You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
December 9 2024 7.39am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 105 of 289 < 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 >

  

Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jun 23 6.09pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I questioned the guy's motives well before I read the analysis of some genuine experts on them, which confirmed my suspicions.

I think that he started off in a genuine spirit of using his teaching skills and avuncular manner to assist people in understanding what was going on with Covid.

I think he then realised that the more questioning and critical he was the more people watched him and the more people who watched him the higher the revenue he obtained. That grew exponentially until he had millions of followers all eager to hear the next conspiracy theory. He has admitted as much himself, in some unguarded remarks. He must now be very rich and able to convince himself that its all for the greater good.

He doesn't now "follow" facts to their conclusions. He misrepresents them to lead his viewers to incorrect conclusions.

If you are referring to my criticism of the so-called "Great Barrington Declaration" then any criticism of those involved is well merited. Its whole basis has been demonstrably shown to be false. Those involved have been linked with politically motivated right-wing objectives. I have never suggested all professionals must automatically be trusted, and the GBD proves that. It's why oversight and peer review is important.

Campbell is debunked. The task now is getting those who still trust him to accept that.

Your previous commentary have been shown to be false, so this is just waffle. Links you have provided in the past on criticism of this stuff were looked at and shown to have received funding from vaccine industries and those that fund them.

However, I did notice that you claim here that signatures within GBD have been linked with 'politically motivated right-wing objectives'......Ha...from the guy who came on here calling himself a 'one nation conservative'.

Two observations.....firstly the movement against the taken policy directions involves both left and right and everybody in-between. It isn't a 'right wing' thing anymore than it is a left wing one......So quite frankly I find the politicisation of this topic as pure paranoid.

Isn't this a bit like saying, Hitler liked dogs, so if you also like dogs....well you're a bit like Hitler. Are Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand pursuing 'right wing objectives'...bleeding ridiculous.
Do you object to something purely upon whether you think it's 'right wing' or not, Mr 'one nation conservative'?

Not everything is about that.....Someone could suspect that you have little other purpose.

Secondly what 'politically motivated right-wing objectives'? All this happened under a conservative government.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2023 6.10pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jun 23 7.30pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

For example, here is Russell Brand on censorship during the covid years considering Zuckerberg's recent admission.

[Link]

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Jun 23 8.25pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Your previous commentary have been shown to be false, so this is just waffle. Links you have provided in the past on criticism of this stuff were looked at and shown to have received funding from vaccine industries and those that fund them.

However, I did notice that you claim here that signatures within GBD have been linked with 'politically motivated right-wing objectives'......Ha...from the guy who came on here calling himself a 'one nation conservative'.

Two observations.....firstly the movement against the taken policy directions involves both left and right and everybody in-between. It isn't a 'right wing' thing anymore than it is a left wing one......So quite frankly I find the politicisation of this topic as pure paranoid.

Isn't this a bit like saying, Hitler liked dogs, so if you also like dogs....well you're a bit like Hitler. Are Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand pursuing 'right wing objectives'...bleeding ridiculous.
Do you object to something purely upon whether you think it's 'right wing' or not, Mr 'one nation conservative'?

Not everything is about that.....Someone could suspect that you have little other purpose.

Secondly what 'politically motivated right-wing objectives'? All this happened under a conservative government.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2023 6.10pm)

That is an evidence-free assertion. Kindly provide the evidence which proves that those criticising were funded by the vaccine industries. More importantly that their motivations in making the criticism were motivated by nothing other than wishing to correct misinformation.

The "GBD" has been discussed here several times and its conclusions shown to be false. It appeared early in the pandemic when how to respond was a subject of intense debate. The idea of trying to isolate only the very vulnerable and let the rest of us be exposed to encourage herd immunity was openly discussed, even within the government. It was, for a while, being suggested by Dominic Cummings.

The "GBD" was sponsored by "The American Institute for Economic Research" a "conservative" think tank. Who actually funded it has been kept secret, but there are suggestions it was by some who would profit from its recommendations. The AIER holds other controversial positions, for instance not regarding climate change as a threat and that the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest should not be stopped. Part, at least, of its funding comes from the Koch Brothers.

Of those listed in the earlier post only the first 3 actually authored the report. All the rest were among the 97,000 names they claim were signatories added later. It must be realised that anyone could, and did, add names. There was no verification done.

The names listed all appear on the first page of the report, presumably to add authenticity. Whether they were added by the actual position holder is unknown.

I don't though doubt that some were. At the start of the pandemic this idea must have seemed attractive to some, but after the scientific community as a whole pointed out its flaws, and the consequences of following it, it very quickly became seen as debunked and valueless.

Some of the original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration have reportedly withdrawn their support or distanced themselves from the declaration. While the exact number and identities of those who have withdrawn their support may vary, there have been instances where signatories have clarified their position or expressed concerns about the declaration's approach.

For example, in a statement published in February 2021, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original signatories, expressed that the Great Barrington Declaration was not intended as a specific policy recommendation but rather as a starting point for discussion. He also clarified that he did not endorse or advocate for an approach of "herd immunity" without protective measures.

I would seriously doubt whether many responsible experts who were attracted to the idea initially would still be in favour of it today.

You only have to read the criticisms here to understand the reaction of the bulk of the scientific community:-

[Link]

Are Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand pursuing "right-wing" objectives? I very much doubt it. They are pursuing monetary objectives and if that involves pumping up right-wing followers I don't suppose they care too much. Brand more obviously to me than Dore who I am less familiar with.

I object to things that don't make sense or don't serve the needs of the people, no matter where they arise. That applies every bit as much to the left, as the right, but you won't see much evidence of left-thinking on here. Not that you will accept that!

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 18 Jun 23 8.56pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That is an evidence-free assertion. Kindly provide the evidence which proves that those criticising were funded by the vaccine industries. More importantly that their motivations in making the criticism were motivated by nothing other than wishing to correct misinformation.

The "GBD" has been discussed here several times and its conclusions shown to be false. It appeared early in the pandemic when how to respond was a subject of intense debate. The idea of trying to isolate only the very vulnerable and let the rest of us be exposed to encourage herd immunity was openly discussed, even within the government. It was, for a while, being suggested by Dominic Cummings.

The "GBD" was sponsored by "The American Institute for Economic Research" a "conservative" think tank. Who actually funded it has been kept secret, but there are suggestions it was by some who would profit from its recommendations. The AIER holds other controversial positions, for instance not regarding climate change as a threat and that the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest should not be stopped. Part, at least, of its funding comes from the Koch Brothers.

Of those listed in the earlier post only the first 3 actually authored the report. All the rest were among the 97,000 names they claim were signatories added later. It must be realised that anyone could, and did, add names. There was no verification done.

The names listed all appear on the first page of the report, presumably to add authenticity. Whether they were added by the actual position holder is unknown.

I don't though doubt that some were. At the start of the pandemic this idea must have seemed attractive to some, but after the scientific community as a whole pointed out its flaws, and the consequences of following it, it very quickly became seen as debunked and valueless.

Some of the original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration have reportedly withdrawn their support or distanced themselves from the declaration. While the exact number and identities of those who have withdrawn their support may vary, there have been instances where signatories have clarified their position or expressed concerns about the declaration's approach.

For example, in a statement published in February 2021, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original signatories, expressed that the Great Barrington Declaration was not intended as a specific policy recommendation but rather as a starting point for discussion. He also clarified that he did not endorse or advocate for an approach of "herd immunity" without protective measures.

I would seriously doubt whether many responsible experts who were attracted to the idea initially would still be in favour of it today.

You only have to read the criticisms here to understand the reaction of the bulk of the scientific community:-

[Link]

Are Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand pursuing "right-wing" objectives? I very much doubt it. They are pursuing monetary objectives and if that involves pumping up right-wing followers I don't suppose they care too much. Brand more obviously to me than Dore who I am less familiar with.

I object to things that don't make sense or don't serve the needs of the people, no matter where they arise. That applies every bit as much to the left, as the right, but you won't see much evidence of left-thinking on here. Not that you will accept that!

Monetary objectives?

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jun 23 9.12pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That is an evidence-free assertion. Kindly provide the evidence which proves that those criticising were funded by the vaccine industries. More importantly that their motivations in making the criticism were motivated by nothing other than wishing to correct misinformation.

No it isn't, I looked into it at the time and posted the evidence back to you then. This is yet more evidence of your convenient memory loss.

Stop telling me to be your researcher. Go find the post yourself, I'm not going through the hundreds of interactions with you to find one post.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jun 23 9.18pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That is an evidence-free assertion. Kindly provide the evidence which proves that those criticising were funded by the vaccine industries. More importantly that their motivations in making the criticism were motivated by nothing other than wishing to correct misinformation.

The "GBD" has been discussed here several times and its conclusions shown to be false. It appeared early in the pandemic when how to respond was a subject of intense debate. The idea of trying to isolate only the very vulnerable and let the rest of us be exposed to encourage herd immunity was openly discussed, even within the government. It was, for a while, being suggested by Dominic Cummings.

The "GBD" was sponsored by "The American Institute for Economic Research" a "conservative" think tank. Who actually funded it has been kept secret, but there are suggestions it was by some who would profit from its recommendations. The AIER holds other controversial positions, for instance not regarding climate change as a threat and that the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest should not be stopped. Part, at least, of its funding comes from the Koch Brothers.

Of those listed in the earlier post only the first 3 actually authored the report. All the rest were among the 97,000 names they claim were signatories added later. It must be realised that anyone could, and did, add names. There was no verification done.

The names listed all appear on the first page of the report, presumably to add authenticity. Whether they were added by the actual position holder is unknown.

I don't though doubt that some were. At the start of the pandemic this idea must have seemed attractive to some, but after the scientific community as a whole pointed out its flaws, and the consequences of following it, it very quickly became seen as debunked and valueless.

Some of the original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration have reportedly withdrawn their support or distanced themselves from the declaration. While the exact number and identities of those who have withdrawn their support may vary, there have been instances where signatories have clarified their position or expressed concerns about the declaration's approach.

For example, in a statement published in February 2021, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original signatories, expressed that the Great Barrington Declaration was not intended as a specific policy recommendation but rather as a starting point for discussion. He also clarified that he did not endorse or advocate for an approach of "herd immunity" without protective measures.

I would seriously doubt whether many responsible experts who were attracted to the idea initially would still be in favour of it today.

You only have to read the criticisms here to understand the reaction of the bulk of the scientific community:-

[Link]

Are Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand pursuing "right-wing" objectives? I very much doubt it. They are pursuing monetary objectives and if that involves pumping up right-wing followers I don't suppose they care too much. Brand more obviously to me than Dore who I am less familiar with.

I object to things that don't make sense or don't serve the needs of the people, no matter where they arise. That applies every bit as much to the left, as the right, but you won't see much evidence of left-thinking on here. Not that you will accept that!

The usual baseless claims and waffle. You made claims about experts and you have been shown up as usual.

If any of those names on the declaration are false point me towards the name who has complained about it.....those are high profile and qualified individuals.

You can't because they haven't and you are just a fraud who spends his time pushing lies for liars.

None of those who signed the declaration have gone back on it.....And the outcomes of the lockdowns compared to countries who didn't lockdown shows that it was a largely massive waste of money.

People like you are to blame for it. More evidence of how damaging people like you are.....if only you could emigrate and grace some other unfortunate country with your fifth columnism.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2023 9.20pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Jun 23 10.35pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Monetary objectives?

[Link]

Non sequitur.

That we must constantly examine how the pharma industry is operated is obvious, and regulate as required.

It has nothing to do with video makers deciding to feed open mouths with the propaganda they crave.

They are the drug dealers of the online world.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 18 Jun 23 11.01pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Non sequitur.

That we must constantly examine how the pharma industry is operated is obvious, and regulate as required.

It has nothing to do with video makers deciding to feed open mouths with the propaganda they crave.

They are the drug dealers of the online world.

Actually a sequitur. It also has to do with policy makers with shares in these companies. Still, at least they had our best interests at heart.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Jun 23 11.07pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The usual baseless claims and waffle. You made claims about experts and you have been shown up as usual.

If any of those names on the declaration are false point me towards the name who has complained about it.....those are high profile and qualified individuals.

You can't because they haven't and you are just a fraud who spends his time pushing lies for liars.

None of those who signed the declaration have gone back on it.....And the outcomes of the lockdowns compared to countries who didn't lockdown shows that it was a largely massive waste of money.

People like you are to blame for it. More evidence of how damaging people like you are.....if only you could emigrate and grace some other unfortunate country with your fifth columnism.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2023 9.20pm)

It's far from baseless, as you know very well. You are doing your usual thing when faced with criticism you cannot answer. Which is to start using personal insults and attacks on my integrity.

There are many instances of fake names being signed on the "GBD". You will find Mr Banana Rama", "Harold Shipman", and "Prof Cominic Dummings" there.

I already pointed out that one of the three original signatories has backed away from it. To go through all of them is not something I am going to do. It's enough that they aren't verified, some are obviously fake and one of the actual authors is distancing himself.

The report includes some names that appear to be those of "high-profile and qualified individuals". The trouble is none of them have been verified and could be as fake as Mr Banana Rama.

I don't think a list exists, or could exist, of those signatories withdrawing support. The publishers of the "GBD" aren't going to admit it, are they? Who else might without writing to 970, 000 people, most without addresses? I have read reports suggesting withdrawal but more importantly simple logic dictates that any reputable scientist faced with peer reviews as damning as the "GBD" received would revise their position.

The outcome of the lockdowns is known, and being studied to learn lessons for the future.

The outcome of not locking down is unknown, for any direct comparisons, so remains just the usual "greener grass next door" claims of those who think they know better.

Comparing the UK with Sweden, or Florida is a total waste of time. Except for those with a political agenda grasping at straws.

Where is the evidence on the critics of Campbell being funded by the vaccine makers? Or did you forget I asked?

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (18 Jun 2023 11.17pm)

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Jun 23 11.13pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Actually a sequitur. It also has to do with policy makers with shares in these companies. Still, at least they had our best interests at heart.

Then we disagree. I don't think it has any connection.

Policymakers are likely to have shares in many companies, from a variety of industries. They are required to declare any conflicting interests so I assume must declare these when they exceed a certain level.

We would need to pay our policymakers a whole lot more if we asked them, and their family members, to divest themselves of all outside investments upon being elected.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 18 Jun 23 11.26pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Then we disagree. I don't think it has any connection.

Policymakers are likely to have shares in many companies, from a variety of industries. They are required to declare any conflicting interests so I assume must declare these when they exceed a certain level.

We would need to pay our policymakers a whole lot more if we asked them, and their family members, to divest themselves of all outside investments upon being elected.

No connection.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 19 Jun 23 12.39am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It's far from baseless, as you know very well. You are doing your usual thing when faced with criticism you cannot answer. Which is to start using personal insults and attacks on my integrity.

There are many instances of fake names being signed on the "GBD". You will find Mr Banana Rama", "Harold Shipman", and "Prof Cominic Dummings" there.

I already pointed out that one of the three original signatories has backed away from it. To go through all of them is not something I am going to do. It's enough that they aren't verified, some are obviously fake and one of the actual authors is distancing himself.

The report includes some names that appear to be those of "high-profile and qualified individuals". The trouble is none of them have been verified and could be as fake as Mr Banana Rama.

I don't think a list exists, or could exist, of those signatories withdrawing support. The publishers of the "GBD" aren't going to admit it, are they? Who else might without writing to 970, 000 people, most without addresses? I have read reports suggesting withdrawal but more importantly simple logic dictates that any reputable scientist faced with peer reviews as damning as the "GBD" received would revise their position.

The outcome of the lockdowns is known, and being studied to learn lessons for the future.

The outcome of not locking down is unknown, for any direct comparisons, so remains just the usual "greener grass next door" claims of those who think they know better.

Comparing the UK with Sweden, or Florida is a total waste of time. Except for those with a political agenda grasping at straws.

Where is the evidence on the critics of Campbell being funded by the vaccine makers? Or did you forget I asked?

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (18 Jun 2023 11.17pm)


The comments made by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya are not a rebuttal of the GBD, his name is still on it. There is nothing he said that 'backs away' at all. As for the idea that the herd immunity was put forward with no protections for the vulnerable.....that was never suggested....Did you actually read the thing?

So once again, you make a baseless claim.

Just to stick the last nail into this ridiculous contention here is Bhattacharya from four months ago stating his position....which clearly puts a bit fat egg in your face.

[Link]

So easy to check....but did you bother....nope.

As for the GBD, If it's true that there are some fake names on this list that is a problem....perhaps its detractors put them on there for people like you to use as a discredit....not knowable. Anyone who puts fake names onto a list is a berk or has malign intent.

However, you seeking to deny that the names of the highly qualified medical academics and practitioners that are clearly highlighted in this report are either not genuine, unaware or didn't agree to the declaration is frankly ridiculous.....where is the evidence for this claim?.....Why don't you contact some of them? Just more total nonsense.

Par for your course.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 105 of 289 < 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy