Covid 19 was planned - a conspiracy theory by David Martin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Revelation In Space said:
Thank you for your time, have a nice day.
Click to expand...
There was a phrase used, "replicative defective," which was then described as a " bioweapon."
I would Google "attenuated viruses."

Look you have been obviously taken in by this. I am going to take it apart, claim by claim.
This will obviously be against you view but started the thread in my name, so I am following up on all points.
 
Revelation In Space said:
You wanted to put on a dog and pony show for your peers to review. Preaching to the choir, but you fucked it up. All you had to do was tell one truth, but you couldn't. What really do I have to refute?
Click to expand...
This is a discussion thread. I posted six times, in order to put some of the primary objections to Martin's theory out there for you and other members. Pinball has also pinpointed some problems with the conspiracy theory. In this kind of forum, it's my understanding that you are expected to answer these specific points of rebuttal, without making personal comments or excluding other members or calling someone a liar when they question your facts. Otherwise, it's hard to see how you are doing anything but soapboxing, without any regard for the facts.
 
TheVat said:
This is a discussion thread. I posted six times, in order to put some of the primary objections to Martin's theory out there for you and other members. Pinball has also pinpointed some problems with the conspiracy theory. In this kind of forum, it's my understanding that you are expected to answer these specific points of rebuttal, without making personal comments or excluding other members or calling someone a liar when they question your facts. Otherwise, it's hard to see how you are doing anything but soapboxing, without any regard for the facts.
Click to expand...

I don't mind having discussions about the Bible and religion with atheistic ideologues - it used to be a sport of mine - because I like discussing those things, but having a discussion on the Plandemic with "science minded" ideologues is not only, in my view a waste of time, not unlike the aforementioned atheistic discussion, but also not my forte or interest. I would have had a good discussion here, but I'm not going to get into a stupid, pointless propaganda Google copy & paste back and forth on this subject. I nearly got sucked into that once and I realized - why am I doing this? It's a mild cold. I've been banned and shadow banned for posting stuff from the CDC. It's ridiculous. I don't care if idiots want to believe that stuff, I don't give a fuck about them if they're so deliberately obtuse. It isn't my job to inform them.
 
Pinball1970 said:
I thought you said it was a "planned engineered bioweapon."
Click to expand...

Gotta watch the video, dude, it covers all of that.

ETA, by the way my conditions were negotiable. All you had to do is say you weren't going to watch the video. Or you could have introduced your own.
 
Last edited:
Revelation In Space said:
Gotta watch the video, dude, it covers all of that. by the way my conditions were negotiable.
Click to expand...
"Gotta watch the video, dude"
Warning Goose Chase alert!
Revelation In Space said:
Someone needs to send you on a wild goose chase so you can learn to think for yourself.
Click to expand...
That to Pinball 3 days ago.
And now you are trying to send Pinball off to watch a 1hr 20 min Video.
A Blah, blah a day, keeps the sensible people away.
Revelation In Space said:
Blah, blah, blah [vulgar simulation of masturbation]
Click to expand...
 
Pinball1970 said:
Ok, first issue? Science progresses via publications and these are discussed at conferences.
They are tested by other scientific teams, modified, edited, enhanced.

This is why we do not die of infectious diseases in the West anymore, on the whole.
Click to expand...


Whatever contributions science has made to our standard of living, including health, ought to be duly acknowledged. We're all no doubt very grateful for the good work done, at least I am. That said, there is an unfortunate tendency in places like this for the contributions of science to be exaggerated, and in many cases, grossly exaggerated. I post the following for readers' consideration:




In an essay entitled "Knowledge and Utility: Implications for the Sociology of Knowledge", sociologist of science Michael J. Mulkay examines the link between science and its putative practical applications. How much of our flabby, comfortable, sweat-free, modern lifestyle really is due to science?

Mulkay adumbrates what is to come . . .

Yet when we come to look at the empirical evidence relevant to this issue, we find little indication of any clear or close links between basic scientific research and the great mass of technological developments.
Click to expand...


He continues by noting that -- overwhelmingly! -- the vast majority of scientific research has no practical applications . . .

If we begin with the results of citation analysis we find, first, that in any given scientific field, most knowledge-claims do not appear to work in any sense at all (except perhaps as items on a curriculum vitae). The majority of claims are not cited by (and appear to receive virtually no attention from) other scientists. They seem to exist merely as archival material. Moreover, certain areas of scientific inquiry (for example, stellar spectroscopy) are never seen by participants or outsiders as having any relevance to practical application. Consequently, when we talk of scientific knowledge demonstrating its objectivity through successful application, we are at most referring to a minority of scientific knowledge-claims within a limited number of research areas.
Click to expand...


Mulkay points out that technology and science, to a large extent at least, seem to go about their own business independently of one another, with little obvious interaction between the two . . .

This negative conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the literatures of science and technology tend to remain distinctly separate, with little cross-reference and with significantly different patterns of internal citation. As far as we can tell from citation analysis, science seems to accumulate mainly on the basis of past science, and technology primarily on the basis of past technology.
Click to expand...


But if there's one area where the link between science and improvements in our standard of living cannot be doubted, surely it must be modern medicine . . .

Finally, it is worth documenting the fact that in areas where science has made a significant contribution to practical action, this contribution can become greatly exaggerated, thereby providing spurious support for common sense assumptions. We have already seen how sociologists tend to take for granted that the effectiveness of modern medicine provides one of the clearest illustrations of how science pays off in practical terms. Indeed, this view is very widely held. For instance, until recently it was accepted, almost without question, that the massive decline in mortality from infectious disease which has occurred in Western societies since the middle of the last century, was brought about by by improvements in medical therapy deriving directly from the findings of scientific research. This view is so well entrenched that it is worth examining the systematic evidence closely. Let us look briefly at some of the more significant infectious diseases.

Consider first tuberculosis, which was the largest single cause of death in the nineteenth century, and the virtual elimination of which has contributed nearly a fifth of the total reduction in mortality since then. It is clear that the death rate in England and Wales from respiratory tuberculosis declined steadily from 1850 to 1970. But effective chemotherapy did not begin until 1947, with the introduction of streptomycin, and immunization was used on a substantial scale only from 1954. "By these dates mortality from tuberculosis had fallen to a small fraction of its level in 1848-54; indeed most of the decline (57%) had taken place before the beginning of the present century" [citation here]. This pattern is repeated in the case of virtually all the major infectious diseases. "Of the total decline of mortality between 1848-54 and 1971, bronchitis, pneumonia, and influenza contributed nearly a tenth; of the fall of the present century they contributed a fifth. Most of this decrease occurred before the introduction of sulphapyridine" [citation here].

Mortality from whooping cough began to decline from the seventh decade of the last century. Treatment by sulphonamides and, later, antibiotics was not available before 1938 and even now their effect on the course of the disease is doubtful. "Clearly almost the whole of the decline of mortality from whooping cough occurred before the introduction of an effective medical measure" [citation here]. Mortality from cholera and related diseases began to fall from the late nineteenth century and, by the time that intravenous therapy was introduced, 95 percent of the overall improvement had taken place. Similarly "mortality from typhus fell rapidly towards the end of the last century and there have few deaths in the twentieth. It can be said without hesitation that specific medical measures had no influence on this decline [citation here]"

The decline in mortality from infectious diseases is the most significant medical achievement of modern times. It is commonly assumed that this achievement is primarily a product of applied science, and this assumption about the impact of medical science has strengthened sociologists' conviction that scientific knowledge is a special kind of knowledge. Detailed examination of the historical evidence, however, seems to show unambiguously that medical science has made only a marginal contribution to this practical achievement. If this realm of practical action is at all representative, much of what we take for granted about the practical efficacy of science may be quite illusory. Given that the production of scientific knowledge-claims has grown steadily and cumulatively in modern times, any secular trend in the realm of practical action will be correlated with the growth of scientific knowledge; and given our conception of the special character of scientific knowledge, it will be only too easy to interpret the former as a consequence of the latter. But the example of the infectious diseases should lead us to beware of taking this kind of connection for granted, and to treat seriously the evidence and arguments (presented earlier in this section), which challenge common sense by insisting that the links between scientific knowledge and practical application are relatively weak.
Click to expand...


Mulkay's essay can be found in his collection, "Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage".
 
foghorn said:
You’re just a big bag full of windy argument about dead and dusty text.
Click to expand...

And you're a big stuffy poopy head who probably thinks Darwin invented evolutionary thought instead of, oh, let's say Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander and Aristotle. Ironically you probably think the Bible is stupid because the Jews adopted the Greek philosophy of Socrates and Plato from Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the Christians did from Constantine the Great in 325 CE. Without your knowing it you actually agree with what the Bible says and disagree with Socrates and Plato who you think were great thinkers. You probably don't have sense enough to tell the difference.

 
Revelation In Space said:
And you're a big stuffy poopy head who probably thinks Darwin invented evolutionary thought instead of, oh, let's say Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander and Aristotle. Ironically you probably think the Bible is stupid because the Jews adopted the Greek philosophy of Socrates and Plato from Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the Christians did from Constantine the Great in 325 CE. Without your knowing it you actually agree with what the Bible says and disagree with Socrates and Plato who you think were great thinkers. You probably don't have sense enough to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
I don't see CERN or LIGO grinding to a halt because of any ancient text you waffle on about.
No one saw the Bible God create the earth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top