Archied Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, Albert said: Max Jam, I quite like your gish gallop tactic. Post long videos, with no commentary on which points you're raising, and no discussion of relevance, then just leg it for a while. It's a old disinformation tactic, but an effective one. Anyhow, we're again watching a video of someone who is not an epidemiologist, so we're off to a bad start. Being on 'Unlocked', which describes itself as 'A new common-sense media channel for those abandoned by the MSM. Fast-moving & fearless, we speak Britain’s language', is always a bad sign too. Anyhow, their lack of credentials for the topic is on it's own not a major, so let's look at their argument. They start by claiming the pandemic had already turned when restrictions were in, which is already a bad sign for their argument, as it has been well established in literature that the cause of this decline was the controls. Going on to question restrictions despite that is not justified in his argument. He then questions the notion that SARS-CoV2 was entirely novel, and without immunity, citing SARS, and claiming he had 'read the literature'. If he had read the literature, he should have known that SARS had only around 8000 known cases, and its spread was stopped before spreading globally. The number of people with a pre-existing immunity from SARS is minimal. He then claims it's similar to other Coronaviruses in the common cold; there exists no literature to suggest that infection by these viruses gives people any immunity to this new one. Even if it did, we already can see from the data that this does indeed spread like a novel disease, and there is no evidence of substantial pre-existing immunity, hence how it has behaved in the community. It is very surprising that someone who has read any of the literature would believe that simply getting a virus from the same family would confer immunity. Yes, cowpox did for smallpox, but this is often not the case. If it was, the flu would have been eradicated by herd immunity centuries ago. They then claim that you don't get situations where almost everyone in care homes get it, then claims it's caused by this effect. This is nonsense, and, in fact, in countries where car homes haven't been managed as well *cough* *Australia* *cough*, we have seen numerous cases of one case infected entire care homes. He next attacks the notion that the majority of the population are still vulnerable. He then claims that only people who became the most ill have these antibodies, but large studies, such as those in New York, have already established that this is simply not the case. Even asymptomatic cases show antibodies, it's how we've been able to find most of them. If we disregard that notion, then we have no reason to claim that the percentage of people who have had the virus is as large as it appears. This claim from him is just straight up pseudo-science. He then sinks his own battleship by citing studies where up to 65% of people in care homes that were known to have the virus had antibodies. This is actually part of the care for there being large numbers of asymptomatic cases, and that it does spread easily in densely populated areas. Honestly, if I was watching for a laugh I'd turn it off here, as the guy is clearly off his rocker, and can't even keep his argument together for 10 minutes; poor effort. He moves on to attack the media's thing about declining immunity a few weeks back. He's not wrong that this doesn't show that immunity wanes quicker, but he's wrong to say that studying the same people and seeing this decline means the prevalence in the community is dropping. This would imply that these people have been consistently exposed to the virus, and this exposure has been dropping; this isn't how disease transmission works. Given his background, I'm concerned that the way he's framed that may be an attempt to mislead the audience. He then states, with no basis, that less than 40% of the population were susceptible. He then cites imaginary research in 'top journals' to suggest he's right, and that this implies that we're at we're already at herd immunity, and it is not possible to have growing pandemic. He then starts talking about the vaccine, then just offhand declares it's now actually 50% of people who have T-cell immunity, this figure has grown while he is talking; what a miracle. He then claims that the pandemic is fundamentally over, and bases this on the lack of deaths in London. He ignores the impact of restrictions and otherwise in reaching this conclusion, just citing his belief that there are too few people for it to spread. Honestly, I'm stopping here. His entire argument is nonsense up to this point. Multiple false claims and basic factual errors throughout. Youtube was right to pull it for disinformation, as it clearly is. If there are any specific later sections you'd like me to discuss, I'm happy to do one or two more if you specify them, and justify why they are relevant. Wow , remind me again of your qualifications,,, ?they must surely blow this yeadon fellas out of the water ( is he making false claims re background and qualifications? Don’t know yet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Archied said: Don’t quit get that jimmy in terms of the question ,, wanted to know whether his claimed qualifications are false and he’s a loon , I presume your answer was to the second part of the question only ? The answer to the first question surely has massive bearing on the second or am I missing something here? He may have the qualifications, I don’t know. Even if he has the qualifications he still makes false claims. I would suggest to those who are unsure about his claims that they should research for themselves how PCR tests work, and what the actual false positive rates are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Albert said: He has no qualifications in epidemiology. What were his claimed qualifications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 1 minute ago, jimmyp said: He may have the qualifications, I don’t know. Even if he has the qualifications he still makes false claims. I would suggest to those who are unsure about his claims that they should research for themselves how PCR tests work, and what the actual false positive rates are. Hmmmmmmmm ? This is where it gets scary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Just now, Albert said: You posted a literal disinformation video, which was removed from youtube due to disinformation. You're spreading lies, and I'd say given you're history on here, that seems to be the intention. As noted in the post you've seemingly ignored, looking into even only the first 10 minutes, it's virtually all false and poorly justified. The guy isn't an expert on the topic, and made some very basic mistakes. Yup, I've ignored your reply ? The guy may not be an 'expert' on the topic but I'll research what former Pfizer Vice President Dr Mike Yeadon, a guy with a first class honors degree in Biochemistry and Toxicology, followed by a research based phd into respiratory pharmacology has to say over random angry dude on football forum any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Archied said: Hmmmmmmmm ? This is where it gets scary Why does it get scary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, Albert said: You posted a literal disinformation video, which was removed from youtube due to disinformation. You're spreading lies, and I'd say given you're history on here, that seems to be the intention. And what history would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 14 minutes ago, Archied said: Wow , remind me again of your qualifications,,, ?they must surely blow this yeadon fellas out of the water ( is he making false claims re background and qualifications? Don’t know yet) I never said them as I'm not keen on appeals to authority. Arguments should be able to stand on their own, his doesn't, and he doesn't even have the qualifications for the appeal to authority he attempted at the start. 12 minutes ago, Archied said: What were his claimed qualifications? Some degrees in biochemistry, nothing in epidemiology, nor any industry experience in epidemiology. 7 minutes ago, maxjam said: Yup, I've ignored your reply ? The guy may not be an 'expert' on the topic but I'll research what former Pfizer Vice President Dr Mike Yeadon, a guy with a first class honors degree in Biochemistry and Toxicology, followed by a research based phd into respiratory pharmacology has to say over random angry dude on football forum any day. That's lovely dear, but again, his qualifications mean nothing as: - They're on a different topic. - He just repeatedly made false claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Albert said: That's lovely dear, but again, his qualifications mean nothing as: - They're on a different topic. - He just repeatedly made false claims. Not to mention a lifetime in the industry as well... Regardless, it goes against your narrative so its an easy stick to beat him with. Lets not forget you dismissed Dr Sunetra Gupta easily enough as well, an actual professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University. But hey you just carry demanding that I listen to a bloke on a football forum. Dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, jimmyp said: Why does it get scary? Really ? Out of interest what do you think his angle is ? Is he a commy agitator? Right wing fascist infiltrator or jus a loon ,, appeared to me to be a very qualified sound minded guy who disagrees with the gov chosen experts but hey tell me about the real guy I’m missing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, Albert said: I never said them as I'm not keen on appeals to authority. Arguments should be able to stand on their own, his doesn't, and he doesn't even have the qualifications for the appeal to authority he attempted at the start. Some degrees in biochemistry, nothing in epidemiology, nor any industry experience in epidemiology. That's lovely dear, but again, his qualifications mean nothing as: - They're on a different topic. - He just repeatedly made false claims. I was joking when I wondered if you were an algorithm, now though ,hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 1 minute ago, maxjam said: Not to mention a lifetime in the industry as well... ...an industry not about epidemiology. 1 minute ago, maxjam said: Regardless, it goes against your narrative so its an easy stick to beat him with. Lets not forget you dismissed Dr Sunetra Gupta easily enough as well, an actual professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University. It's got nothing to do with my 'narrative', he's just flat out wrong. Prof. Gupta's work has been dismissed in her own field, and by reality itself. Her work is fringe in epidemiology, and her predictions were shown to be false through time. The 'great Barrington declaration' fell flat on its face for a reason. 1 minute ago, maxjam said: But hey you just carry demanding that I listen to a bloke on a football forum. Dear. I'm not asking that you listen to me, or any individual on here. I'm asking that you listen to reality in this case, and the actual data. It's not a personality game, you need to actually read the research, and look into where claims are just outright incorrect, like so many in that video you posted, as well as others. The point of discussing qualifications is that appeals to authority, and getting all your news and information through singular sources, is a poor way of doing things. In modern science, is the point is consensus, and the body of research, not individuals. So no, don't listen to me, and don't listen to random unfacted checked videos that have literally been pulled for spreading disinformation. Read the actual literal, and look into what the consensus is, and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Archied said: Really ? Out of interest what do you think his angle is ? Is he a commy agitator? Right wing fascist infiltrator or jus a loon ,, appeared to me to be a very qualified sound minded guy who disagrees with the gov chosen experts but hey tell me about the real guy I’m missing Given the number of false claims he made in minutes, I'm not sure how you described him as 'sound minded'. He made mistake I'd not expect of someone with that level of qualifications in any industry, particularly his own. As to his angle, he could be a genuine believer. Retired academics have a reputation for being a bit loopy. A lot of these people are out doing it to increase their brand, as they see it as a chance to make a buck though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 47 minutes ago, Albert said: I did answer your question. I'm happy to wait for your response. Come on, no shame in admitting that you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Archied said: Really ? Out of interest what do you think his angle is ? Is he a commy agitator? Right wing fascist infiltrator or jus a loon ,, appeared to me to be a very qualified sound minded guy who disagrees with the gov chosen experts but hey tell me about the real guy I’m missing I know why I think it’s scary, just wondered why you thought it was scary. I don’t know what his angle is. Its not just the government experts he disagrees with, he disagrees with most experts. Dig deeper into his PCR claims and decide for yourself. I would recommend using peer reviewed papers for this purpose. As albert also said his qualifications aren’t necessarily relatable to covid-19 . Far more experts with far greater qualification in this field of study exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Just now, G STAR RAM said: Come on, no shame in admitting that you're wrong. So, you're going to keep being childish and avoiding the question. Don't worry, I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Albert said: So, you're going to keep being childish and avoiding the question. Don't worry, I'll wait. Childish because I've pulled you up on spreading misinformation? I thought you was really against that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Childish because I've pulled you up on spreading misinformation? I thought you was really against that? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-corporate-tax-avoidance-havens-justice-network-dodging-a8933661.html is this an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, jimmyp said: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-corporate-tax-avoidance-havens-justice-network-dodging-a8933661.html is this an example? No, this does not back up a claim that large companies pay 'virtually no tax' Try this:- https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 23 minutes ago, Albert said: Given the number of false claims he made in minutes, I'm not sure how you described him as 'sound minded'. He made mistake I'd not expect of someone with that level of qualifications in any industry, particularly his own. As to his angle, he could be a genuine believer. Retired academics have a reputation for being a bit loopy. A lot of these people are out doing it to increase their brand, as they see it as a chance to make a buck though. Question wasn’t addressed to you but non the less your answer is illuminating as always ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.