Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 406  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 09:13:47 PM »
The author of that Reuters article isn't a scientist either, and is unqualified to write that article or appropriately decipher the work or what the people interviewed are talking or complaining about

What are the qualifications of the author of the TFES Wiki?
Are they qualified to write those pages or decipher the work of the people it quotes?

It's a collection of quotes, explanations, and videos related to FE, collected and made by many FE'ers of no particular authority. I have added a lot of stuff to it, but I'm not actually the creator of the videos, UA Theory, EA Theory, models, many of the arguments, quotes, etc. You came here to discuss FE and talk to the FE'ers. You can either agree with it, argue about the interpretation, or leave. Since you have been having trouble significantly contradicting the articles I would suggest that it's time to graduate to the last option.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 08:28:00 PM »
I presume that we will get to the bottom of whether it was a lab thing or a nature thing. The jury is still out, as they say. In any case, how do we go from a possible accidental lab leak to Classen's "the vaccine could be a bioweapon"?

Simply, if COVID-19 was created in a lab then it means that someone wanted to deliberately create a highly contagious virus for some purpose.  Would you trust a group of people wanting to make a highly contagious virus to be implicitly good people? I wouldn't. Even if we don't know why they created it, that they would want to create it destroys all trust.

NIH was funding the lab. Why would the NIH fund a lab which was creating bioweapons? Merely an accident?

Sen. Paul says that Fauci's leaked emails show that he knew about the Gain-of-Function research at the Wuhan Lab. Fauci lying about that destroys trust. If we can't trust our highest health authorities, it means we can't trust them to do good with the vaccine either.

We can either trust them to do good, or not. And the level of involvement in this Coronavirus lab scandal destroys the trust.

Quote from: stack
This is an "Opinion" piece, as noted at the top of the article. I prefer facts over opinions.

An opinion of scientists consulting the WSJ, yes.

Quote from: stack
So all of your tfes wiki references to Wikipedia are of low value? I never said they were all untrue. I was asking you, since you claim it doesn't matter if they are true or not, what is your deciding criteria to include Wikipedia references if they are of low quality and perhaps untrue? As you seemed to disparage my use of of an "anonymous" Wikipedia article and you reference "anonymous" Wikipedia articles as well throughout your wiki. Why is my use not acceptable, but your's is?

I told you why I quote it. Wikipedia is decent at showing the RE groupthink on a topic, and the groupthink on a subject in general. That matters in a way other than truth. RE and heliocentric proponents maintain their own resources, and that is one of them. If you are a RE and have a differing position to the specific Wikipedia topic quoted in the FE Wiki it means that your own side is against you and you are actually in the minority with a belief that RE science may not even support.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 06:37:11 PM »
Quite the concern he has, closing with this:

"Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous. The vaccine could be a bioweapon and even more dangerous than the original infection."

One of his concerns is that the vaccine could be a bioweapon? Really? Coulda, shoulda, woulda. What kind of credible Dr/Researcher throws around that kind of a notion based upon zero evidence?

It's looking more and more like U.S. health authorities may have funded the creation of the Covid-19 virus. If these people are making bioweapons, lying about it, and orchestrating mass lockdowns, I would be concerned about their vaccines to 'save us all' as well.

NY Post - Sen. Paul: Fauci emails prove he knew of Wuhan gain-of-function research

“There’s a lot of evidence that he [Fauci] has a great deal of conflict of interest and that if it turns out this virus came from the Wuhan lab — which it looks like it did — that there’s a great deal of culpability and that he was a big supporter of the funding,” Paul said. “But he also was a big supporter, to this day, of saying, ‘We can trust the Chinese on this. We can trust the Chinese scientists,’ and I think that’s quite naïve and really should preclude him from the position that he’s in.”

WSJ - The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak- "The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus"

"In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses."

WIO news - Fauci admits Wuhan lab received 'modest' funds from US amid calls for probe into Covid origins

And as for a litmus on groupthink, do you mean tfes wiki entries like this:

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory (Archive) echoes the same:
"This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula.”

So would you consider the above not true, but still a useful reference? How is something that is not true a useful reference in this context?

Or this:

From the Wikipedia section on Special Perturbations in celestial mechanics (Archive):

You bolded: “...special perturbation methods are now the basis of the most accurate machine-generated planetary ephemerides of the great astronomical almanacs.”

Is the above just another useful reference of groupthink low quality info that is not true?

I said that the quality of Wikipedia was of low value and mainly represented the internet groupthink, not that the content was always "not true". I consider this more of an English comprehension issue on your part.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 13, 2021, 05:32:37 PM »
Quote from: honk
An investigation that just happened to be focused on two of Trump's biggest critics in Congress and their families

No, it makes complete sense that radicalized Anti-Trump Democrats would leak classified information from the Whitehouse.

Criminal referrals for prosecutions relating to leaks have surged in the Trump administration — likely the result of a big increase in unauthorized disclosures of classified information, a leading intelligence watchdog says.

The number of leaks that were reported as potential crimes by federal agencies reached record high levels over the last two years, according to data released by the Justice Department last week and reported Monday by the Federation of American Scientists, which monitors the intelligence community.

There were 120 leak referrals for possible prosecution in 2017 and 88 in 2018, up from 37 in 2016 and 18 in 2015, the data shows. Only a small percentage of the cases are likely to be prosecuted.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the federation's Project on Government Secrecy, says the uptick is almost certainly due to the fact that under Trump, there is a lot more leaking going on. There has also been a renewed focus by the Justice Department in ferreting out leakers.

"I think it's because there are more leaks," Aftergood, who publishes a weekly newsletter on secrecy, said. "Agencies have been serious about leaks forever — it's not like they decided, 'Oh, we're going to suddenly start paying attention to this.' So the fact that it has escalated so sharply indicates that there is something qualitatively different."

Aftergood and other experts believe discipline about classified information has been diminishing. Trusted, cleared individuals at the CIA and the National Security Agency, including Edward Snowden, have disclosed a raft of secrets in recent years, and that phenomenon continues.

Harold Martin, an NSA contractor who had been taking home classified documents for years, was sentenced to nine years in prison last month although that was not a leak case. Reality Winner, an NSA employee in Georgia, was sentenced to more than five years in prison for leaking a classified document about Russian election interference to a news organization, the Intercept.

FBI agent Terry James Albury was sentenced to four years in prison in October after pleading guilty to disclosing to The Intercept news site classified documents related to the FBI's use of informants.

Yet there is no doubt, current and former intelligence officials say, that there has been an outpouring of leaks meant to push back against Trump administration policies, including the sorts of disclosures rarely seen before.

Two examples include the leaking of transcripts of Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders to the Washington Post, and the disclosures about irregularities in the way the White House processed senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner's security clearance to NBC News. It's not clear whether either case was referred to the Justice Department by a federal agency, although U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he filed his own referral on the transcripts.

The transcripts highlighted what many believed was bizarre and unsettling behavior on Trump's part, and the security clearance disclosures showed that career officials had been overruled, something that rarely happens.

"In some cases, these are not leaks from deep in the military bureaucracy ... they're right out of the Oval Office, and that's pretty much unheard of," Aftergood said.

The Trump administration has averaged 104 leak referrals per year. By comparison, the average number of leak referrals during the Obama administration (2009-2016) was 39 per year, the federation found.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 03:59:16 PM »
Quote from: stack
Oh, so all your Dr Classen was saying in his article titled “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease”, was just about general risk of a vaccine. That’s all, that there’s some risk involved?

Well, it's right there in the title. Not every paper has to prove everything. Bringing up a concern is enough for a paper. I presented the document as evidence that some scientists are concerned about the risks. Pretty typical of your side to take that and move the goal post and demand that the author proves something out of the scope of the effort, building a strawman and 'debunking' something not stated (that the paper proves that the vaccine causes ALS).

Quote from: stack
So the tfes wiki is lousy with “basic low quality general information”? Good to know. I’ll let folks know whenever you refer someone to your wiki that they should beware of the basic low quality general info that you have wholesale deemed unworthy due to its anonymity.

I said low value, not no value. Quoting Wikipedia among other sources makes it harder for you to claim that the particular subject discussed is not a group consensus belief, as even your side of liberal internet RE neckbeards thinks that your position is wrong.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 09:59:02 AM »
Wow, for someone complaining that they didn’t publish the entire conversation with each highly qualified expert they cited, you sure have asserted that they “probably” said this and “most likely” said that.

Do you often make up what other people said without knowing what they said?

Seeing that they generally agree that there is risk, and that virtually none of them would say that there is zero risk or "risk-free", that is safe to assume. Feel free to find us one willing to say that it is risk-free. At best you will find them saying that it is low risk, in contrast to the ones above saying that it is impossible to know.

I see that you haven't even bothered to address the last two doctors, since you know that they do widely believe that there is risk.

And you still haven’t answered the question - Since you’ve deemed Wikipedia as an unworthy source, when are you going to remove all of the Wikipedia citation references and quotes from the tfes wiki?

No. Wikipedia has a purpose of providing low value and low quality basic general information on a subject, and is free to be scrutinized. It successfully provides a litmus on the groupthink, even if it does not provide a litmus on truth, making it a useful reference.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 09:23:42 AM »
I don't see how they "dumbly put a quote that they are unqualified". They asked the good Doctor for his response and they reported his response. Would you prefer they didn't ask the good Dr, or that they don't report what he had to say?

Reuters duplicitously did not cite or provide the conversations in whole, so who knows what they really said?

They probably didn't just say that the vaccine was risk-free in the full conversation. They most likely gave their criticism that he didn't prove enough and agreed with or otherwise submitted to the fact that there is risk to the vaccine, like many other doctors state.


"The rushed nature of the clinical trials casts more uncertainty rather than assuaging it. Pfizer requested emergency use authorization from the FDA, which has given its approval for the vaccine administration. Health care workers take care of sick patients, so it is certainly imperative for them to be in the best health possible, but concerns about the vaccines’ safety are not unwarranted. Also, the long term effects of these are impossible to know for years to come. These issues could potentially replicate the problem, turning those aiding the sick into patients themselves. 

mRNA vaccines are relatively new, and there are many variables to contend with. Other downstream effects from using new technology for the virus and the uncertainty revolving around that definitely is a cause for concern. Because of the limited clinical data, there are no long-term studies to demonstrate effects down the road. Other concerns include inflammation and autoimmune reactions, which can be serious adverse effects from the vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are dependent upon reactogenicity, which are the body’s transient but intense side effects after administering the vaccine. These are supposedly not long-term issues; however, they’re quite severe, especially after the second dose of the vaccine series proposed for the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19."

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 08:33:12 AM »
It takes a special kind of stupid to pick on the reporter while ignoring the quotes from scientists delivering their qualified opinions.

The reporter is unqualified to report on this, and is liberally biased (See: Reuters). He is unqualified to understand the material, present it, or give a conclusion.

The scientists most likely didn't just give a single sentence and then disappear, firstly. Reuters doesn't give the full conversation. Deceitful.

The selected quotes say that the author didn't prove that the vaccine caused ALS. The author didn't claim that at all, however. He said that there were some things which gave a potential for future issues. Reuters found a sentence that sounded bad and cited it and claimed that the author has been debunked.

Regardless, experts disagreeing with each other wouldn't prove anything, would mean only that there are experts who disagree with each other, and the situation would still suggest that there may be a risk in taking the vaccine.

It is well admitted that there is risk with this vaccine:

“There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so we are willing to take more risks,” Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, told The Jerusalem Post.

When Moderna was just finishing its Phase I trial, The Independent wrote about the vaccine and described it this way: “It uses a sequence of genetic RNA material produced in a lab that, when injected into your body, must invade your cells and hijack your cells’ protein-making machinery called ribosomes to produce the viral components that subsequently train your immune system to fight the virus.”

“In this case, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 is programmed to make your cells produce the coronavirus’ infamous coronavirus spike protein that gives the virus its crown-like appearance (corona is crown in Latin) for which it is named,” wrote The Independent.

Brosh said that this does not mean the vaccine changes people’s genetic code. Rather, he said it is more like a USB device (the mRNA) that is inserted into a computer (your body). It does not impact the hard drive of the computer but runs a certain program.

But he acknowledged that there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.


“We will have a safety profile for only a certain number of months, so if there is a long-term effect after two years, we cannot know,” Brosh said

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 08:01:38 AM »
The author of that Reuters article isn't a scientist either, and is unqualified to write that article or appropriately decipher the work or what the people interviewed are talking or complaining about:

Quote from: Reuters
When reached for comment via email, Classen told Reuters: “You should leave the scientific criticism to scientists” (which Reuters has done throughout this article) and that Reuters was “not qualified to criticize my work.”

The author of the Reuters article is simply unqualified. They even dumbly put the quote that they are unqualified into their own article. If they are unqualified to give an opinion they are also unqualified to correctly interpret and address a qualified one.

The paper Classen wrote only introduces potential issues for further study, and calls it a "potential risk". He says that it "may" cause harm. He does not claim that he proved that the vaccine causes ALS; and any criticism on the matter of what the paper does not provide evidence for is only pertinent in that further study is needed, as recommended by the author himself.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 13, 2021, 07:08:00 AM »
"WASHINGTON — As the Justice Department investigated who was behind leaks of classified information early in the Trump administration"

"The zeal in the Trump administration’s efforts to hunt leakers led to the extraordinary step of subpoenaing communications metadata from members of Congress"

Leaking classified information is very illegal. Who would have thought that the government would try to stop that. That is a pretty wonky definition of corruption there.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 05:35:47 AM »
Did you bother checking your sources?

You are quoting what appears to be 23 year old child on the internet with no claimed or relevant credentials.

This has happened numerous times with you. You could have easily clicked on his profile and seen your source, but you opt to quote anonymous Wikipedia articles, anonymous wordpress websites, and unqualified individuals.

You are trying to debunk medical researchers with unqualified sources. Seriously, just think about that for a while. How disappointing that your tactics have no integrity at all.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 03:42:10 AM »
Another scientist, in the journal Microbiology & Infectious Diseases:

J. Bart Classen, MD

Abstract: "Development of new vaccine technology has been plagued with problems in the past. The current RNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long term safety testing. In this paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evaluated for the potential to induce prion-based disease in vaccine recipients. The RNA sequence of the vaccine as well as the spike protein target interaction were analyzed for the potential to convert intracellular RNA binding proteins TAR DNA binding protein (TDP-43) and Fused in Sarcoma (FUS) into their pathologic prion conformations. The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations. In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. Potential G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but a more sophisticated computer program is needed to verify these. Furthermore, the spike protein, created by the translation of the vaccine RNA, binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a zinc containing enzyme. This interaction has the potential to increase intracellular zinc. Zinc ions have been shown to cause the transformation of TDP-43 to its pathologic prion configuration. The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS, front temporal lobar degeneration, Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit."

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 11, 2021, 06:01:40 AM »
Maybe it would help to quote a few more animal doctors...

Byram Bridle, Associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph (@OVCPathobiology)

“OVC”= "Ontario Veterinary College”

Is your guy actually a Vet?

I'll take my "infectious disease expert," "pediatric infectious disease specialist," and a university "vaccine researcher", over your veterinary immunologist.

Wow. So here is some news for you: Scientists study animals for the purposes of human health.

Try reading his website profile:

At the intersection of these two programs, is a research initiative aimed at modifying the research team's optimized cancer vaccine platforms to target severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2, which is the causative agent of the coronavirus disease identified at the end of 2019 (COVID-19). The long-term goal is to have a flexible technological platform to rapidly develop vaccines against highly pathogenic coronaviruses that may emerge in the future.


The Bridle lab is or has been funded by:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
Terry Fox Research Institute
Canadian Cancer Society,
Cancer Research Society
Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation

Obviously Dr. Bridle must be wanting to create coronavirus vaccines for dogs. And the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation is super interested in curing breast cancer in cats.

We can clearly see that Dr. Bridle was trained in human health viral immunology:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 11, 2021, 04:14:54 AM »
You quoted an "infectious disease expert," a "pediatric infectious disease specialist," and a university "vaccine researcher". Dr. Bridle is a viral immunologist.

Viral Immunology

viral immunology is the study of viral infections and immune responses towards viral infections which can cause deleterious effect on the functions of the cells. It includes both DNA and RNA viral infections.

So you haven't quoted anyone who is a specialist in the immune response towards viral infections.

Maybe it will help if you quote a few more pediatricians.  ::)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 11, 2021, 02:26:07 AM »
Dr. Bridle appears to be less than honest. First off, the vaccine doesn’t create spike protein, it creates part of the protein. Second, the protein never leaves the cell where it is created. Being a well respected viral immunologist he must have know this, so why is he saying this?

Why? Oh, I know this one. Dr. Bridle is the respected viral immunologist and you are not.


This site goes through Dr. Bridle’s claims and links to the studies they are based on.

So an anonymous author of a website with no stated credentials is saying that a viral immunologist is wrong. Seems to be a trend from you of either citing yourself or anonymous internet comments. Nor do any of those links on that site reference long term studies. The vaccine has not been tested long term.

You were better off citing yourself as your source and your extensive non-specific experience with watching youtube videos. At least there is a chance of someone actually claiming to be an expert in those videos.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 08, 2021, 05:29:54 PM »
Even transwoman activist Caitlyn Jenner, a former Olympic champion, says that transexuals shouldn't be in girl's sports.


5/2/2021 7:11 AM PT

Caitlyn Jenner has a take on trans athletes you might not expect -- namely, if you're born as a biological boy, you shouldn't be allowed to compete in girls' sports ... at least while you're still in school, anyway.

We got the California gubernatorial hopeful Saturday in Malibu, and she weighed in on her first big political issue as she takes center stage in her run for Gavin Newsom's job -- telling TMZ she doesn't support trans girls born as boys participating in all-female school sports.

Yeah, we know ... it's a pretty interesting stance -- especially coming from Caitlyn ... who of course, is a trans woman herself AND a former Olympic champion. But, check out her rationale ... she chalks it up to fairness and protecting the integrity of girls' sports.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 07, 2021, 05:46:38 PM »
Boys who think they are girls are simply boys who think that they are girls. They are not biological girls.

They have a gender identity which takes place in their head, as is argued by trannie proponents themselves. A physical sport involves more than the head, however. It involves the whole body. Despite whether the physical reality of the female brain is valid, it is agreed that they have male bodies, and so it is unfair for transexual males to compete with girls in girl sports.

Incorrect. The second chapter of ENAG outlines the philosophy of skepticism and the need for physical evidence to confirm theory. Even Blount's little explanation of her society in the religious-themed advertisement says to "prove all things". It literally says that they want to do the opposite of what you want it to say, since dogma doesn't try to prove itself.

Demand evidence for all things. Prove all things. That is the basis of skepticism, regardless of whether you want to address religion with that idea. Dogma says that something is true and that's that, which is the opposite. You should look up the definition of that.

In Rowbotham's chapter on religion he says that religion is a state of mind generally outside of direct evidence, that people believe it on faith, but physical evidence is more than faith and so that should be preferred and so on. He is consistent in using physical evidence to support a theory as outlined in Chapter Two.

So you don't know about the Victorian Era's controversies, you don't know what dogma is, and you don't know about skepticism. Did you just want to spam this thread with religious rants?

Rowbotham and Lady Blount were concerned about religion, the most controversial and talked about thing of the era, wowzers. I wonder why they would talk about religion. So confusing!

Like I said, I would say that mere healthy skepticism was not the main thrust of their efforts, but very scriptural heavy.

Thanks for proving my point.

Unless you didn't bother to read or understand what they were skeptical of: The accepted science model of the time.

Leo Ferrari would also be talking religion, pro or con, in Victorian Era England. They were all about that. Rather, the 1970's was less about religion and more about general non-conformity. Ferrari was a wacky hippy professor type, so his society was about that.

We don't talk about religion so often here in this FES because it's not as important to society anymore. And the hippy era is over. It's not important to be so wacky and clever for non-conformist purposes, so Ferrari's themes might be done with.

You are mainly the person barging into threads spamming about religion and how you hate religious people, or whatever it is you say. The Victorian Era is really where the science vs. religion controversy comes from and why we're still talking about it now. The FE Theory was part of that saga, and part of that history in a way. But I don't see what your anti-Christian seething against the old Victorian societies really has to do with this dissertation about Leo Ferrari.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 406  Next >