Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

That post by gmdz is so naive/ignorant/I don’t want to go where it really is as it might get me in trouble…

Funny thing was today Covid came up at the office as we discussed the bonus for January. We ended up discussing how it was working during Covid as we were discussing bonuses since we just had a solid January. And I am modifying our bonus structure slightly. One of our new front desk employees was in Chicago during the Covid nonsense (welcome to Florida after hearing the nonsense she had to deal with).

That said it was good to hear that doctors early on up there were telling young males not to take the shot. This is reality. Doctors early on realized the data said young healthy people did not need the shot. But so many were coerced into it. These shots never should have been authorized for anyone under 65 period! I could get to that EUA in the moment. Today looking back. Only those with comorbidities should have ever taken the first series. It is criminal what the cdc and fda did!

 

But if and when he dies, he would have died so much worse had he not had all the jabs.

 

But smallpox. But polio. But chickenpox. Virology should be discredited on transmission studies alone …

 

More on the failure to establish transmission ..l

 

That is some funny stuff. You didn't read the paper did you? You really should read papers before you post here.

If you had, you would realize that the Twitter account that you relied on deceptively edited their picture. For example, here is the full paragraph on RSV from the paper, which was sliced and diced (without mention) in the picture you posted to provide a false impression of what the authors stated (leaving out the studies showing transmission).

Hmmm, so transmission was proven experimentally by direct contact and droplets and the question is whether transmission can also occur through aerosols. Quite a bit different than either you or your Twitter source stated. I wonder why the Twitter source was so dishonest and why you ran here to post their dishonesty.

 

I’m glad you dug a bit. We don’t even have the actual study but rather a very brief description.

TBD: was the poster dishonest and was I foolish to repost ?

Findings: given the abundance of tentative language, e.g., “thought to occur”, “suggests”, “probable route”, “highlights the difficulty of human transmission studies”, do you thing the authors would have disputed the contention “failure to prove”?

Conclusion: post stands.

Herd of elephants in room: what was meant by “infected” ? How was a virus isolated in people and fomites such as to establish the a virus produced symptoms ? Where were the controls ? Where was the blinding ? Could this even be considered a valid scientific experiment ?

I’ll follow up on the admitted “difficulty in transmission studies.”

 

So, he or she is still alive?

 

Yes it is a review paper, not original research. You have access to each of the papers through citation. You clearly never even read it and didn't realize that the tweet that you did read utilized a picture but cut out language that disagreed with the point that they claimed the paper showed without indication of doing so, giving the false impression that they were utilizing an unedited picture of the paper or, because you agreed with the fraud, decided to spread it. What the person who wrote that tweet did is obvious academic fraud. You either didn't know because you didn't read it or are engaging in academic fraud. Which is true?

Quite frankly, until you address why you either decided to commit academic fraud or, through ignorance, decided to spread the word of somebody doing so, I am not interested in seeing you continue to present evidence. That is what happens when you either engage in academic fraud or are lazy enough to not realize that you are spreading academic fraud. Admit what you did, provide evidence that you are not continually doing it, and then maybe future posts on the topic would be worth anybody's time.

 

Why would I need to run down the study when the writers of the review paper choose to underscore, in the sparse words of their intro, the difficulty with transmission studies ?

 

Because, frankly, them you would have knowledge on the topic that is deep enough to not be susceptible to somebody commiting academic fraud. You would know the experimental studies that have shown transmission and would be able to actually discuss the topic with a depth of knowledge.

BTW, you still haven't answered my question. Did you know that the picture was academic fraud and decided to spread it here knowingly or did you do it through ignorance due to the fact that you didn't read the paper? Please provide an answer.

 

Academic fraud ? These are serious charges. Given virology, it almost rises to the level of removing mattress tags.

 

So you are, in essence, admitting that you are lying, just claiming that you are doing so for a good reason (the promotion of your beliefs). People should keep this in mind.

 

More keen to assert proof of transmission than the authors of the study he cited. Thinks other people are impulsive.

Presupposes viral transmission and sees it into existence. Things other people are trifling with science.

Earlier produced an isolation paper that pointed to adulteration. Then followed with a ‘viral video’ in which the researchers themselves admitted they had no virus. Thinks other people traffic in fraud.

Public domain.

 

Literally none of any of this is true. For example, I didn't bring that paper to this board. You did. I just read it. You either didn't or chose to lie. You have still not indicated which it was definitively, although your double down points to the latter.

It should be noted that you didn't read any of the studies I posted then either, which is why you continue to misstate what they said and also why I gave you the out of saying that you didn't realize your source was telling lies, due to a lack of reading. You have apparently the time and energy to search Twitter and make literally thousands of posts on this topic, but not the inclination to actually read rrsearch or report honestly. Because, honesty doesn't help your cause, does it?

Again, just worth keeping in mind that you apparently think it is okay to commit fraud in furtherance of your goals.

Good luck in your goals.

 

Regarding your first study, I recall that you squealed, like a stuck pig, and hid behind my procedural error which I acknowledged and promptly corrected.

Regarding your second study, I posted a video critique which annihilated the study top to bottom. I don’t even recall you’re responding. Maybe you snarled and I miss it ?

Regarding the tweet I reposted, if you are certain the guy has committed fraud, given your medieval belief that people are deadly disease vectors, then you must consider the guy a mass-murderer and me an accomplice.

See Something ? Say Something!

 

It is not a procedural error (singular) when you claim that you read something in a section that didn't exist or when you then, when called on it, point to another section that doesn't exist. Particularly so when you are claiming to have read something not in the paper. When pressed, you admitted that you hadn't read the paper because they are all the same.

You posted a video by some guy who also clearly hadn't read the paper or was purposefully stating inaccurate things.

I did say something. I pointed out that you are committing fraud.

 

But you did read the materials section, in your study, that pointed to adulteration and not isolation, correct ?

Wouldn’t the academic integrity you so esteem compel to read the study accurately even if I didn’t !

And what did Andrew Kaufman say about your prized viral video that was inaccurate ? He is a Duke and MIT grad and a former MD. What are your creds that you would belittle him as “some guy” ?

Why don’t we just cut to the chase, declare virology fraudulent and lampoon you as its biggest busker ?

 

Looks like we showed measles a license and it stopped the killing.

 

Here is the biggest tell: when you wanted to make that point, you needed to post false information, as I showed, in the picture that cut out discussion without indicating that they were doing so and intending to imply that it was accurate. You have not said whether you did so purposefully to try to fool people after reading the paper or based on ignorance due to a lack of reading. If you answer that question, I'd be happy to continue down your threads. Let me know if you are willing to say why you posted obviously false information suggesting that it was a paper when it wasn't.