On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 03:11:35 +1100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 08/02/2024 09:09, Joe wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:27:22 +0000
>> SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 19:32, Joe wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
>>>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A ton of fuss over
>>>>> nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
>>>> already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is
>>>> confined to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
>>>>
>>>> The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
>>>> which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest
>>>> of us. The same was true in the US where senators, themselves
>>>> exempt from the requirement for vaccination, gathered together
>>>> without masks, when they were served by waiters in masks.
>>>
>>> Any breaking of the rules in number 10 were not like other people
>>> breaking the rules. Any mixing there was amongst people who were
>>> already in contact with each other for work purposes, while two
>>> separate households meeting up, against the rules, were raising the
>>> risk of transmission.
>>>
>>> A simple rule was needed, but, with care, rules could be broken with
>>> no real increase of risk - our houshold was isolating as my wife is
>>> clinically vulnerable, while my parents were isolating due to their
>>> vulnerability due to age. I did occasionally break the rules and
>>> visit them - but there was no real risk in two isolating household
>>> meeting up. It would have been very different if I had not been able
>>> to work from home and had to go into work - in which case, I would
>>> not have risked going to my parents and would have had to do my best
>>> to keep away from my wife!
>>>
>> Yes, we know all that, but anyone breaking rules, even when there was
>> good reason and no increased risk, if caught would have been prosecuted
>> if they were not people in positions of great power and/or wealth. It
>> wasn't about health issues, because health issues affect people high
>> and low.
>> An analogous situation is that people in the US lost jobs or were
>> discharged from the military for refusing to take the experimental
>> genetic vaccines

> They were and are neither genetic

mRNA is genetic

> nor experimental.

All vaccines are experimental and the most important
covid vaccines did all have some medical downsides.
Much less serious than getting infected while not
vaccinated, but still clearly experimental. Same
with the polio vaccines too.

> Cells in the body produce proteins in response to receiving mRNA. The
> vaccines use mRNA to trigger the cells to produce proteins that have a
> spike similar to the virus, to train the immune system to attack it.
> mRNA, just as in the normal functioning of the body is used up and
> disappears from the body ... it does not change a person's DNA.
>
> The vaccines went through *ALL* the normal testing, but unlike in normal
> times, they did not finish phase 1 testing and then spend a couple of
> years requesting funding, before moving on to phase 2 testing. Instead,
> with guaranteed funding, they ran phase 1, until the vaccines were shown
> to be safe enough to use, started phase 2, but CONTINUED phase 1 to its
> conclusion. Similarly, they started phase 3, when phase 2 was appearing
> successful and again continued phase 2. The combination of not having to
> wait for the next tranche of funding and overlapping the test phases,
> simply allowed the normal testing to be completed in a fraction of the
> time normally taken.

But still saw real downsides when used for mass vaccination.

So did the polio vaccines.

Very useful and life saving on a massive scale, but not perfect.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 04:49:40 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: <pu07vj$s5$2@dont-email.me>

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:11:35 +0000
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 08/02/2024 09:09, Joe wrote:

> >
> > An analogous situation is that people in the US lost jobs or were
> > discharged from the military for refusing to take the experimental
> > genetic vaccines
>
> They were and are neither genetic nor experimental.
>
> Cells in the body produce proteins in response to receiving mRNA. The
> vaccines use mRNA to trigger the cells to produce proteins that have
> a spike similar to the virus, to train the immune system to attack
> it. mRNA, just as in the normal functioning of the body is used up
> and disappears from the body ... it does not change a person's DNA.
>
> The vaccines went through *ALL* the normal testing,

I'll stop you there. Medication for mass distribution is expected to be
tested for five to seven years, and to show almost no undesirable side
effects over that period. The mRNA treatments were approved only under
emergency use conditions, and that was achieved by suppressing
information about any medication which might alleviate COVID
infections. If such existed, that would cause emergency use permission
to be denied.

> but unlike in
> normal times, they did not finish phase 1 testing and then spend a
> couple of years requesting funding, before moving on to phase 2
> testing. Instead, with guaranteed funding, they ran phase 1, until
> the vaccines were shown to be safe enough to use, started phase 2,
> but CONTINUED phase 1 to its conclusion. Similarly, they started
> phase 3, when phase 2 was appearing successful and again continued
> phase 2. The combination of not having to wait for the next tranche
> of funding and overlapping the test phases, simply allowed the normal
> testing to be completed in a fraction of the time normally taken.
>
The whole thing took a couple of months, and literally cannot possibly
have demonstrated long-term safety, because the tests were not
long-term.

And Pfizer wanted their test results kept confidential for 75 years.
Does that tell you nothing?

--
Joe

Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote
> SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote
>> Joe wrote

>> > An analogous situation is that people in the US lost jobs or were
>> > discharged from the military for refusing to take the experimental
>> > genetic vaccines

>> They were and are neither genetic nor experimental.

>> Cells in the body produce proteins in response to receiving mRNA. The
>> vaccines use mRNA to trigger the cells to produce proteins that have
>> a spike similar to the virus, to train the immune system to attack
>> it. mRNA, just as in the normal functioning of the body is used up
>> and disappears from the body ... it does not change a person's DNA.

>> The vaccines went through *ALL* the normal testing,

> I'll stop you there. Medication for mass distributionis expected to be
> tested for five to seven years,

Makes no sense to do that with a disease that is killing
millions, and is the worst pandemic seen for a century.

> and to show almost no undesirable side
> effects over that period. The mRNA treatments were approved only under
> emergency use conditions, and that was achieved by suppressing
> information about any medication which might alleviate COVID
> infections.

That's a lie.

> If such existed,

It didnt.

> that would cause emergency use permission to be denied.

Wrong. And now that we have medication which
does alleviate COVID infections, emergency use
permission has not been denied.

>> but unlike in
>> normal times, they did not finish phase 1 testing and then spend a
>> couple of years requesting funding, before moving on to phase 2
>> testing. Instead, with guaranteed funding, they ran phase 1, until
>> the vaccines were shown to be safe enough to use, started phase 2,
>> but CONTINUED phase 1 to its conclusion. Similarly, they started
>> phase 3, when phase 2 was appearing successful and again continued
>> phase 2. The combination of not having to wait for the next tranche
>> of funding and overlapping the test phases, simply allowed the normal
>> testing to be completed in a fraction of the time normally taken.

> The whole thing took a couple of months, and literally cannot possibly
> have demonstrated long-term safety, because the tests were not
> long-term.

But still made sense to do it that way given the millions
being killed by covid.

> And Pfizer wanted their test results kept confidential for 75 years.
> Does that tell you nothing?

And it turned out that the downsides with its mRNA vaccines
were VASTLY less important than getting infected with covid.

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:09:30 AM UTC-8, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:11:35 +0000
> SteveW <st...@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> > The vaccines went through *ALL* the normal testing,
> I'll stop you there. Medication for mass distribution is expected to be
> tested for five to seven years, ...

That speaks to your expectation, not to the formal requirements
of testing of medicines.

> and to show almost no undesirable side
> effects over that period. The mRNA treatments were approved only under
> emergency use conditions,

Whoa, that's totally false. There was an emergency-use approval
first, than a full approval later. They WERE APPROVED.

>and that was achieved by suppressing
> information about any medication which might alleviate COVID
> infections. If such existed, that would cause...

The 'any medication which might' fraudsters were working
furiously, and the medical establishment swatted a few of 'em down.
I wholeheartedly approve. Why did that bother you? Do you
like the flavor if ivermectin?

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 05:29:57 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rodent Speed:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <g4ihlaFh5p5U2@mid.individual.net>

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:38:56 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:59:55?AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 18:43:03 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:56:12?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:45:36 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:46:02?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Here's the short-cut evidence which clearly shows CO2 has remained at
>> >> >> broadly the same level over the past ...
>
>> >> >> https://disk.yandex.com/d/8SdXQui3DaKy_g
>> >> >
>> >> >But surely this is PART OF "everything we are told today". It's
>> >> >not the most credible part.
>> >> >Look here:
>> >> ><https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data>
>> >> You're citing online sources which aren't worth jack.
>
>Your assessment of worth is worthless. There's a trail back to the
>authors, who can (and have) answered most of the objections you could raise.
>
>> >I've looked at some of those 'sources'; the error bars on the Brittanica
>> >numbers (1985 edition) for instance imply 200 to 400 parts per million; not
>> >at all inconsistent with the ice-core research I cited.
>> >
>> >...the Brittanica articles are presumably signed,
>> >but your listing doesn't include that info: there's no way to follow up for
>> >date and conditions under which the measurements were made.
>
>> >The modern ice-core data is widely discussed, and has no
>> >known issues preventing acceptance as accurate data. Much better
>> >accuracy, as a world-spanning sample, than casual laboratory measures.
>
>> These are not "casual laboratory measures" but scrupulously carried
>> out measurements of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by highly
>> qualified scientists.
>
>Every chemist who does experiments in air needs some idea of the
>atmospheric composition IN HIS LAB where people exhale and burners
>are active. He'll make a good measurement, but NOT of a world-typical
>sample . He will note not only the concentration, but his error estimate.
>Such sources as encyclopedias don't present full information on these details.
>
>> From what I have seen, all the major and most popular online sources
>> have been compromised, and the same applies to the links Google
>> provides ...
>
>Nah.. No one looking for real data stops with a Google search, there's
>real chemistry literature in good reference libraries.
>
>Cursitor Doom has apparently decided there's liars on one side of a new
>controversy, and wants to trust only data that precedes modern times.
>He doesn't examine the old data closely, he just wants to call someone
>a liar (and the dates on old work convince him that only the old
>work is useful). That's a head-in-the-sand denial of current reality.
>
>Me, I'm a scientist; I trust confirmation from multiple sources who
>are themselves scientists (with known funding and affiliations) and
>who describe their methods and procedures to other knowledgable folk.
>
>I can see the sun coming up, even if a record from yesterday says it's going
>down.

You can see Jack. It's increasingly common knowledge that academia is
today bought and paid for by those corporations and individuals with a
pecuniary interest in promoting this Big Lie. That's why I prefer
sources which predate this phenomenon; a time when Truth was more
important to researchers than Big $$$$$$$ and a comfortable retirement
(albeit without a clear conscience).

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:32:51 +0000, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:52:02 +0000
>Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> A ton of fuss over
>> nothing IME. Very little of Boris' measures were justified.
>
>Indeed not. There was no point to the lockdown, as the disease was
>already widespread. Lockdowns are only of use when a disease is confined
>to a small area, as with MERS and the original SARS.
>
>The issue over Boris' party was not so much that he broke the rules,
>which he knew were pointless, but that he imposed them on the rest of
>us.

And then compounded the sin by lying about it with worthless
assurances that no rules had been broken! Glad to see the back of the
cunt, personally.

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 2:12:54 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:38:56 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Cursitor Doom has apparently decided there's liars on one side of a new
> >controversy, and wants to trust only data that precedes modern times.
> >He doesn't examine the old data closely, he just wants to call someone
> >a liar (and the dates on old work convince him that only the old
> >work is useful). That's a head-in-the-sand denial of current reality.
> >
> >Me, I'm a scientist; I trust confirmation from multiple sources who
> >are themselves scientists (with known funding and affiliations) and
> >who describe their methods and procedures to other knowledgable folk.
> >
> >I can see the sun coming up, even if a record from yesterday says it's going
> >down.

> You can see Jack. It's increasingly common knowledge that academia is
> today bought and paid for by those corporations and individuals with a
> pecuniary interest in promoting this Big Lie. That's why I prefer ...
Ouch! It hurts when a prejudice like that contaminates the
observate-and-report, analyze-and-crosscheck work we scientists do.

> sources which predate this phenomenon; a time when Truth was more
> important to researchers than Big $$$$$$$ and a comfortable retirement
> (albeit without a clear conscience).

The big money controversies in science are clearly unknown to you.
These are typical
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/harvard-professor-jody-freeman-conocophillips-fossil-fuels-climate>
<https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-year-after-a-climate-change-controversy-smithsonian-and-journals-still-seek-balance-on-disclosure-rules/>

where the money source was the opposition to that 'Big Lie'; it's a truth, not a lie,
and the opposition is: Cursitor Doom et al.

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 9:12:54 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:38:56 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:59:55?AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 18:43:03 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:56:12?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:45:36 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:46:02?PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Here's the short-cut evidence which clearly shows CO2 has remained at
> >> >> >> broadly the same level over the past ...
> >
> >> >> >> https://disk.yandex.com/d/8SdXQui3DaKy_g
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But surely this is PART OF "everything we are told today". It's
> >> >> >not the most credible part.
> >> >> >Look here:
> >> >> ><https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data>
> >> >> You're citing online sources which aren't worth jack.
> >
> >Your assessment of worth is worthless. There's a trail back to the
> >authors, who can (and have) answered most of the objections you could raise.
> >
> >> >I've looked at some of those 'sources'; the error bars on the Brittanica
> >> >numbers (1985 edition) for instance imply 200 to 400 parts per million; not
> >> >at all inconsistent with the ice-core research I cited.
> >> >
> >> >...the Brittanica articles are presumably signed,
> >> >but your listing doesn't include that info: there's no way to follow up for
> >> >date and conditions under which the measurements were made.
> >
> >> >The modern ice-core data is widely discussed, and has no
> >> >known issues preventing acceptance as accurate data. Much better
> >> >accuracy, as a world-spanning sample, than casual laboratory measures..
> >
> >> These are not "casual laboratory measures" but scrupulously carried
> >> out measurements of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by highly
> >> qualified scientists.
> >
> >Every chemist who does experiments in air needs some idea of the
> >atmospheric composition IN HIS LAB where people exhale and burners
> >are active. He'll make a good measurement, but NOT of a world-typical
> >sample . He will note not only the concentration, but his error estimate..
> >Such sources as encyclopedias don't present full information on these details.
> >
> >> From what I have seen, all the major and most popular online sources
> >> have been compromised, and the same applies to the links Google
> >> provides ...
> >
> >Nah.. No one looking for real data stops with a Google search, there's
> >real chemistry literature in good reference libraries.
> >
> >Cursitor Doom has apparently decided there's liars on one side of a new
> >controversy, and wants to trust only data that precedes modern times.
> >He doesn't examine the old data closely, he just wants to call someone
> >a liar (and the dates on old work convince him that only the old
> >work is useful). That's a head-in-the-sand denial of current reality.
> >
> >Me, I'm a scientist; I trust confirmation from multiple sources who
> >are themselves scientists (with known funding and affiliations) and
> >who describe their methods and procedures to other knowledgable folk.
> >
> >I can see the sun coming up, even if a record from yesterday says it's going
> >down.
>
> You can see Jack. It's increasingly common knowledge that academia is
> today bought and paid for by those corporations and individuals with a
> pecuniary interest in promoting this Big Lie.

It's not remotely "common knowledge". It's actually a bizarre delusion shared by a few devotees of potty conspiracy theories.

The fossil carbon extraction industry would be delighted if they could buy up lots academics to tout their climate change denial propaganda. In reality they can only find a few, and those limit themselves to being sceptical about specific details of the general concensus.

> That's why I prefer
> sources which predate this phenomenon; a time when Truth was more
> important to researchers than Big $$$$$$$ and a comfortable retirement
> (albeit without a clear conscience).

Twaddle. You prefer authors who are safely dead and can't object when you misrepresent their observations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> no mask that passes
> air under lung power filters particles as small as viruses.

I studied this at length before the covid pandemic due to extreme mold
sensitivity. I found many references that showed HEPA filters were
effective against viruses. An example is below:

"To evaluate the removal effect of HEPA filtration on airborne SARS-CoV-2,
here, we disseminated infectious SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in a test chamber in a
biosafety level 3 facility and filtered the air with a HEPA-filtered air
cleaner in the chamber. The air cleaner with the HEPA filter continuously
removed the infectious SARS-CoV-2 from the air in a running-time-dependent
manner, and the virus capture ratios were 85.38%, 96.03%, and >99.97% at 1,
2, and 7.1 ventilation volumes, respectively. The air-cleaning performance
of a HEPA filter coated with an antiviral agent consisting mainly of a
monovalent copper compound was also evaluated, and the capture ratio was
found to be comparable to that of the conventional HEPA filter. This study
provides insights into the proper use and performance of HEPA-filtered air
cleaners to prevent the spread of COVID-19. IMPORTANCE Air filtration
simulation experiments quantitatively showed that an air cleaner equipped
with a HEPA filter can continuously remove SARS-CoV-2 from the air."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35947419/

Other references stated that MERV-13 filters were also effective, but I
could not find measurement data.

--
MRM

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:34:01 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

> People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
> leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
> and war.

Not so! People shun leaders who don't show common sense, which
is the proper name of the leaders/peers/people confluence.

Look at Boris Johnson's ouster as Britain's PM for a good example.
Everyone should be aware of this, how did you miss the significance?

We note temporary fads in outlier subpopulations (if the whole herd goes along,
that's 'fashion'; the two are NOT the same).

Racism isn't a herd-building exercise at all, it's about herd identity
confusion and/or fragmentation. As for war, there's a LOT of reasons
there, it's not possible to attribute any wars to 'believe what their leaders'
influence. Japan (WWII) went to war when the military murdered the government
leaders... that's certainly not an indication of public beliefs.

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:48:58 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:34:01?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
>> leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
>> and war.
>
>Not so! People shun leaders who don't show common sense, which
>is the proper name of the leaders/peers/people confluence.
>

Putin. Kim. Maduro. Mao. Hitler. Stalin.

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 10:25:32 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:48:58 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:34:01?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
> >> leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
> >> and war.
> >
> >Not so! People shun leaders who don't show common sense, which
> >is the proper name of the leaders/peers/people confluence.
> >
> Putin. Kim. Maduro. Mao. Hitler. Stalin.

Pretty much everybody knew they were mad, and pretty much everybody knew that it wasn't safe to say so.

Trump's assertion that he won the 2020 presidential election is quite as mad, and the more-or-less serious people who go along with him are cynically taking advantage of his lunatic supporters.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 3:25:32 PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:48:58 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:34:01?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
> >> leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
> >> and war.
> >
> >Not so! People shun leaders who don't show common sense, which
> >is the proper name of the leaders/peers/people confluence.
> >
> Putin. Kim. Maduro. Mao. Hitler. Stalin.

Ukraine is certainly shunning Putin. Kim (there were several...) isn't popular
anywhere he doesn't have military and bullyboys. Not sure about Maduro.
Mao's 'Cultural Revolution' was on the chopping block soon after he died.
Hitler had his own people try to assassinate him. Stalin was downgraded by
his successors, and they don't call Volgograd "Stalingrad" any more,
since the Khrushchev administration.

So, you've not got a good handle on what people really believe. Their
people certainly DID diverge from those leaders.

On 2/10/24 00:25, john larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:48:58 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:34:01?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> People, typical mammals, ARE herd animals. Most believe what their
>>> leaders and peers believe. That's why we have fads, fashion, racism,
>>> and war.
>>
>> Not so! People shun leaders who don't show common sense, which
>> is the proper name of the leaders/peers/people confluence.
>>
>
> Putin. Kim. Maduro. Mao. Hitler. Stalin.

By the time they became dangerous, they were kind of hard
to get rid of.

Jeroen Belleman