The rate of myocarditis in the last three years has skyrocketed as a direct result of the covid vaccine.
This is from a clinical cardiologist who treats thousands of patients. Keep that in mind when faceless, random propagandists on this board try to deny it.
We've already talked about how the furin cleavage site is so random, inefficient, and simply wrong that Occam's razor suggests it is natural in origin. It looks far more likely like a weird evolutionary result than a artifact of human design. (Claiming this was intentional requires many extra layers of evidence and fails the Occam's razor test)
This point keeps coming up. You're looking this at this as as pure scientist. Noble, but naive.
Do you really think that all the research being done at the Wuhan institute of Virology was all for altruistic purposes? This is the real world. Some people do really bad things for power.
It is extremely likely that the CCP was doing secret research to develop viruses as bio weapons. If you can't accept that possibility, then your head is so far in the sand that it's no use trying to explain it... but in the spirit of helping you see the light...imagine the following conversation from a bigwig in the CCP military to scientists at WIV.
CCP: We need you to develop viruses that we could potentially use as bioweapons if the need arises.
Scientist: Sure, we can do that. It's easy. We can just take one of the many viruses that we have not officially recorded and add a furin cleavage site.
CCP: Okay, but we can't have it look like it's obviously manmade. It must be done in a different way.
Scientist: Okay... well, we could try adding furin cleavage sites in a way that's never been done before. That way, we'd have plausible deniability.
CCP: Do it! And don't have any lab leaks like we had last month. You know why that guy who got bit by a bat just "disappeared." right?
Scientist: (gulp) Yessir. We'll add a furin cleavage site, but we'll do it in a way that scientists wouldn't normally do.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
We've already talked about how the furin cleavage site is so random, inefficient, and simply wrong that Occam's razor suggests it is natural in origin. It looks far more likely like a weird evolutionary result than a artifact of human design. (Claiming this was intentional requires many extra layers of evidence and fails the Occam's razor test)
This point keeps coming up. You're looking this at this as as pure scientist. Noble, but naive.
Do you really think that all the research being done at the Wuhan institute of Virology was all for altruistic purposes? This is the real world. Some people do really bad things for power.
It is extremely likely that the CCP was doing secret research to develop viruses as bio weapons. If you can't accept that possibility, then your head is so far in the sand that it's no use trying to explain it... but in the spirit of helping you see the light...imagine the following conversation from a bigwig in the CCP military to scientists at WIV.
CCP: We need you to develop viruses that we could potentially use as bioweapons if the need arises.
Scientist: Sure, we can do that. It's easy. We can just take one of the many viruses that we have not officially recorded and add a furin cleavage site.
CCP: Okay, but we can't have it look like it's obviously manmade. It must be done in a different way.
Scientist: Okay... well, we could try adding furin cleavage sites in a way that's never been done before. That way, we'd have plausible deniability.
CCP: Do it! And don't have any lab leaks like we had last month. You know why that guy who got bit by a bat just "disappeared." right?
Scientist: (gulp) Yessir. We'll add a furin cleavage site, but we'll do it in a way that scientists wouldn't normally do.
I'm not saying that scenario isn't possible, but rather than your alleged "preponderance of evidence" it's clearly speculation absent evidence of any kind.
Don't get me wrong, the Chinese have not been particularly forthcoming with evidence, but that implies uncertainty, not a blank canvas upon which to write your biases.
The Gateway Pundit, a far-right news site, filed for bankruptcy Wednesday, following litigation by election workers and others who faced harassment after the site made false claims that the 2020 U.S. election was stolen.
The rate of myocarditis in the last three years has skyrocketed as a direct result of the covid vaccine.
This is from a clinical cardiologist who treats thousands of patients. Keep that in mind when faceless, random propagandists on this board try to deny it.
No, it’s from COVID which is much more likely to cause myocarditis.
Yes, that’s the official narrative. Good job adhering to the script, Comrade.
We’re just supposed to ignore all the died suddenlies, heart inflammation and “sarcoidosis,” and right bundle branch block cases we know of in our lives, while the rest of us naturally immunized folk continue to not suffer, not be infected, and be amused.
You’re a f*cking idiot dude. Nice try stealing the “Sub-9 guy” moniker, despite your denials and subsequent reposts. Good luck using it again.
ITV have confirmed that news presenter Rageh Omaar is “receiving medical care” after he appeared to become unwell live on-air last night (26 April). Mr Omaar was reading the News At Ten headlines when he appeared to struggle...
No, it’s from COVID which is much more likely to cause myocarditis.
Yes, that’s the official narrative. Good job adhering to the script, Comrade.
We’re just supposed to ignore all the died suddenlies, heart inflammation and “sarcoidosis,” and right bundle branch block cases we know of in our lives, while the rest of us naturally immunized folk continue to not suffer, not be infected, and be amused.
You’re a f*cking idiot dude. Nice try stealing the “Sub-9 guy” moniker, despite your denials and subsequent reposts. Good luck using it again.
I see we’ve moved onto random flailing about “died suddenly” when stats from many countries show no change in cardiac deaths for young people, for example.
Another zero evidence post who’s only argument is “CONSPIRACY”
We've already talked about how the furin cleavage site is so random, inefficient, and simply wrong that Occam's razor suggests it is natural in origin. It looks far more likely like a weird evolutionary result than a artifact of human design. (Claiming this was intentional requires many extra layers of evidence and fails the Occam's razor test)
This point keeps coming up. You're looking this at this as as pure scientist. Noble, but naive.
Do you really think that all the research being done at the Wuhan institute of Virology was all for altruistic purposes? This is the real world. Some people do really bad things for power.
It is extremely likely that the CCP was doing secret research to develop viruses as bio weapons. If you can't accept that possibility, then your head is so far in the sand that it's no use trying to explain it... but in the spirit of helping you see the light...imagine the following conversation from a bigwig in the CCP military to scientists at WIV.
CCP: We need you to develop viruses that we could potentially use as bioweapons if the need arises.
Scientist: Sure, we can do that. It's easy. We can just take one of the many viruses that we have not officially recorded and add a furin cleavage site.
CCP: Okay, but we can't have it look like it's obviously manmade. It must be done in a different way.
Scientist: Okay... well, we could try adding furin cleavage sites in a way that's never been done before. That way, we'd have plausible deniability.
CCP: Do it! And don't have any lab leaks like we had last month. You know why that guy who got bit by a bat just "disappeared." right?
Scientist: (gulp) Yessir. We'll add a furin cleavage site, but we'll do it in a way that scientists wouldn't normally do.
Fisky, this is good imaginative writing but it’s not evidence in any way, shape, or form. It’s just speculation that happens to perfectly match your bias. Anyone could write something similar to match their own viewpoints. You are correct that we cannot prove the furin site wasn’t ingeniously designed by scientists with nearly-impossible-to-obtain spike protein knowledge, leaving no evidence of the years of research required for such rational design. Being unable to prove a negative does not automatically make the positive case likely though.
If this were the rootclaim debate, both sides would discard your hypothesis completely without evidence. Creative writing that sets up a motivation is not evidence.
Yes, that’s the official narrative. Good job adhering to the script, Comrade.
We’re just supposed to ignore all the died suddenlies, heart inflammation and “sarcoidosis,” and right bundle branch block cases we know of in our lives, while the rest of us naturally immunized folk continue to not suffer, not be infected, and be amused.
You’re a f*cking idiot dude. Nice try stealing the “Sub-9 guy” moniker, despite your denials and subsequent reposts. Good luck using it again.
I see we’ve moved onto random flailing about “died suddenly” when stats from many countries show no change in cardiac deaths for young people, for example.
Another zero evidence post who’s only argument is “CONSPIRACY”
Yes, that’s the official narrative. Good job adhering to the script, Comrade.
We’re just supposed to ignore all the died suddenlies, heart inflammation and “sarcoidosis,” and right bundle branch block cases we know of in our lives, while the rest of us naturally immunized folk continue to not suffer, not be infected, and be amused.
You’re a f*cking idiot dude. Nice try stealing the “Sub-9 guy” moniker, despite your denials and subsequent reposts. Good luck using it again.
I am not the one looking like an idiot there.
Don’t sell yourself short. You’re doing a great job looking like an idiot.
The rate of myocarditis in the last three years has skyrocketed as a direct result of the covid vaccine.
This is from a clinical cardiologist who treats thousands of patients. Keep that in mind when faceless, random propagandists on this board try to deny it.
Fisky, this is good imaginative writing but it’s not evidence in any way, shape, or form. It’s just speculation that happens to perfectly match your bias. Anyone could write something similar to match their own viewpoints. You are correct that we cannot prove the furin site wasn’t ingeniously designed by scientists with nearly-impossible-to-obtain spike protein knowledge, leaving no evidence of the years of research required for such rational design. Being unable to prove a negative does not automatically make the positive case likely though.
If this were the rootclaim debate, both sides would discard your hypothesis completely without evidence. Creative writing that sets up a motivation is not evidence.
This is a good point about the rootclaim debate. To me, one of the obvious flaws of the rootclaim process is that the assignment of probabilities is so subjective that it could be off by orders of magnitude.
Peters put up two premises that rootclaim did not adequately address. The first was that the odds of an outbreak occuring first at the wet market were 10,000 to 1 because only 1 in 10,000 residents of Wuhan frequented that market. Therefore, the odds of a leak occurring at WIV and first appearing at the wet market were 10,000 to 1. Therefore, the original source of the virus must have been the wet market.
It appears that, instead of refuting this premise, rootclaim accepted it as a "steelman" argument. Instead, rootclaim should have attacked it as a "strawman" argument. I simply don't understand the rootclaim protocol well enough to understand why they let this argument stand.
In my opinion, what rootclaim should have done is argue that a leak at the lab would NOT appear first at the lab due to the cleanliness of the lab and existing safety protocols. Instead, it would most likely appear in locations that were ideal for the spread of the virus. That would be wet markets and food processing facilities. That would reduce the likely outbreak locations to... four?... not sure how many wet markets were within an easy commute from WIV.
The next failure was Peter's claim that for the lab leak theory to be valid, the wet market should have been a superspreader event and it was not.
I'm not a virologist so I don't have enough knowledge to refute Peter's claim on why the wet market was not a superspreader event. I do know that about 1/3 of the first victims had no contact with the wet market at all. Rootclaim did not seem to be prepared to refute this argument. I did not hear a robust rebuttal, but I didn't listen to the entire debate.
My premise is that just because a virus usually spreads one way doesn't mean that it will always spread that way. We don't know who was first infected at the market and the conditions that person worked around.
Fisky, this is good imaginative writing but it’s not evidence in any way, shape, or form. It’s just speculation that happens to perfectly match your bias. Anyone could write something similar to match their own viewpoints. You are correct that we cannot prove the furin site wasn’t ingeniously designed by scientists with nearly-impossible-to-obtain spike protein knowledge, leaving no evidence of the years of research required for such rational design. Being unable to prove a negative does not automatically make the positive case likely though.
If this were the rootclaim debate, both sides would discard your hypothesis completely without evidence. Creative writing that sets up a motivation is not evidence.
This is a good point about the rootclaim debate. To me, one of the obvious flaws of the rootclaim process is that the assignment of probabilities is so subjective that it could be off by orders of magnitude.
Peters put up two premises that rootclaim did not adequately address. The first was that the odds of an outbreak occuring first at the wet market were 10,000 to 1 because only 1 in 10,000 residents of Wuhan frequented that market. Therefore, the odds of a leak occurring at WIV and first appearing at the wet market were 10,000 to 1. Therefore, the original source of the virus must have been the wet market.
It appears that, instead of refuting this premise, rootclaim accepted it as a "steelman" argument. Instead, rootclaim should have attacked it as a "strawman" argument. I simply don't understand the rootclaim protocol well enough to understand why they let this argument stand.
In my opinion, what rootclaim should have done is argue that a leak at the lab would NOT appear first at the lab due to the cleanliness of the lab and existing safety protocols. Instead, it would most likely appear in locations that were ideal for the spread of the virus. That would be wet markets and food processing facilities. That would reduce the likely outbreak locations to... four?... not sure how many wet markets were within an easy commute from WIV.
The next failure was Peter's claim that for the lab leak theory to be valid, the wet market should have been a superspreader event and it was not.
I'm not a virologist so I don't have enough knowledge to refute Peter's claim on why the wet market was not a superspreader event. I do know that about 1/3 of the first victims had no contact with the wet market at all. Rootclaim did not seem to be prepared to refute this argument. I did not hear a robust rebuttal, but I didn't listen to the entire debate.
My premise is that just because a virus usually spreads one way doesn't mean that it will always spread that way. We don't know who was first infected at the market and the conditions that person worked around.
Key is that the expert judges in the root claim debate did not just accept the blind probabilities. The Bayesian probilitizing was part of the argument but the judges were convinced by more traditional lines of argument too. They didn’t just go wide eyed at 10^21:1 probabilities and accept it.
