Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Conspiracy Theories & Claims

[michael59]

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

View attachment 49730

Could you please give us your opinion of this (these relationships) and why they are relevant to Covid? It is hard to figure out what you want to communicate to us with this graphic. BTW, I think that the text for Fauci and WIV is a stretch and quite misleading.

These types of relationships are to be found in various industries between governmental regulatory agencies and the vendors who develop products or processes which are scrutinized by these agencies. DoD, FDA, SEC, etc. Specialized areas of expertise and evolving relationships, leading to both public good and bad results.

Michael59, if you are a citizen of the USA, how much would you want your Federal taxes to increase to avoid these types of relationships? No wriggling out of it by claiming that one shouldn't have to pay more taxes to avoid this stuff

 

[michael59]

Could you please give us your opinion of this (these relationships) and why they are relevant to Covid? It is hard to figure out what you want to communicate to us with this graphic. BTW, I think that the text for Fauci and WIV is a stretch and quite misleading.

These types of relationships are to be found in various industries between governmental regulatory agencies and the vendors who develop products or processes which are scrutinized by these agencies. DoD, FDA, SEC, etc. Specialized areas of expertise and evolving relationships, leading to both public good and bad results.

Michael59, if you are a citizen of the USA, how much would you want your Federal taxes to increase to avoid these types of relationships? No wriggling out of it by claiming that one shouldn't have to pay more taxes to avoid this stuff

I'm Canadian. They look relevant to Covid because they are the ones getting all the funding to for the vaccines and all the funding for the studies and it looks like they switched sides for either money or power. Do you not feel that when you look at the picture?

I got the picture off Nivek. He is a US citizen and I had no idea that it was in any way misleading because I trust him.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

I'm Canadian. They look relevant to Covid because they are the ones getting all the funding to for the vaccines and all the funding for the studies and it looks like they switched sides for either money or power. Do you not feel that when you look at the picture?

I got the picture off Nivek. He is a US citizen and I had no idea that it was in any way misleading because I trust him.

" it looks like they switched sides for either money or power." - Not to me.
"Do you not feel that when you look at the picture?" - No, I do not get that impression.

"He is a US citizen and I had no idea that it was in any way misleading because I trust him." - Why do you find this person trustworthy? The graphic you posted for us, which you wrote came from Nivek, seems deliberately and deeply misleading to me. It insinuates that a cozy relationship exists between the Federal employees and the vendor companies they are to regulate, and that this cozy relationship was the main driver for which vendor companies were aided, approved, etc.

Functional reasons exist for why certain big pharma companies (and not small vendors) were given incentives to develop Covid vaccines. These functional reasons were publicly disseminated on news sites, and were in accord with decades-long policies, so nothing new there.

I am so fucking glad that big pharma existed to develop and manufacture the vaccines!

Michael59, which pharma company, which met the covid vaccine development requirements, do you think was excluded from US FDA support?

 

[michael59]

" it looks like they switched sides for either money or power." - Not to me.
"Do you not feel that when you look at the picture?" - No, I do not get that impression.

"He is a US citizen and I had no idea that it was in any way misleading because I trust him." - Why do you find this person trustworthy? The graphic you posted for us, which you wrote came from Nivek, seems deliberately and deeply misleading to me. It insinuates that a cozy relationship exists between the Federal employees and the vendor companies they are to regulate, and that this cozy relationship was the main driver for which vendor companies were aided, approved, etc.

Functional reasons exist for why certain big pharma companies (and not small vendors) were given incentives to develop Covid vaccines. These functional reasons were publicly disseminated on new sites, and were in accord with decades-long policies, so nothing new there.

I am so fucking glad that big pharma existed to develop and manufacture the vaccines!

Michael59, which pharma company, which met the covid vaccine development requirements, do you think was excluded from US FDA support?

I still think natural immunity is applicable.

It is my opinion that FDA rushed to a decision. The side effects are to great a risk. and we are going to be sorry some time down the line in the near future because of it. YMMV

Fauci changes his mind more often than I change my underwear and that is daily.

Who the fuck, in their right mind, would line their babies up for this?

Pfizer said it has started a clinical trial testing its Covid-19 vaccine on healthy 6-month to 11-year old children, a crucial step in obtaining federal regulatory clearance to start vaccinating young kids and controlling the pandemic.

The first participants in the study have already gotten their shots, which were developed in partnership with German drugmaker BioNTech, New York-based Pfizer announced Thursday. It intends to enroll 144 children in the first phase.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/25/covid-vaccine-pfizer-begins-trial-on-infants-and-young-kids.html

Big pharma is a money making racket and is 75% of the FDA's funding.

Because the majority of those infected won't feel sick or get tested, the researchers warned that the total infections will be underreported, predicting that only about 400,000 new cases will be reported every day as opposed to the more than a million.

Murray said that while the forecast may be pessimistic, it is within the area of possibility based on the current information scientists have on the Omicron variant, which now accounts for 73 percent of new cases in the US.

The good news, however, is that Omicron's hospitalization rate is about 90 to 96 percent lower than Delta, which rampaged through much of the US in August.

'In the past, we roughly thought that COVID was 10 times worse than flu and now we have a variant that is probably at least 10 times less severe,' Murray said. 'So, omicron will probably … be less severe than flu but much more transmissible.'

Although COVID hospitalizations have increased rapidly in New York City, rising more than 100 percent in the past month, one hospital executive insists that capacity is not under strain.

'We're doing very, very well. Very manageable. There's no crisis... on the hospital side right now, we are doing quite well. It is very manageable indeed,' said Michael Dowling, CEO of Northwell Health which serves New York City, Long Island and Westchester County in an interview with CNN

Dowling said that the current surge could help the nation achieve herd immunity without mass fatalities.

'We are in the middle of a pandemic... you're going to have surges... if people are not that sick and they are not in the hospital -- you're building up herd immunity. So from that point of view its not the worst thing in the world,' he said.

Although COVID hospitalizations have increased rapidly in New York City, rising more than 100 percent in the past month, one hospital executive insists that capacity is not under strain.

'We're doing very, very well. Very manageable. There's no crisis... on the hospital side right now, we are doing quite well. It is very manageable indeed,' said Michael Dowling, CEO of Northwell Health which serves New York City, Long Island and Westchester County in an interview with CNN

Dowling said that the current surge could help the nation achieve herd immunity without mass fatalities.

'We are in the middle of a pandemic... you're going to have surges... if people are not that sick and they are not in the hospital -- you're building up herd immunity. So from that point of view its not the worst thing in the world,' he said.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

I still think natural immunity is applicable.

It is my opinion that FDA rushed to a decision. The side effects are to great a risk. and we are going to be sorry some time down the line in the near future because of it. YMMV

Fauci changes his mind more often than I change my underwear and that is daily.

Who the fuck, in their right mind, would line their babies up for this?



https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/25/covid-vaccine-pfizer-begins-trial-on-infants-and-young-kids.html

Big pharma is a money making racket and is 75% of the FDA's funding.





Although COVID hospitalizations have increased rapidly in New York City, rising more than 100 percent in the past month, one hospital executive insists that capacity is not under strain.

'We're doing very, very well. Very manageable. There's no crisis... on the hospital side right now, we are doing quite well. It is very manageable indeed,' said Michael Dowling, CEO of Northwell Health which serves New York City, Long Island and Westchester County in an interview with CNN

Dowling said that the current surge could help the nation achieve herd immunity without mass fatalities.

'We are in the middle of a pandemic... you're going to have surges... if people are not that sick and they are not in the hospital -- you're building up herd immunity. So from that point of view its not the worst thing in the world,' he said.

Respectfully, I disagree. If you could address my questions directly, instead of moving on to new topics, I would be grateful.
1. Why do you find this person (Nivek) trustworthy?
2. Which pharma company, which met the covid vaccine development requirements, do you think was excluded from US FDA support?

“Fauci changes his mind more often than I change my underwear and that is daily.” This is offensive, and not informative.

 

[Lb8535]

The mainstream media has it's advantages. However they can also have conflicts of interest, due to their advertisers or otherwise not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them. For example New York Times seems to have specifically avoided to report on the lab leak hypothesis to avoid upsetting their chinese advertisers.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/new-york-times-quashed-covid-origins-inquiry/

So far in 2021 the T has published 10 articles that I could search for easily on the lab leak theory, including one of their "explainer" deals. As far as I'm concerned that's reasonable as I haven't heard of any actual facts or data available. Right now they're spending a lot of space beating up on the pentagon. I am not aware that the T has huge Chinese advertising. The version I see has a major consumer sector manufacturer or consumable as the header ad, and another plus usually a media company in the middle somewhere. Today it's IBM, Verizon and Starz. I doubt that they or the Wash Post or the LA Times care a bit what an advertiser may think. Local and regional papers do care.

 

[michael59]

Respectfully, I disagree. If you could address my questions directly, instead of moving on to new topics, I would be grateful.
1. Why do you find this person (Nivek) trustworthy?
2. Which pharma company, which met the covid vaccine development requirements, do you think was excluded from US FDA support?

“Fauci changes his mind more often than I change my underwear and that is daily.” This is offensive, and not informative.

1. None of your business
2. I never said I think any pharma company was excluded. I said big pharma is 75% of the FDA's funding.

 

[Lb8535]

Print media is also a lot more desperate for income than TV and Internet. Sales of newspapers have fallen dramatically.

,
Again going to the NYT, a year ago which is the last info published circulation was 7M online and 800K print, the company had almost $1M in cash reserve and no debt, and increasing sales. Doing fine. This is also true of the Wash Post, but smaller real newspapers (and not propaganda rags) are certainly hurting.

 

[Lb8535]

About American FOIAs:

A few misunderstandings about US FOIAs seem to be part of wrong assumptions about Covid or pharmaceutical actions. These following are misunderstandings I read about or know from my previous employment:
- Anyone (US citizen or anyone else in the world) is entitled to get full information by asking the US Federal government for it.
- The US Federal government must give full information in response to a FOIA.
- If the FOIA is not responded to with full information, then the government is hiding something which the public has a right to know.

For someone to file for information via a FOIA request does not automatically and legally mean that the information will be given by the Federal agency. Let alone quickly. So, an agency declining a FOIA does not mean nefarious motivation or actions. Similarly, redacting information on a FOIA response does not mean that the agency is hiding anything the public has a right to know. Information types that the public has no right to know are mostly of these kinds: 1. protected personal information, such as names and addresses; 2. competitive information; 3. proprietary information; 4. sensitive national security information. There are others, but these four cover, I’d guess, 99% of the withheld information from all functions: DoD, FDA, DHS, DOJ, etc.

For the Federal agency I worked for before I retired, FOIA requests were an unpleasant, difficult, but necessary part of the job. It was difficult to schedule resources to do this because the requests varied in volume over time and types of information requested. The actual FOIA request itself and response were both subject to legal, privacy office, and security reviews – all of which are in addition to the actual function and person compiling the response documents. To respond to a FOIA was expensive in terms of personnel time, electronic resources, printing and mailing, etc. Every single page of a response document needed to be reviewed. What a PIA.

Sometimes the information was already on websites accessible to the public. The FOIA requesters did not want to be told that they could get the information from these websites – they were somehow sure that they could get more details via a FOIA.

I have known people who turned up helpful information thru FOIA's - principally those with family members who were persecuted during the McCarthy period. You can imagine the redactions on those. I have also known probably more folks who make the requests just to say that they did it as filler for their press releases about their various crusades. And I know what a pain deposition requests are, I can only imagine having to deal with FOIA's.

 

[Lb8535]

View attachment 49730

I don't find this surprising or shocking or particularly indicative. I actually don't understand the Fauci one. These are people highly expert in their field and probably many companies asked them to be a director after their gov stints. If you're thinking of them being "rewarded" for something, it's more likely the corporations felt lucky to get them. Presumably they came out of this environment as well. While they were holding an office of public responsibility they could not be on those boards or hold the stock. But once they were no longer employed by the gov they would bring good strength to the boards with their advice on testing. Board members don't by definition own major stock in the company, they are not given stock, if they want to they have to buy it (in this case it's a great investment and I'm sure that they did) and don't receive outrageous salaries for being board members (well not outrageous in the context. To you and me it would probably seem outrageous.) This is common throughout US industry and I bet Canadian as well.

 

[Lb8535]

1. None of your business
2. I never said I think any pharma company was excluded. I said big pharma is 75% of the FDA's funding.

FDA funding is through my tax dollars. This is an agency that regulates all interstate food processing and drug investigations and as such it charges set and publicly available fees for these required services including for example meat inspections. It's highly misleading to say that any one manufacturer or producer "funds" the FDA. The relationship and the calculated amounts of fee are not voluntary and are also not secret.

 

[gordonrutter]

By all means disagree and debate topics but please before things become too heated can we remember to be civil to each other and to provide evidence where possible. And ultimately to be aware that people presented with the same evidence may come away with different views so not everyone will agree all of the time and that's just the way of the world.

Thanks

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

I have known people who turned up helpful information thru FOIA's - principally those with family members who were persecuted during the McCarthy period. You can imagine the redactions on those. I have also known probably more folks who make the requests just to say that they did it as filler for their press releases about their various crusades. And I know what a pain deposition requests are, I can only imagine having to deal with FOIA's.

Yes, FOIAs are a great tool for an informed public and I am glad we have them. They are just such a PIA, partly because of the frivolous who frequently request them. Anything which can be used to hunt down the guilty who are or were in positions of power should certainly be considered, with of course the proper provisions for safeguarding the innocent. The Mccarthy period was an eye opener for many in our country. The same drivers of evil behavior seem to be an ongoing part of our communal lives.

As you may imagine, the recordkeeping for the FOIAs is mind-boggling: when the request was received; who, how, and when the different reviews of the request were held; who composed the response and when; who, how, and when the response was reviewed; a copy (PDF of a scan of the printed and redacted sheets) filed; weekly, quarterly, and yearly reports for agency heads and Congress, etc. etc. etc. ... All of this is in addition to the actual response which is mailed to the requester.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

When I was a small fish in the US Federal pond, because of the nature of my work, I was subject to ongoing scrutiny of my (and my spouse’s and any other close family members) outside contacts and investments. I annually gave permission for all my investments and bank accounts to be examined for any pattern of illegal benefit from my job. This was especially pertinent to my stock holdings. While I was a Federal employee, the type of part-time work I could legally do in addition to my Federal day job, was quite limited and again subject to scrutiny. My investments were actually examined in detail each and every year – not just a potential action, but real one.

As Lb8535 indicated, it would have been legally impossible for Dr. Fauci to benefit from any association with a big pharma company while he was a Federal employee. Considering the highly visible role he has had since Covid, I think it is unlikely he was secretly and illegally benefitting from his pharma contacts. Ditto for the other two former Federal employees whose names Michael59 has given us on the graphic on post #2581.

If I were to speculate on the type of financial scrutiny Dr. Fauci undergoes each year, I think it would not be just pharmaceutical companies, but their suppliers, distributors, the other companies in the supply chain, the owners of the real estate the pharmaceutical companies rent, the related medical supply industry, and so on.

Big pharma’s “funding” 75% of the FDA has been discussed at length earlier in this discussion. This claim does not hold up under scrutiny.

 

[brownmane]

When I was a small fish in the US Federal pond, because of the nature of my work, I was subject to ongoing scrutiny of my (and my spouse’s and any other close family members) outside contacts and investments. I annually gave permission for all my investments and bank accounts to be examined for any pattern of illegal benefit from my job. This was especially pertinent to my stock holdings. While I was a Federal employee, the type of part-time work I could legally do in addition to my Federal day job, was quite limited and again subject to scrutiny. My investments were actually examined in detail each and every year – not just a potential action, but real one.

As Lb8535 indicated, it would have been legally impossible for Dr. Fauci to benefit from any association with a big pharma company while he was a Federal employee. Considering the highly visible role he has had since Covid, I think it is unlikely he was secretly and illegally benefitting from his pharma contacts. Ditto for the other two former Federal employees whose names Michael59 has given us on the graphic on post #2581.

If I were to speculate on the type of financial scrutiny Dr. Fauci undergoes each year, I think it would not be just pharmaceutical companies, but their suppliers, distributors, the other companies in the supply chain, the owners of the real estate the pharmaceutical companies rent, the related medical supply industry, and so on.

Big pharma’s “funding” 75% of the FDA has been discussed at length earlier in this discussion. This claim does not hold up under scrutiny.

Personally, I think Dr. Fauci has had one h-ll of a job over the past couple of very difficult years. Not one that I envy.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Big pharma is a money making racket and is 75% of the FDA's funding.

Any business enterprise is a "money-making racket" by definition. Some are considered more legally acceptable than others.

Moving on ... You're dead wrong about big pharma providing 75% of the FDA's funding.

At the present time, the FDA funding structure (enacted in 1992 to streamline the drug approval process in light of failures in dealing with HIV / AIDS during the 1980s) is based on a combination of federal budget allocations and user fees charged to businesses seeking approval for their drugs, medical equipment, etc.

As of 2021 the relative proportion of the overall FDA operating budget obtained via these diverse user fees is on the order of 45%.

https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-160444

 

[Yithian]

By all means disagree and debate topics but please before things become too heated can we remember to be civil to each other and to provide evidence where possible. And ultimately to be aware that people presented with the same evidence may come away with different views so not everyone will agree all of the time and that's just the way of the world.

Thanks

Quite.

And I would add that although we are all free to ask questions of fellow posters, there is no rule to say that those posters must answer them.

By all means ask—and certainly ask again, as one question in many is easily overlooked—but if still no response is forthcoming, you may certainly note this, but please then let the silence speak for itself.

And meme-y graphics must come with commentary or they will be deleted.

This is not a cryptic puzzle forum.

 

[michael59]

I disagree with everything Fauci says and does. He said children don't need mask protection or vaccines.

When lining-up your kids to "test" a new vaccines immunity, remember who's got full immunity, (from liability) big pharma, thanks to the politicians.

Now he has hurryupitis when insisting everyone get that booster shot. Why? Most symptoms from Omicron are mild and are barely noticed by people who get it.

CDC recommended waiting and that most won't even need a a booster.

As with the initial Covid vaccine rollout, you’re responsible for declaring that you meet the criteria for a booster. In other words, as long as you wait six months after your second dose, you could theoretically jump the line and get a booster even if you aren’t eligible — but you shouldn’t.

“People just want their freedom back, and they’re hoping boosters will make that happen,” says Dr. Anna Durbin, an internal medicine infectious diseases trained physician, and professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Boosters aren’t going to make that happen. Vaccinating people who are not vaccinated is what’s going to make that happen.”

For most young and healthy people, “your benefit from a booster is limited,”

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/06/dont-get-a-booster-shot-before-youre-eligible-heres-why.html

Why is it suddenly safe to get the booster right away because of Fauci's say so? You are suppose to wait 6 months and now that Omicron is here and we are all going to get it anyway aaand it has moderate to mild symptoms, suddenly the booster is safe and should be received asap?

What is the big hurry? He doesn't care, he not liable.

 

[Yithian]

Personally, the point I am at:

Proposition: the government is corrupt and has unhealthy financial ties with industries it regulates and the media that presents its actions to the public, and that these ties have compromised it in its duty to treat the interests of citizens/subjects as paramount.

Response: Yes, to a troubling extent, and more evidence emerges each month.

Proposition: large portions of the (especially corporate) media have abrogated their supposed responsibility of holding the formal loci of power to account by reporting facts and events without fear or favour.

Response: Yes, and it's only getting worse.

Proposition: many industries regularly seek to erode the boundary that sets legitimate lobbying apart from immoral and illegal influence by infiltrating public office and ensuring that lucrative sinecures await those who facilitate their goals while nominally working for the state.

Response: Yes, but it was ever thus, and the fact that the situation has grown worse throughout my lifetime is to be blamed on, first, those who have held public office and watched as the nest of snakes thrive instead of condemning it to the flames, and second to the ignorant and incurious public that has passively accepted these people as their representatives.

Proposition: This global pandemic has been instigated and perpetuated by a cabal of corrupt public officials and greedy industrialists in order to extend state power of the citizenry and reap huge finacial profits.

Response: well, I won't say it's impossible, but some evidence would be helpful. Just because something could be true, that's no reason to believe it true or more likely to be true than another thing. 'Conspiracy theories' in 2021 seem painfully light on the actual 'theory'.

Here is my subjective ranking of where the explanations for apparently fishy situations tend to lie in order of frequency:

1) Misunderstanding (very often as a result of poor reporting, scientific and statistical ignorance or just bad translation—i.e. there is, in fact, nothing amiss.

2) Incompetence, ignorance and/or laziness.

3) Political advantage (often trivial).

4) Personal corruption (often for trifling gain).

5) 'Local' conspiracy (how local depends on the size of the claim).

6) 'National or International' Conspiracy (evidence needs to be pretty strong at this stage, but we're not into the realms of insanity yet).

7) Century-Spanning Conspiracy (Never encountered a true one that isn't extremely broad in scope: (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church sought to enrich and empower itself while claiming holy mandate').

8) Divine or Supernatural Interference in Mortal Affairs (marginally more likely that an incomprehensible suspension of the known laws of causality in the universe—but only marginally).

I'm currently at 4 or 5 maximum to explain the anomalies and suspicious aspects cited by Coronavirus conspiracists. The 5s are mostly in China.

 

[Yithian]

I disagree with everything Fauci says and does.

I hear he likes to drink coffee.

 

[Lb8535]

When I was a small fish in the US Federal pond, because of the nature of my work, I was subject to ongoing scrutiny of my (and my spouse’s and any other close family members) outside contacts and investments. I annually gave permission for all my investments and bank accounts to be examined for any pattern of illegal benefit from my job. This was especially pertinent to my stock holdings. While I was a Federal employee, the type of part-time work I could legally do in addition to my Federal day job, was quite limited and again subject to scrutiny. My investments were actually examined in detail each and every year – not just a potential action, but real one.

As Lb8535 indicated, it would have been legally impossible for Dr. Fauci to benefit from any association with a big pharma company while he was a Federal employee. Considering the highly visible role he has had since Covid, I think it is unlikely he was secretly and illegally benefitting from his pharma contacts. Ditto for the other two former Federal employees whose names Michael59 has given us on the graphic on post #2581.

If I were to speculate on the type of financial scrutiny Dr. Fauci undergoes each year, I think it would not be just pharmaceutical companies, but their suppliers, distributors, the other companies in the supply chain, the owners of the real estate the pharmaceutical companies rent, the related medical supply industry, and so on.

Big pharma’s “funding” 75% of the FDA has been discussed at length earlier in this discussion. This claim does not hold up under scrutiny.

Did you have to list any gifts received like in that West Wing episode? Any smoking jackets?
Also note that two governors of the federal reserve have just been forced to resign - not stand for reappointment - because they probably inadvertently did something with their personal portfolios that resulted in earnings due to an action of the Fed and it looked really bad. The laws do have teeth.

 

[michael59]

I hear he likes to drink coffee.

Would you do me a great favor and watch this video, please? I know you are busy and it's just short of 15 minutes long, so I am asking a lot, but it is a sound, reasonable, well thought out presentation. He is a doctor and a professor. It would mean so much to me if you would watch it and give me your opinion, please?

And then you know what, I'm done. I'm going to leave it alone because I really have nothing more to add. Although I can't promise I won't respond with at least a thank you for watching it.

Omicron, Boosters, and Is Fauci a synonym for Science itself?​

Vinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Associate Professor
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?...
Substack: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/
Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Personal Website: www.vinayakkprasad.com
Laboratory Website: www.vkprasadlab.com
Podcast Website: www.plenarysessionpodcast.com
Academic Publications: http://www.vinayakkprasad.com/papers

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

Did you have to list any gifts received like in that West Wing episode? Any smoking jackets?
Also note that two governors of the federal reserve have just been forced to resign - not stand for reappointment - because they probably inadvertently did something with their personal portfolios that resulted in earnings due to an action of the Fed and it looked really bad. The laws do have teeth.

Smoking jacket?!? I wish! More more elegant than the grubby sweatshirt I am wearing right now.

The limit to what I could receive as a gift from any vendor or potential vendor was $5.00 per incident or $50.00 a year. So, no frappacino from Starbucks. If I received a frap, I was required to report it to the ethics group for my agency. As a supervisor, I could not accept any gift from a subordinate worth $5.00 or more. Even accepting it and then reporting it to the ethics group was not allowed. At Christmas lunches, government employees could not attend ones hosted by vendors, and vendor personnel could not attend ones hosted by Government employees.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

Personally, the point I am at:

Proposition: the government is corrupt and has unhealthy financial ties with industries it regulates and the media that presents its actions to the public, and that these ties have compromised it in its duty to treat the interests of citizens/subjects as paramount.

Response: Yes, to a troubling extent, and more evidence emerges each month.

Proposition: large portions of the (especially corporate) media have abrogated their supposed responsibility of holding the formal loci of power to account by reporting facts and events without fear or favour.

Response: Yes, and it's only getting worse.

Proposition: many industries regularly seek to erode the boundary that sets legitimate lobbying apart from immoral and illegal influence by infiltrating public office and ensuring that lucrative sinecures await those who facilitate their goals while nominally working for the state.

Response: Yes, but it was ever thus, and the fact that the situation has grown worse throughout my lifetime is to be blamed on, first, those who have held public office and watched as the nest of snakes thrive instead of condemning it to the flames, and second to the ignorant and incurious public that has passively accepted these people as their representatives.

Proposition: This global pandemic has been instigated and perpetuated by a cabal of corrupt public officials and greedy industrialists in order to extend state power of the citizenry and reap huge finacial profits.

Response: well, I won't say it's impossible, but some evidence would be helpful. Just because something could be true, that's no reason to believe it true or more likely to be true than another thing. 'Conspiracy theories' in 2021 seem painfully light on the actual 'theory'.

Here is my subjective ranking of where the explanations for apparently fishy situations tend to lie in order of frequency:

1) Misunderstanding (very often as a result of poor reporting, scientific and statistical ignorance or just bad translation—i.e. there is, in fact, nothing amiss.

2) Incompetence, ignorance and/or laziness.

3) Political advantage (often trivial).

4) Personal corruption (often for trifling gain).

5) 'Local' conspiracy (how local depends on the size of the claim).

6) 'National or International' Conspiracy (evidence needs to be pretty strong at this stage, but we're not into the realms of insanity yet).

7) Century-Spanning Conspiracy (Never encountered a true one that isn't extremely broad in scope: (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church sought to enrich and empower itself while claiming holy mandate').

8) Divine or Supernatural Interference in Mortal Affairs (marginally more likely that an incomprehensible suspension of the known laws of causality in the universe—but only marginally).

I'm currently at 4 or 5 maximum to explain the anomalies and suspicious aspects cited by Coronavirus conspiracists. The 5s are mostly in China.

Yithian - I agree with everything you wrote, except that I think the scenarios in your first three propositions have always existed; perhaps the general public has become more aware of them recently. The motivation of self-gain has always been part of sustainable (tolerated?) human, communal behavior. You expressed these ideas much better than I could - thank you for posting this.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Would you do me a great favor and watch this video, please? I know you are busy and it's just short of 15 minutes long, so I am asking a lot, but it is a sound, reasonable, well thought out presentation. He is a doctor and a professor. It would mean so much to me if you would watch it and give me your opinion, please? ...

For the record - I watched it.

By and large all I saw was one guy ranting into an expensive microphone. The presentation was long on his personal opinions and very short on facts - all the more off-putting by virtue of his apparent attitude that being an MD excused him from explaining anything more than his own slant.

On the other hand ... His obsession (in the video) with predicting future problems Fauci may face is rendered somewhat more understandable in light of the fact he's speaking from the vantage point of his MPH background (Master's in Public Health) and his subsequent work and publications in the realm of public health policies.

In relation to this it's worth pointing out his particular focus on such issues has historically been on cancer / oncology rather than infectious diseases. Issues and lessons learned in policy making for long-term structural diseases don't necessarily translate into reliable guidance for dealing with fast-spreading transmissible infections such as COVID.

Above and beyond his reluctance to cite specifics, the facts upon which some of his opinions are based have become obsolete since the video was created at the end of November. For example, the initial trial results he bemoans being bypassed in recommending boosters have in fact been submitted, reviewed, and accepted for policy purposes in the weeks since he made the video.

This illustrates a major point underlying much of the COVID-related turmoil - the situation is constantly changing, and developments must be undertaken from a basis of continual adaptation rather than reliably static knowledge already in hand. Ongoing revisions to situational assessments and best-justified guidance don't constitute "changing one's mind" in the sense of contradicting one's earlier positions outright and arbitrarily. This dynamic context for data collection, analysis and decision making is essentially alien to the oncological background of the video's creator.

He also commits a faux pas that's rampant among commentators on the booster shots - a failure to mention that you shouldn't get a booster until you're eligible, and current / longstanding CDC guidance is that you're not considered eligible until 6 months following the second dose of either Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. Instead, he acts as if the CDC is "stampeding" (his phrasing) everyone into getting boosters no matter what. Nothing could be further from the truth.

His comments about the continuously tentative nature of scientific inquiry are valid. His framing of Fauci as having claimed to speak for science is self-serving spin-doctoring bullshit.

 

[michael59]

For the record - I watched it.

By and large all I saw was one guy ranting into an expensive microphone. The presentation was long on his personal opinions and very short on facts - all the more off-putting by virtue of his apparent attitude that being an MD excused him from explaining anything more than his own slant.

On the other hand ... His obsession (in the video) with predicting future problems Fauci may face is rendered somewhat more understandable in light of the fact he's speaking from the vantage point of his MPH background (Master's in Public Health) and his subsequent work and publications in the realm of public health policies.

In relation to this it's worth pointing out his particular focus on such issues has historically been on cancer / oncology rather than infectious diseases. Issues and lessons learned in policy making for long-term structural diseases don't necessarily translate into reliable guidance for dealing with fast-spreading transmissible infections such as COVID.

Above and beyond his reluctance to cite specifics, the facts upon which some of his opinions are based have become obsolete since the video was created at the end of November. For example, the initial trial results he bemoans being bypassed in recommending boosters have in fact been submitted, reviewed, and accepted for policy purposes in the weeks since he made the video.

This illustrates a major point underlying much of the COVID-related turmoil - the situation is constantly changing, and developments must be undertaken from a basis of continual adaptation rather than reliably static knowledge already in hand. Ongoing revisions to situational assessments and best-justified guidance don't constitute "changing one's mind" in the sense of contradicting one's earlier positions outright and arbitrarily. This dynamic context for data collection, analysis and decision making is essentially alien to the oncological background of the video's creator.

He also commits a faux pas that's rampant among commentators on the booster shots - a failure to mention that you shouldn't get a booster until you're eligible, and current / longstanding CDC guidance is that you're not considered eligible until 6 months following the second dose of either Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. Instead, he acts as if the CDC is "stampeding" (his phrasing) everyone into getting boosters no matter what. Nothing could be further from the truth.

His comments about the continuously tentative nature of scientific inquiry are valid. His framing of Fauci as having claimed to speak for science is self-serving spin-doctoring bullshit.

Okay, thank you for taking a look, EnolaGaia.

I get that you thought it was self-serving spin-doctoring bullshit. I heard that too but for a different reason than you might think. Most people who speak up or speak out are ostracized especially in the medical profession. Actually not just medical profession, it happens in organizations like policing for example.

When I had to have half my nose removed and a graph in place to regrow it, I was assigned a specialist. After that, I couldn't get a single doctor to help me. Not even to remove a bunch of stitches that came loose and were hanging, causing problems by getting caught in clothing etc. I had one option, go see my specialist. It takes up to 3 months to see a specialist. But no one was willing to step on toes so to speak.

Anyway, I'm done. Thank you very much for your opinion and your time, EnolaGaia.

 

[Min Bannister]

Well I have just freaked myself RIGHT out.

I have just partially watched an episode of Richplanet where he is speaking with Andrew Johnson and they talk about the covid jag causing your arm to get magnetised and Rich asked viewers to try this and send in their evidence. I was just dusting a bookcase and there is a compass on it so I picked up the compass and held it up to my right arm where I have just recently had the Pfizer booster. Well stone me but the needle moved towards my arm! I tried it a few times (same thing) and then moved the compass to my left arm. Nothing!

Well I was getting a bit freaked out by this and was trying to work out how I could film this phenomenon on my mobile since I don't have quite enough hands to hold compass and phone whilst filming my arm. All the while trying to figure out what could possibly be causing the needle to move. But to rule out environmental factors I turned my whole self 180 degrees and tried again. This time, nothing in my right arm but the needle moved when I held it up to my left!? Well it seems there is something in my radiator that is magnetic, not my Pfizer arm after all.

(This is the Richplanet episode in case anyone is interested https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=294&part=1&gen=99)

 

[Swifty]

Spelling were correctly instead of typing we're would help slightly apart from the fact that whoever chose this image chose one that includes a covid double red stripe positive result test strip. They're astonishingly stupid aren't they.

 

[Lb8535]

Well I have just freaked myself RIGHT out.

I have just partially watched an episode of Richplanet where he is speaking with Andrew Johnson and they talk about the covid jag causing your arm to get magnetised and Rich asked viewers to try this and send in their evidence. I was just dusting a bookcase and there is a compass on it so I picked up the compass and held it up to my right arm where I have just recently had the Pfizer booster. Well stone me but the needle moved towards my arm! I tried it a few times (same thing) and then moved the compass to my left arm. Nothing!

Well I was getting a bit freaked out by this and was trying to work out how I could film this phenomenon on my mobile since I don't have quite enough hands to hold compass and phone whilst filming my arm. All the while trying to figure out what could possibly be causing the needle to move. But to rule out environmental factors I turned my whole self 180 degrees and tried again. This time, nothing in my right arm but the needle moved when I held it up to my left!? Well it seems there is something in my radiator that is magnetic, not my Pfizer arm after all.

(This is the Richplanet episode in case anyone is interested https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=294&part=1&gen=99)

Congratulations for actually testing something you read on the net.