" .... ? ..... there is no excuse to quarantine old folks from visiting with their family before they die, no excuse for leaving people to die in hospitals with a ventilator tube shoved down their throat, no excuse for destroying peoples property in resulting riots, no excuse for mentally, socially and physically harming and killing millions around the world, no excuse for creating fear in the minds of billions of a fantasy threat, no excuse for injecting humans with chemicals, no excuse for the oppression and abuse exercised by "experts", "scientific consensus" and pseudo-science posers. An OUTLIER is a flaw or anomaly, whether singularly or collectively, within a given data set that contradicts or fails to support the proof(s) u are providing! However, one invalid or anomalous fact doesn't necessarily invalidate an entire hypothesis or proof. U of all people should know this aspect for someone who considers themselves well read & well informed? When & where did u ever a read on your much vaunted ViroLIEgy website that they only provided ONE element of fact that supported their positions(?) NEVER is the likely answer. I can't believe u even deigned to make such an ignorant & erroneous statement while purporting to know to know about science or more than u really do?
Stop making strawman arguments & conflations about ventilator tubes, destruction of personal property, mental, social and physical harms, global death rates, no editorials about fear in the minds of billions of a fantasy threat, chemical injections, or group oppressions. They are emotive topics which have nothing to do with ViroLIEgy claims or the collective personal beliefs about the nature or application of viruses. Stay on point with logical assertions not fallacies.
Let us see the documentation for any human pathogenic "virus". It's either 100% true and absolute, standing alone, hits the repeatable bullseye every time, with no "expert" vote, or it's just another BS pseudo-science religion that one must believe without evidence. U are the one making the false & specious assertions, unwaivering blind support of pseudoscience & reject all evidence to the contrary which doesn't meet ur standard of proof. Of course this is all nonsense, mere deflections, declarations & non-sequitor as far u are concerned. I have reasonable demands of my own from u as I consider myself an educated man with a commensurate yet peripheral background in virology. If u want ur position & derived sources to be taken seriously with a pinch of consideration then u will provide me with articles that have a declared author & referenced footnotes at the bottom of the page (this is called an "ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY") This is so I can vet their sources with relative ease like any other purported mainstream scientific study/paper does. I don't have to guess as it right there to peruse. Don't keep referring to ViroLIEgy as ur primary source. I will not as accept anything without an ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. No ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.....I won't read it. It's nothing better than reading works of fiction. Don't reference ViroLIEgy as evidence because all u are doing is unzipping ur fly & I ain't biting! Again: provide articles with footnotes at the page bottom referencing their sources & ensure that the author affixes his name to the said article. That's not hard to comprehend even for u Mr "Show me one repeatable viral isolate experiment". Remember: signed author with page footnotes (annotated bibliography) included. Hein?
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Apr 30, 2024 13:20:16 GMT
I'm not projecting anything onto anyone. I'm asking questions which continue to go unanswered and I'm providing information that I have found to be helpful, since there seems to be no real scientific confirmation of any pathogenic "virus". You're still NOT getting my DRIFT. U most certainly ARE projecting with the very claims u make about various things related to viruses which is the diametric opposite. For the the record: u are not, u have not nor do not make inqueries about any topic. U constantly present flawed assertions or claims of fact. There's a very simple word that sums up the pedantic rants coming from u, an acolyte, & the amateurs at ViroLIEgy: "pseudoscience". Ur talking drivel.
Pseudoscience is often distinguished from mainstream science by its rejection of scientific facts and methods, its lack of peer review, and its failure to provide accurate and reliable measurement tools. It can also be marked by the use of testimonials and personal anecdotes as evidence, the citation of unrelated scientific publications, and the rejection of mainstream measurement tools. U can flip the script back at me all u like because u as an acolyte & ViroLIEgy are considered by definition fringe not mainstream science. U can bludgeon me all u like with "show me one scientific experiment showing a controlled viral isolate". Ur positions & hypotheses are specious to begin with anyways.The questions raised on the ViroLIEgy site are worth your investigation. References are provided to the official medical, experimental papers and documents. Plus, the quotes from official documents are with context in colored rectangles with reference links. There are NO questions raised anywhere in ViroLIEgy except make false assertions & claims. It's commonly referred to as "Pseudoscience". The official documentation used are nothing more than blatant misuse of statistics which pervasively asserts their personal confirmation biases & only that. I know how to eyeball a paper & ur sources have not footnoted references just alot of editorials about a passionate belief which unfortunately is WRONG. Mike Stone has done a remarkable job of writing and compiling data. My understanding is that he is motivated by his heart, not by money, unlike those who promote jabs and fake "virus" alarms. He has done a shit job. There is no annotated bibliography attached to any articles that I can see? It is a proper & accepted SCIENTIFIC format. He may or may not have made excellent points somewhere but if there are NO FOOTNOTES at the bottom of the page referencing/citing his sources so I can vet his statements than it's nothing better than fantasyland with illustrated cartoons(a phrase u like using alot)."Outliers" means that they failed to hit the 10X. Without 100%, absolute, experimentally repeatable, (since all info to duplicate a real experiment is included) scientific proof EVERY TIME of the existence of pathogenic "virus" .... ? ..... there is no excuse to quarantine old folks from visiting with their family before they die, no excuse for leaving people to die in hospitals with a ventilator tube shoved down their throat, no excuse for destroying peoples property in resulting riots, no excuse for mentally, socially and physically harming and killing millions around the world, no excuse for creating fear in the minds of billions of a fantasy threat, no excuse for injecting humans with chemicals, no excuse for the oppression and abuse exercised by "experts", "scientific consensus" and pseudo-science posers. An OUTLIER is a flaw or anomaly, whether singularly or collectively, within a given data set that contradicts or fails to support the proof(s) u are providing! However, one invalid or anomalous fact doesn't necessarily invalidate an entire hypothesis or proof. U of all people should know this aspect for someone who considers themselves well read & well informed? When & where did u ever a read on your much vaunted ViroLIEgy website that they only provided ONE element of fact that supported their positions(?) NEVER is the likely answer. I can't believe u even deigned to make such an ignorant & erroneous statement while purporting to know to know about science or more than u really do?
Stop making strawman arguments & conflations about ventilator tubes, destruction of personal property, mental, social and physical harms, global death rates, no editorials about fear in the minds of billions of a fantasy threat, chemical injections, or group oppressions. They are emotive topics which have nothing to do with ViroLIEgy claims or the collective personal beliefs about the nature or application of viruses. Stay on point with logical assertions not fallacies.Let us see the documentation for any human pathogenic "virus". It's either 100% true and absolute, standing alone, hits the repeatable bullseye every time, with no "expert" vote, or it's just another BS pseudo-science religion that one must believe without evidence. U are the one making the false & specious assertions, unwaivering blind support of pseudoscience & reject all evidence to the contrary which doesn't meet ur standard of proof. Of course this is all nonsense, mere deflections, declarations & non-sequitor as far u are concerned. I have reasonable demands of my own from u as I consider myself an educated man with a commensurate yet peripheral background in virology. If u want ur position & derived sources to be taken seriously with a pinch of consideration then u will provide me with articles that have a declared author & referenced footnotes at the bottom of the page (this is called an "ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY") This is so I can vet their sources with relative ease like any other purported mainstream scientific study/paper does. I don't have to guess as it right there to peruse. Don't keep referring to ViroLIEgy as ur primary source. I will not as accept anything without an ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. No ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.....I won't read it. It's nothing better than reading works of fiction. Don't reference ViroLIEgy as evidence because all u are doing is unzipping ur fly & I ain't biting! Again: provide articles with footnotes at the page bottom referencing their sources & ensure that the author affixes his name to the said article. That's not hard to comprehend even for u Mr "Show me one repeatable viral isolate experiment". Remember: signed author with page footnotes (annotated bibliography) included. Hein? That's quite a load of crap, m8.Verifiable answers are wherever one finds them. They don't need to be at the "bottom of the page" or even the bottom of the screen as one scrolls down. The ViroLIEgy website is not a scientific paper. It is a compilation with extensive quotations, illustrations and review that come directly from the "official scientific" documents pertaining to the subjects he's reviewing, so he is free to present his articles in whatever format he thinks will be best.You obviously don't even know what I'm asking for.EDIT: Here is Mike Stone's latest article, "Blinded By Pseudo-science", April 15, 2024. Worth checking out is the introduction page to Mike Stone's ViroLIEgy website collection of articles he has written, in which he includes linked references to "official scientific" documents that pertain to the subject of each article. He requests that, if anyone finds a broken link, please let him know so he can fix it - which I understand he's had to do because of internet tech-meddlers who suppress truth.On that introductory page, you will discover Mike Stone's credentials, motivation and how the ViroLIEgy site came to be.
|
|
jonrock
Caneguru
Rock-a-hula
Posts: 971
|
Post by jonrock on Apr 30, 2024 15:46:06 GMT
DRAMATIC TURN OF EVENTS!! MR. P IS SECRETLY IN LOVE WITH MOX AND IS TRYING TO DRIVE HIM CRAZY ARGUING IN ORDER TO GET ACCESS TO...EHEM...MOX'S GARDEN OF EARTHLY DE-LIGHTS!!
PD 1: joking, just in case... PD 2: it works. To drive a girl crazy until the tension needs to be resolved. Don't ask me how is it that I know, but I KNOW. FUN FUN FUN!
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by moxohol on May 1, 2024 6:31:20 GMT
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by moxohol on May 1, 2024 9:15:20 GMT
Magic does not exist? I've been living in unrequited deception while languishing in cerebral stagnation after all these years? I'm really stupid after all? Woe unto me! It's all been lies based on George Lerner's "mr potatohead" creation to promote developmental learning in children as falsely promoted by Hasbro & generating all those mellenials with a twisted sense of false narratives, entitlements, & know-it-all virtue-signalling attitudes? Anon, anon mikey! Thou hast leadeth me down the path of righteous erudite ruin with an ostentatious pseudo-intellect & snot locker like that to perch ur reading glasses upon?? I'll never engage in discourse with u again sans citations or arguments without any logical conclusions or outcomes. Where's my psyllium fiber? I have to shit this one out to a troubled conclusion: "Roto-rooter'. That's the name! And away go troubles down the drain!" '*WHOOOOOOOOSH*...Buh-bye mikey.....farting is such sweet sorrow! No more crap from you." The mikey Anti-Viral Tribute (just say "NO" to smallpox)
|
|