EverCurious452

This is upstairs in conspiracy HQ. It too me all of 10 seconds to find the answer clearly showing this to be (of course) a hoax. This guy is NOT a cell tower worker and this board is a hacked piece of an old TV. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/05/fact-check-worker-exposes-cov-19-circuit-board-5g-tower.html And of course viruses are not spread by electromagnetic radiation in any case.

quick followon to the "$3000 per does" question. I just noticed https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/health/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-government-contract/index.html says Pfizer is charging the US $19.50 per dose ($1.95B for 100M doses).

:-) Alas I think the steady state model would be a better analogy! (I'm also pretty sure SD has sold all but a token reminder of his IQD).

and healthranger which is a self-styled health food promoter has a testimonial from Alex Jones (infowars) so no wonder you like them. Ah so without autopsies (and how do you know they are not doing them?) you still attribute the cause of death to the vaccine. Old and frail people die quote often. The question is is the death rate among those that got the vaccine any higher than among those that did not? I'd guess lower since few if any will have died of covid and many that did not get it it will have. I already have done so. Please tell us what beauorcrat is getting $3000 per dose of the vaccine. For your $10 treatment you obviously are not including any hospital time. Let me guess its for Hydroxychloriquine, despite it showing in fact no help. Have you seen the reports that Trump, despite taking it, was far sicker than was oringally revealed when he contracted COVID-19?

Of course people have died after getting vaccinated especially since the first group to get it are the oldest and most frail. What I said was that I am unaware of anyone who has died from COVID-19 after getting vaccinated. That was the claim made by your fist link, that after getting vaccinated then exposure to the virus was worse than if you had not been vaccinated perhaps to the point of being fatal. Note that the VAERS system/site is only a reporting system. It makes no claim of causality. In order to investigate any possible causes you first have to repot adverse events that only are correlated. The article you originally posted tested various kinds of vaccines for a claimed immunopoathology (i.e. a problem resulting from an immunization). Those included both attenuated full viruses (the common style of a vaccine) and vaccines that only carried (a piece of) the S protein, the same protein that the mRNA vaccines code for. Those vaccines (the S ones) did NOT show the immunopalthology the others did in the mice (though again all the mice in the experiment vaccinated and exposed to the virus remained alive and well. For the first link, I decline to get info from "newswars". They just making unsubstantiated assertions. Your second link of the "ticking time-bomb" isn't even about vaccines. It's about the fact that this will not be the last pandemic, and with that I certainly agree (not with the article per say but that there will be more pandemics). In many ways we have been lucky that SARS-Cov-2 was not more lethal and more transmissiable.

Hey SD, always nice to hear form you. I'm not as cynical about it as you. As far as I can see (and I do know a bunch of folks in the medical research field) most inaccurate findings are just mistakes. That might be due to ego, a rush to get published and just bad analysis (there is a staggering amount of that I'm sorry to say). There is corruption in corporations paying for studies (we saw that in tobacco and opioids) but less so at the university/nih funded level I think. But now on to physics (I've just been listening to a recent book by Sean Carol about multi-verse theory. Pretty mind bending and I'm not totally sold (these books are frustrating in that I can't ask the author questions, but I still enjoy them). One thing I like about Carol he is that he is clear that he thinks its correct, but doesn't really know and will be happy to change his mind if someone comes up with something more convincing. As for the big bang whether the theories that take it down to the first few nanoseconds are correct, who knows. But we know for sure that the universe is expanding at an every accelerating rate, so it seems pretty clear that in the far past it was a lot closer together.

Of course now it IS a few months after the phase 3 trials started in nov and people are only dying that have NOT been vaccinated. I am not aware of any case of someone vaccinated that has died of COVID-19. Further the paper (which I rather doubt you read but if you care to here is the link, I did at least browse it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/pdf/pone.0035421.pdf) shows that the the S protein vaccine (it was not an mRNA vaccine but did use a part of the S protein so its similar) provided protection and did NOT produce the immunopathology the other full virus vaccines did (though they protected as well). Further the immunopathology being examined (half of the 10 mice in each group were exposed to the virus after being vaccinated for it then a few days later killed so their lungs could be examined) is only theorized as as an issue (all the mice were alive and well). This paper is from 2012, what has happened since, what papers confirm or reject this finding? You don't care do you? You again demonstrate my point. Instead of looking for what is so, you look for anything that you think supports you point of view and run with it.

Humans are not naturally objective observers. Very much the opposite. The doctors of course want to think they are doing good, their patients want to think they are being helped. That is why we use placebo controlled double blind trials to determine effectiveness of drugs (and running such a trial is difficult to do correctly and expensive). Barring the extreme case of a treatment resulting in instant recovery from deaths door, which no one is claiming for hydroxychloroquine, testimony from some doctors who believe it to "work" as you say for SARS-Cov-2 aka COVID-19 is pretty meaningless as an end result. It is enough to prompt further study, but that study has been done and found very little if any effect. Just having a study that claims an outcome is also not sufficient it has to be reviewed and checked and stand the test of peer review and confirmation by other studies. Read this https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/21/fact-check-hydroxychloroquine-hasnt-helped-covid-19-studies-show/5407547002/ for a review of the history of this. Getting to the truth of something like this is difficult in any case, but all the more so for a case where people are dying and we are desperate for a solution. Sadly hydroxychloroquine isn't it. I'm not saying that these doctors do not genuinely believe what they are saying (its possible some may have other motives but that is not they main issue) but the history of the scientific method (i.e. why we invented it in the first place) tells us that humans are terrible objective observers even when they have nothing to gain one way or the other. And in this case the doctors DO have something to gain. The view that they are helping their patients, which they of course want to be true and the view that they have discovered something significant which of course they would like to do. What "bureaucrats" are you speaking of here and what evidence do you have that they are being paid off? As you wish. I'd be happy to engage on the subject (though its a bit odd having to have you approve my posts, and thank you for doing so).

Markinsa if you want to read the articles to see what they claim Trump got wrong, and what they claim the study actually shows and read the study to see if they got that right and if it matches other research, then perhaps a conclusion could be drawn as to whether Cohen is being consistent or not. As it is you have shown nothing other than that Elizabeth Cohen has co-authored 2 CNN articles. I'm guessing you cut and pasted the image you posted from another site and haven't done any of that. Yet another case of looking for anything to post that supports your view, with no regard for its legitimacy as opposed to actually trying to find out what is so prior to reaching a conclusion. Which is a big part of what fuels conspiracy theories.

I should have added that I agree with the view that short selling is essentially a scam. In what other market can you profit when the price of an asset goes down by selling an asset that you do not own? If a role of the government is ensure that markets are fair, then I don't see why short selling should be allowed. In this case while I have zero sympathy for the hedge funds that took a big hit here, many of those that pumped these stocks up, will lose in the end when they return to earth. If you can pull some profit out on the way up, good for you. I'll pass.

Reddit r/wallstreetbets isn't hype ABOUT the stock, its an intent to CREATE a bubble. This coupled with the robinhood app's no fee options encourages speculation/manipulation. Many claim this as pushing back in some way against hedge funds who were betting on GameStop to crater. and of course it still may when panic selling sets in.

The constitution leaves the mechanics of voting up to the states. But that does not mean they can not adopt common rules. This was one of the things the CISA (that now fired Krebs was the director of) was helping states to do at least wrt security. The CISA's work to secure critical computer infrastructure (power plans, utility distribution networks, air traffic control, and election systems) is really a good thing for which they have not gotten enough credit. Interestingly the constitution is also silent on the need for a secret ballot and such was not widely adopted the US until around 1890 I think. Personally I'd like to see us universally move to rank choice voting, and computer drawn districts to end gerrymandering (where the database used by the district drawing program only contains the location of a household so that no other criteria maybe be used to draw the district) . I think both major parties are against both of those so they will have to go in via ballot measures but that did happen for RCV in both Maine and Alaska.

I think polls (if you believe them) say its 60-70%, which is alarming enough. "proof that it didn't happen"? What sort of such proof would satisfy you? Given that in Georgia the hand recount matched the machine count then to switch votes you would have to 1) make this chip swap on many vote marking machines, getting past the locks and security seals without leaving any trace 2) Have 10's of thousands of Trump voters not notice that the big black dot on the top of the ballot is next to Biden not Trump 3) Restore the vote marking machines to the original state after the voting is over again getting past locks and seals in an untraceable manner so post election analysis will not find anything. Is that really remotely reasonable? If you accept that all that could have happened, how is it possible to prove to you that it did not? Most of the claims have been dismissed in court as they either do not actually charge what they claim on social media (since they have no evidence) or for lack of evidence. As I have said repeatedly court is where there are consequences for not telling the truth. And in that forum these claims whither away. Trump and his campaign have lied egregiously and repeatedly about this (as evidenced in not winning in court) yet now you want the country to trust them to resolve this? We have the courts and law enforcement agencies for that. If sufficient evidence of wrong doing can be presented to warrant an investigation I would be fine with those agencies conducting such, but so far no such evidence has been offered. Again the first claim in attachment 14 was only stated that if you can get physical access to a computer you can alter it, this doesn't even claim anything along these lines actually happened. I agree that is a problem but I doubt doing as you suggest is a solution. A hand recount in Michigan was I think close to $8 million, Trump declined to pay. Let's assume the Trump org does such a recount and finds nothing. Then the story will be "it wasn't the real ballots". Where does it end? Georgia did a hand recount and inspected (a random sample of) their machines and found nothing wrong, do you accept the Georgia result? Trump need will since his view is disconnected from reality. In Trumpworld he has never failed or made a single mistake in his entire life (these are his words not mine). Look at what happened with Krebs. Trump appoints him as head of CISA (to secure vital computer systems around the country) but when he says the vote was clean Trump fires him. Social media is not "truth".

I only looked at part of the first "red flag" (presumably the most important one) of attachment 14. It doesn't claim anything actually happened, only that it is possible that if you can get access to the system and swap out a chip you can alter votes. Well duh! Getting access to any computer system can allow it to be altered. But no evidence is offered that it DID happen, and (at least in georgia the hand recount verifies that it did not happen. We'll see what happens in court. The head of CISA who has spent the past 3 years hardening security on all sorts of critical computer system around the country including for elections says nothing happened, so naturally Trump (who hired him) fired him for speaking truth to power. So now he's part of the conspiracy, and the governors and secretaries of state and election commissioners and all the election workers and the judges across these states (democrat and republican) are all part of the conspiracy. Trump now is suggesting the DOJ and FBI are in on it too. You are following a delusional madman.

There is no need to take my word for anything, I've only posted what can easily be verified if you care to look, which clearly you do not. So instead you'll just span the board with reposts from your favorite propaganda sites. Not exactly convincing.

Nothing beyond a few errors impacting a handful of votes has been offered in court. I think so far something 38 cases have been dismissed (lack of evidence). There was nothing phony about it. The Muller investigation clearly shows that Russian intelligence engaged in a large social media effort to help Trump and even some on the ground activities in the US. Further that the Trump campaign knew about it, expected to benefit from it, and (this is the important part) assisted in it by "periodically" passing internal campaign polling data to the Russians. That sort of data is exactly what you would need to program social media buys. That did not constitute "coordination" (as the Muller investigation defined it) where the two sides get together to decide on a plan forward and would be the basis for conspiracy. Collusion is not a legal term but I think what the Trump campaign did clearly fits the definition as most people would view it. i.e. they did knowingly cooperate with each other, even though that cooperation was unsolicited by either side. Whatever you call it is seems like something we don't want to happen. What impact it had on the election is impossible to determine. (It does not make Trump's win illegitimate in any way. Regardless of why people voted for Trump, they still voted for him). The Russians engaging in a voter influence campaign in the US is not illegal as far as I know under current law. It was a campaign finance violation for the Trump campaign (no US campaign is allowed to solicit or knowing accept anything of value from a foreign national). Interestingly the pages in the Muller report where the campaign finance violation would seem likely to have been discussed (but just guessing) are fully redacted, they are entirely black. We could pass laws preventing social media companies from selling campaign adds to foreign nationals, but such things are easy to get past by just not naming the candidate. So I don't know how we can prevent this in the future. Trump was not "spied" on. Court reviews have upheld the legitimacy of the FBI counter intelligence actions on (2?) members of Trump's campaign but whatever they found was not passed onto the Democrats. "Spying" is an illegitimate action for gain of the other side and that did not happen here. This was a completely legal action by law enforcement where the data collected remained with the FBI (and as far as I know remains unrevealed to this day).

We'll see. That is physically impossible in a hand recount (i.e. in Georgia were she has filed suit). Since the results in court show they have been made up by Trump supporters why would that be surprising? It's not funny, it's sad and dangerous as its an attack on the essence of democracy all being made in the name of patriotism (which should sound familiar to anyone with knowledge of the methods and motives of Joseph McCarthy). I do follow it somewhat to stay in touch with things, but you can say or "report" anything on social media. If it's all so blatant why have they all failed in court where there are serious consequences for not telling the truth? Or you are being lead by the right wing propaganda machine?

Yes it SOUNDS (at least to the untrained) so scientific but as a layman (at least in statistical analysis of voting) you (nor I) know what questions to ask, what are they not considering etc. That is the whole point of peer review in scientific work (which this is very far from being). Shiva Ayyadurai is not exactly a new comer to conspiracy theories and false claims either. And this is your "expert"? He is also taking as a given that votes were "transferred" and that ALL electronic election systems have this "algorithm" installed. BS. go to court and prove it. But they can't so they just go on social media to hook the gullible. I already explained how with a hand count in Georgia there simply is no stage at which the ballots can be tampered with so this vote transfer algorithm claim is total BS.

Indeed those things would be bad. A handful of errors happen in EVERY election (a dozen or so out of 150 million is pretty small, the Heritage foundation's data base on voting fraud literally shows one in a million, some 1200 ballots with some issue over 40 years and over a billion ballots cast). If its enough to have an impact that is even more of an issue, but that is NOT the case here. That is what we see in court. When folks actually have to tell the truth, the cases are throw out for lack of evidence. Its only on social media etc where all these bogus claims are made. What makes you think I am angry? I am concerned that this constant drum beat of false info will have the effect of people thinking the election was not legitimate when there is in fact no reason to think that. That is not healthy for democracy. Being skeptical and searching for verifiable truth is one thing, believing in any conspiracy theory that fits your world view is quite another.

Trump breaks all the norms in his campaign and election in 2016, in his term in office, and in the 2020 race. But then you expect that the election results should reflect past norms about how primaries relate to the general election and such. That seems conveniently inconsistent to me.

Only the ones (if they indeed are experts) that produced this sham analysis. Anyone can publish anything in the popular press. There is no peer review on their methodology. You accept it NOT because you understand it but because you like the conclusion. Want to bet on the court outcome?

Giuliani is NOT required to be truthful or have evidence to back up what he claims when making a presentation in a legislature let alone just in an informal meeting (i.e. this wasn't even a formal session). He can say anything he wants and make any claims he wants saying what the audience wants to hear. These same claim have been resoundingly dismissed, some WITH PREJUDICE, in court where there are serous penalties for presenting false evidence or making false claims (i.e. perjury). So having failed totally in the one forum where you are required to tell the truth the effort moves to ones where such is not required to try an end run around the courts. Its Trump that is trying to steal the election and obviously had this in mind in case he lost long before any votes were cast.

That is your claim, but the evidence of the votes says otherwise, that it was not the president carrying down ballot candidates. But you want to simply impose your view onto the world irrespective of the data. Wait, did you state your point as intended here? You're saying that if Biden was so popular he would NOT have gotten so many votes? Isn't that backwards?

Trump's unusual effect on people resulted in unusual voting patterns, that in no way implies fraud. This is a classic misunderstanding/application of statistics. The world is far less "smooth" than people think and claiming that a pattern in past elections let alone 'a" past election would be necessary be observed in another one let alone one with such different players, is ridiculous.

What is your point Pitcher? This was the pattern for this election. Trump lost even where down ballot republicans won. i.e. even republicans wanted Trump gone.