One year ago

This entry was posted in History, International. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to One year ago

  1. Up The Workers! says:

    Famous Last Words:

    The W.H.O. (Wuhan Hucksters’ Organisation) (Made n China) can find absolutely no evidence of Chi-Com complicity in the making, distribution and disemination of Peking Pox/Socialist Syphilis/Bolshevik Bronchitis/Mao’s Malady/Marx’s Meningitis/Labor Leprosy/ Deadly Dan’s Distemper.

    But if you are quick, they DO have an old second-hand bridge up in Sydney town that they’d like to sell to you cheap…

  2. David says:

    Just think – their crack scientists are only now arriving in Wuhan to establish the origins of SARS-CoV2. What a joke of an organisation.

  3. feelthebern says:

    Someone posted this a week or so ago.

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html

    Fauci signed off on the funding that was exploiting Corona viruses.
    That ecosystem collaborated with the Wuhan lab.
    Therefore, Fauci helped fund the development of COVID19.

  4. stackja says:

    WHO believed Xi. What could possibly go wrong?

  5. NoFixedAddress says:

    It was Trump that did it.

  6. Figures says:

    And they were right. There was, and is, no transmission of the virus – which is why masks, lockdowns etc never work.

    The problem is the “experts” changed their minds to reflect public hysteria and can’t reverse course now.

  7. Docket62 says:

    Anyone with even the smallest investigative skills knows both the origin and source of this virus. you’d also know that Globally, country, state or local areas ‘total deaths by all causes’ is significantly lower despite the ‘record numbers of deaths fromCovid’.

    There is no influenza. it’s on holidays

    Those who choose to follow the rules (masks, distance measures etc) are gullible fools who would walk gladly to their own demise by accepting an unproven, deadly, vaccine

    unless you push back. unless you stop ‘complying’ this will continue. it’s simply a choice. I’ll guarantee that after the 20th of January this year ‘remarkable’ things will happen the Covid around ‘cures’ and vaccines. They just needed Trump out of the picture to go back to ‘normal’

    the problem is, the world is now aware of their bullshit, and most of us will no longer cop it.

  8. Matt says:

    Just simply not true Docket62 – US around 400,000 excess deaths above normal for starters.

  9. H B Bear says:

    Should have been the end of WHO and the UN.

    But won’t.

  10. Kneel says:

    “US around 400,000 excess deaths above normal for starters.”

    Oh?

    https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/12414.jpeg

    Shows some perspective, doesn’t it? Marginally higher than 1999, 1998, 1995, 1989, and 1985. Lower than 1975. It’s just bouncing along with fairly normal variation, and happens to be a high year, that’s all. Hardly looks like a reason to panic, destroy the economy and take out massive amounts of gov debt, does it?

  11. Matt says:

    Yep – shows perspective up to 2017/18 but no 2020 data

  12. David says:

    Just simply not true Docket62 – US around 400,000 excess deaths above normal for starters.

    This is not correct. It looks like they will have around 400,000 more deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. This does not equate to excess deaths as you need to account for the underlying trends. For the past few years the number of deaths have been flatlining. Prior to that in the early to mid 2010s they were increasing at a more rapid rate. At best you should present a range to highlight the uncertainty. The other point on this is that the US increase has been in line with world wide trends. Recent WSJ analysis demonstrated this.

  13. Matt says:

    England & Wales excess deaths in 2020 were ~75,000 above the 5 year average (a 14% increase).
    USA excess deaths in 2020 were ~441,000 compared to 2019 (a 15.5% increase).

    Here is a graph for USA comparing weekly all-cause mortality from 2017-2020 (so including the 2017/18 flu season for comparison).

    Here is a graph showing all-cause mortality for USA back to 1915 (there is a gap with no data available). 2020 has the highest mortality rate since 1947.

    It’s just bouncing along with fairly normal variation

    Nope.

  14. Matt says:

    David – look at second chart linked above.

  15. Andre Lewis says:

    Having done project work, including as rapporteur for several UN agencies (not WHO) I can confirm that gathering together well credentialed and generally honest teams of experts to research an issue and write up a report does not always get published as written. There are many UN ‘editors’, some high up in the organisation, who go through everything that comes out in its name to ensure it meets the political views of the leadership. Anything challenging green ideology, the diversity mantra and support for capitalism is removed or altered out of sight.
    Prime examples are IPCC reports which have voluminous excerpts from genuine climate science papers that hardly anyone reads because the media go straight to the precis at the front of the report which says things are bad and getting worse because of our CO2 emissions. This is written by political gatekeepers and very often what is in the report says the opposite of the precis. We are being done over and this new WHO group looking into the origins of COVID 19 in China will probably find lots of good evidence which we will never read about.

  16. Kneel says:

    “England & Wales excess deaths in 2020 were ~75,000 above the 5 year average (a 14% increase).”

    There you go again – if you start from a period of a lull, it sounds bad. From a historical perspective, it’s not too bad. This is exactly why the climate worriers always start from a cold period.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/figure-1_-excess-winter-deaths-and-5-year-central-moving-average-england-and-wales-1950_51-to-2015_16_sup_1234__sup_.png

    Or try Sweden:
    https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2020/9/14/saupload_Ehu2lgEUwAUYP-7.jpeg
    Remember, no lockdowns – schools open, bars and restaurants open etc. They are already close to herd immunity (if not already there) and did massively less economic damage
    (most of it forced on them from external causes).

  17. Leo G says:

    ‘total deaths by all causes’ is significantly lower despite the ‘record numbers of deaths fromCovid’.

    The US COVID-related death rate for 2020 is about 1.2 per thousand of population. COVID-caused deaths are some fraction of that stat.

    The all-cause crude death rate for 2020 was 8.31 per thousand, down from 8.7 per thousand in 2017, suggesting that COVID accounted for about 10% of US deaths last year.

    Some perspective though- The UN projects US death rates to increase from 8 per thousand to 10.5 per thousand by year 2050 as a result of the demographic change associated with an ageing population, without regard to COVID effects. COVID might slightly increase overall death rates during the epidemic, but subsequently its effect should be to counter the UN’s projected increase in death rates.

  18. Matt says:

    Even on that long-term for England/Wales, 2020 stands out. And same for the USA when you look at the long term.

  19. Docket62 says:

    It’s just bouncing along with fairly normal variation

    Yep. When you re label almost every death and allocate it to “Covid” you can make the numbers do anything.

    Goi ahead and ‘believe’ Matt. I’ll take my chances with the 99.3% who understand utter bullshit when we see it.

  20. Matt says:

    The all-cause crude death rate for 2020 was 8.31 per thousand, down from 8.7 per thousand in 2017,

    Crude death rate for 2020 is 9.95 per thousand (3,293,775 deaths from 331,000,000 population).

  21. Matt says:

    Docket62 – I’ve just posted all-cause mortality. Regardless of what you might want to label the deaths, there has been a very clear excess over normal mortality in 2020 in many countries. These deaths have been caused by something, and it’s not lockdowns. So continue to believe in fairies if that gets you through.

  22. Docket62 says:

    Get some statistics and analysis from a Doctor in the thick of it…

    unlike the CDC or any of the other collection sites where numbers and stats are manipulated wherever they want the wind to blow.

  23. Docket62 says:

    So continue to believe in fairies if that gets you through.

    Fortunately Matt, my fairies are immune to COVID.

  24. Matt says:

    Surprised you didn’t link to Ivor Cummins! Malcolm is always a good read, and it’s a good analysis. He’s being a bit disingenuous when he refers to z-scores and says ‘we are really not seeing much at all’ when the chart very clearly shows an extended period Z>5 compared to previous years. And if you look at the current version of that chart here, you can see excess deaths have continued to increase.

  25. yarpos says:

    euromomo.eu gives a good view of excess deaths and enough timeline to compare with previous years

    doesn’t really look like enough to join the hysteria band wagon, many countries are tracking below norms but get selectively ignored.

  26. Leo G says:

    Crude death rate for 2020 is 9.95 per thousand (3,293,775 deaths from 331,000,000 population).

    Final mortality data for this year will not be available for months, so I used IndexMundi data as the reference.

    If your estimate of the crude death rate turns out to be the more accurate, then COVID would have accounted for slightly less than about 10% of US deaths last year.

    BTW, the Census Bureau’s most recent demographic analysis medium estimate of the population suggests an end of year 2020 estimate of about 334,500,000.

  27. Matt says:

    Thanks Leo – updated crude mortality with that population estimate is 984.7 per 100,000. Agree that final mortality won’t be known for a little while, but will only go up. On that figure, 2020 mortality rate is 13.6% higher than 2019.

  28. Bad Samaritan says:

    Matt has kinda nailed it by examining total deaths from all causes……

    Most studies of prison populations show a much higher overall death rate than in the similarly-aged non-prison population; up to 30% in some cases (feel free to do some googling). Which is exactly what Matt’s getting at when he looks at the locked down population vs the previously free-to-roam population and notes that….as expected…the imprisoned societies have more deaths than they had when free. Meanwhile….

    Many other studies of aged populations in particular (generally not imprisoned) have, likewise, shown much worse health outcomes for older people who are “abandoned” or “forgotten” by family and society: exactly what the lockdown of aged facilities has made family and society do.

    Putting these realities together sure explains why Matt is so concerned.Tthe lockdowns kill…and now Matt knows why.

  29. Matt says:

    Good try BS, but that’s BS.

  30. Bad Samaritan says:

    Oops. Forgot to link to the following…..https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-deaths-covid-19.html….which sure shows how right Matt is about the lockdown killing the mentally unsyable in greater numbers than ever before.

    “Overdose Deaths Accelerating During COVID-19
    Expanded Prevention Efforts Needed

    Press Release
    Embargoed Until: Thursday, December 17, 2020”

  31. Bad Samaritan says:

    “The disruption to daily life due to the COVID-19 pandemic has hit those with substance use disorder hard,” said CDC Director Robert Redfield, M.D. “As we continue the fight to end this pandemic, it’s important to not lose sight of different groups being affected in other ways. We need to take care of people suffering from unintended consequences.”

    Yeah, all BS!

  32. Matt says:

    So by your logic BS, Victoria would have even more excess deaths than USA, given we had one of the harshest lockdowns. Unfortunately the data doesn’t support your hypothesis.

  33. Bad Samaritan says:

    Link to the data for the past three months in Victoria?

    Does it include the lady and the three kids killed just yesterday due to depression caused by Dan Andrews recent imprisonment of the family without trial?

  34. Matt says:

    Data was for all of 2020 (Jan-Dec): https://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/
    Obviously you have some form of evidence for that fairly repugnant claim.

  35. Bad Samaritan says:

    Repugnant?

    You are advocating total imprisonment of whole cities without trial and now playing the virtue card? Really?

    No doubt you also reckon the locking down of hundreds of thousands in the Warsaw Ghetto was “good for them” too, eh?

    Disgraceful! And repugnant.

    BTW: Wasn’t it you, who when confronted with a Lancet article describing the 250,000 Americans killed or seriously injured by medical malpractice and mistakes in the US each year, just answered “Shyte happens!”

    Another Biden-style sociopath trolling the Cat!

  36. Matt says:

    You are advocating total imprisonment of whole cities without trial

    No

    No doubt you also reckon the locking down of hundreds of thousands in the Warsaw Ghetto was “good for them” too, eh?

    With family who survived that – no.

    So as I thought – no evidence that would link that tragedy to lockdown, but you’re happy to make that claim anyway for goodness knows what purpose. Pathetic.

  37. Paul says:

    No h2h transmission.
    Thats was only the early versions, until the CCP got the recipe right, then they spread it around the World out of Wuhan.

  38. Docket62 says:

    Obviously you have some form of evidence for that fairly repugnant claim.

    You can trot all the ‘evidence’ out you like Matt.. but deaths from “covid” are mostly fantasies. Deaths from suicide are NOT and are deliberately ignored. Ive been to two funerals of young men in the last 3 months, both of whom left devastated families with kids. Both had businesses destroyed by this farcical virus that has less potency than a nasty flu.

    I guess their death certificates will also read ‘covid’. Makes as much sense as your statistics.

  39. Matt says:

    Not denying that there have been suicides as a result of COVID – but the stats don’t support an increase in Victoria. It is repugnant, unnecessary and pathetic for BS to make a baseless claim to try and make a cheap political point (which he failed at anyway).

    It’s sad that evidence is meaningless to you.

  40. Docket62 says:

    It’s sad that evidence is meaningless to you.

    Hmmm. Ex Vicpol I may have more of an idea of what constitutes evidence than ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’

    There are rarely reasons formally outlined in a suicide note. You HAVE to draw conclusions from the available evidence. I think his point was more than valid.

    You just dont like being confronted with the truth.

  41. Matt says:

    Ex Vicpol. So when you say:

    you’d also know that Globally, country, state or local areas ‘total deaths by all causes’ is significantly lower

    what are you basing that on? Sounds like some form of, I don’t know, statistics?

    Or:

    I’ll take my chances with the 99.3%

    You even linked directly to a doctor to get statistics and analysis:

    Get some statistics and analysis from a Doctor in the thick of it…

    So I might question whether you really do have an idea of what constitutes evidence.

    And he may well be right re the Tulla incident, but he may well be wrong. A pretty poor way to try and make a point.

  42. Docket62 says:

    So I might question whether you really do have an idea of what constitutes evidence.

    Such as the statistical misrepresentation of data?

  43. Matt says:

    Care to point out where I have misrepresented the data?
    USA all-cause mortality in 2020 is 3,293,775; for 2019 it was 2,852,571.
    Objectively that is a 15.5% increase.
    On a crude mortality rate, it’s 984.7 per 100,000 in 2020 compared to 867.0 in 2019 – a 13.6% increase.
    The crude mortality rate in 2020 is the highest since the 1940s – see chart I linked to.
    Similar trends in UK and other countries.
    Something has caused this large increase, and it’s not lockdowns.

  44. Figures says:

    Well done Samaritan for showing Matt to be a disgraceful liar. I don’t know how he can live with himself.

    Lockdowns, panic and horrific medical treatments cause deaths – excess deaths even.

    Astonishingly, when you point this out to him he cherry picks Victoria to say “but there were no excess deaths here” completely oblivious to the fact that, if true, this destroys his “COVID killed large numbers of people” narrative.

    No matter what the data shows, for Matt, it’s always proof that lockdowns were a good idea.

    Florida vs California? Proof that lockdowns worked. Somehow.

    Texas vs New York? Proof that lockdowns worked. Somehow.

    Sweden vs Belgium? Proof that lockdowns worked. Somehow.

    Taiwan vs NZ. Proof that lockdowns worked. Somehow.

    Belarus vs everywhere else. Proof that lockdowns worked. Somehow.

    And if he can’t think of a completely ridiculous excuse he’ll just claim that all government data that suits his narrative are 100% accurate and all government data that doesn’t suit are fabrications.

  45. Figures says:

    Matt, why aren’t most people in Belarus dead?

    When did humans first come into contact with this virus and how do you know this?

    Why are truck drivers and grocery store workers immune?

    Where is the proof it can be transmitted from one person to another?

    What cycle number is used – all around the world – for the PCR test for this virus? When was it shown *everybody* deemed positive at that cycle number was symptomatic?

    Why don’t you ever answer these? They’re pretty important questions and “I don’t have to answer questions unless they’re really easy ones” isn’t a valid answer. What is valid though is my accusation that you’re a repugnant, pathological liar.

  46. Matt says:

    Ah Figures – don’t like someone’s comment, so default to calling them a liar. Lame.

    I didn’t say lockdowns might not cause deaths – but I will say that they are not responsible for the large increase that we have seen around the world. Your problem is that you are looking at it as a binary – lockdown or no lockdown. But there’s no such thing. There’s not a single definition of a lockdown. There are a range of measures that different countries/jurisdictions took at different times to contain spread.

    Why are truck drivers and grocery store workers immune?

    Who said they are?

    What cycle number is used – all around the world – for the PCR test for this virus? When was it shown *everybody* deemed positive at that cycle number was symptomatic?

    How could I (or you) possibly know the Ct used in every path lab around the world? I’ve previously linked a paper on Ct values – maybe you chose to ignore it? It showed that that from among 5/60 (8.3%) patient samples with a Ct greater than 35, infectious virus was still present. An arbitrary cut-off at 35 would have missed infectious people.

    Why does the PCR need to show that people who test positive are symptomatic at time of test? People can develop symptoms later (why do you think we do cancer screening to detect early asymptomatic disease – or don’t you believe in that either?) and asymptomatic people can transmit the disease.

  47. Matt says:

    Some context for Belarus (noting it is from Sept).
    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3543

  48. Figures says:

    Your problem is that you are looking at it as a binary – lockdown or no lockdown. But there’s no such thing. There’s not a single definition of a lockdown.

    Aah yes. The ol’ No True Scotsman fallacy. No matter the data you’ll always say they didn’t lock down hard enough.

    Listen, if you have no idea what a lockdown is, how on earth can you defend them?

    but I will say that they are not responsible for the large increase that we have seen around the world.

    I couldn’t care less what you “say”. You need a thing called “evidence”.

    Who said they are

    Well they must be otherwise how are these shops still open? How are we transporting goods when the drivers should either be dead or in hospital?

    How could I (or you) possibly know the Ct used in every path lab around the world?

    Because if it isn’t the exact same cycle number for every single test then the result is arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Imagine if I wanted to test the world’s mathematical abilities to compare country by country but I gave easier tests to some of those places. According to you that would make perfect sense but, you see, you’re an imbecile.

    Why does the PCR need to show that people who test positive are symptomatic at time of test?

    Hahahaha!!! Ummm, because otherwise the test is worthless Matt. It tells us nothing.

    People can develop symptoms later

    People might, at some point in their life, develop flu like symptoms. Wow! What a test! I wonder if it can do the lotto numbers as well!

    asymptomatic people can transmit the disease.

    What! That’s called “circular reasoning” you fool.

    why do you think we do cancer screening to detect early asymptomatic disease

    Are you saying cancer scientists never once bothered to check if their “predictions” matched reality?

    Sounds like you’re arguing against cancer screening. I am only too happy to agree with you.

    Try not being an imbecile before you post again.

  49. Figures says:

    As for your “context” that’s absolutely brilliant. Except for one thing: none of this “context” mattered early last year when every single journalist and “expert” claimed that Belarus’ relaxed approach was going to lead to mass deaths.

    Every one of your journalists and “experts” is a pathological liar. Like you.

    If they told me it was going to rain in Tully I’d be preparing for the desertification of far north Queensland.

  50. Matt says:

    Listen, if you have no idea what a lockdown is

    I’m saying that you have no idea if you simply use the term lockdown. What happened in Victoria in August is different from Victoria in September. It’s different to Victoria now. NPIs have varied across the world and at different stages of the pandemic. To simply lump them all together under a blanket term ‘lockdown’ and then claim (without evidence) that they don’t work is wrong.

    You need a thing called “evidence”.

    As do you, and yet you have failed to provide any for your claim that lockdowns are responsible for all of the excess mortality around the world.

    Because if it isn’t the exact same cycle number for every single test then the result is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

    So are you claiming that every medical test around the world uses exactly the same diagnostic criteria?

    You like asking a lot of questions, here’s a simple one you:
    Do you believe that there is a virus (SARS-CoV-2)?

  51. dover_beach says:

    There is another lie that needs to mentioned apart from the claim of no ‘human-human transmission’ and that is that this virus emerged naturally and was initially transmitted by bats. Latest State department document indicates the first case was in the Wuhan lab. Everything told to us by the MSM about the virus has been a lie they’ve repeated first told to them by the ChiComs.

  52. Mater says:

    Matt,
    The “lockdowns” contributed to excess deaths in a vast array of ways, across a vast array of areas, many of which you’ll never hear about. For example, did you know that the lockdowns resulted in a ban of using Bone Marrow from a vast global library, which usually ensures the best possible match and best chance of survival?

    Donors were limited to only those that could be found within Australia. Transplants were (necessarily) being undertaken usually sub-optimal matches, and people who might otherwise have survived, didn’t. I had people associated with this process breakdown in tears in front of me, as a result of what they were witnessing.

    Multiply this across all possible fields, endeavours and countries. Excess deaths is a useful measure, but can be misleading if viewed with a closed (or naive) mind.

    Do try to extend your thinking beyond the first order impacts.

  53. Matt says:

    Thanks Mater – like I said, I agree that NPIs may lead to an increase in some deaths – delayed or missed cancer diagnosis for example, decreased access to medical interventions (as you note). But my point is that there is no evidence that this is the sole cause for 441,000 excess deaths in the USA (for example). There are people here continuing to deny the lethality of COVID, and the data just doesn’t support them.

  54. Mater says:

    But my point is that there is no evidence that this is the sole cause for 441,000 excess deaths in the USA (for example).

    No, but the incentivisation to list deaths as ‘COVID’ gives much reason to discount that they were predominantly from this virus, too.

    There are people here continuing to deny the lethality of COVID, and the data just doesn’t support them.

    I don’t think anyone is denying that it’s lethal to some people, under certain conditions. But the fudging of the figures (for any number of reasons, through any number of methods) means that neither you or I have any idea of it’s true “lethality”.

  55. Figures says:

    As do you, and yet you have failed to provide any for your claim that lockdowns are responsible for all of the excess mortality around the world.

    Except I don’t. Deaths caused by elements of the lockdowns are common knowledge. 12 months ago you would have freely admitted that isolation, medical treatments and panic could be dangerous. Now you act obtuse because to admit such a thing would destroy your stupid narrative.

    So are you claiming that every medical test around the world uses exactly the same diagnostic criteria?

    Hahahaha!!! You have to be careful when you use these reductio ad absurdum arguments with me because, you see, I’m only too happy to take my arguments to their logical conclusions.

    I’m sure there are medical tests that can a) be corroborated; and b) offer a reliable and non-trivial (or self-fulfilling prophecy) prognosis, however, I wouldn’t assume such things of *any* of them.

    If a test can’t be universally applied I would assume it’s nonsense.

    I’m saying that you have no idea if you simply use the term lockdown.

    What a stupid comment. You’re an abject imbecile. If you don’t like people using the word “lockdown” then you need to take it up with journalists, governments and public health “experts” not me.

    I mean, I agree that some lockdowns were worse than others but it doesn’t help your analysis because there is no evidence that the strictness of the lockdowns were correlated to better (according to government data) outcomes.

    Do you believe that there is a virus (SARS-CoV-2)?

    If by that you mean a contagious pathogen then no. But better than that. I can *prove* with first principles that there isn’t.

  56. Matt says:

    common knowledge

    Ah, so I need to provide evidence to you, but you only need ‘common knowledge.’ Got it.

    If a test can’t be universally applied I would assume it’s nonsense.

    There you go again.

    I can *prove* with first principles that there isn’t.

    Fire away then

  57. Matt says:

    Incidentally Figures, if SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist, then was Trump lying when he said he had it?

  58. Figures says:

    Ah, so I need to provide evidence to you, but you only need ‘common knowledge.’ Got it.

    Asking for evidence for something you already agree with is an act of bad faith. It’s called being obtuse and you use it because you’re full of shit.

    There you go again

    Mate, it was your argument trying to show that I’m inconsistent. But you couldn’t think of the all important example which would show said inconsistency. Astonishingly, you want me to do it.

    Fire away then

    Sure. There are no negative feedbacks in the system so any slight perturbation *must* lead to a runaway effect*. Note that a posited immune system is a positive feedback so it exacerbates the problem.

    *A runaway effect can be stopped by a discontinuity ie a deus ex machina. This renders the model trivial of course because it would imply that the body was always in control of the pathogen.

    For an excellent demonstration of this logical proof you should watch Fantasia.

    Now, fire away with your obtuseness.

    As for Trump he was either lying or mistaken. He should have gone down as one of the best presidents but he’ll go down as one of the worst because he didn’t have all public health advocates thrown in prison. Instead, he trusted them.

  59. Matt says:

    That’s your *proof*? OK

  60. Figures says:

    You’re welcome.

  61. Figures says:

    Now you won’t do anything about my proof other than to act obtuse so I’ll ask.

    Are pathogenically relevant infections always acute?

  62. Matt says:

    It wasn’t proof.

  63. Figures says:

    And yet, you can’t find a single thing wrong with it can you?

  64. Matt says:

    Only the start, middle and end.

  65. Figures says:

    Such a good argument Matt.

    Sorry but you have no idea what is wrong with it. Because there is nothing wrong with it.

  66. Matt says:

    You think you have proven something, but you haven’t. For starters

    no negative feedbacks in the system

    What systems? Be specific. What is your proof that there are no negative feedbacks? Because you say so?
    It’s a nothing argument that proves nothing.

  67. Figures says:

    The system?

    The pathogen and the body. How is that not obvious?

    My proof of there being no negative feedbacks is to ask you: where are the negative feedbacks?

  68. Matt says:

    How is that not obvious?

    Because nothing that you write is obvious.

  69. Figures says:

    Because nothing that you write is obvious.

    No you’re just really obtuse. What else could I have possibly been talking about other than the pathogen (virus) and the effect on the body?

    At any rate, it is clear that you don’t have a clue where there might be a negative feedback.

    Of course you don’t. There isn’t one. And without a negative feedback then the system could never recover – there would always be a runaway effect (ie organism death) the moment there was any kind of perturbation.

    So we are forced to conclude that either: a) everybody is dead; or b) the virus does not exist.

Comments are closed.