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 ... 410  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: Today at 10:19:03 PM »
It's not remarkably similar. The physicist Terence Quinn above says that the range undermines their science of the metrology of the small forces.

"Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces."

2
General increase in deaths:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361

Quote
A study analyzing US mortality in March-July 2020 reported a 20% increase in excess deaths, only partly explained by COVID-19.

Plus misreporting of Covid Deaths:

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/questions-over-the-accuracy-of-how-the-state-tracks-covid-deaths/283-0b1b7b6c-695e-4313-92cf-a4cfd7510721

Quote
So what does that policy mean in practice? We asked Modie about a hypothetical case where someone died from a motorcycle crash and also had COVID-19. Would that be counted as a COVID-19 death?

“It would be,” Modie explained. “But I must go back to the point about how we used this data, which is to help us track how COVID-19 is spread in the community.”

= FRAUD

We get plenty of asymptomatic or otherwise harmless diseases in us. There is no reason to start changing the way deaths are reported. In years past they did not attribute motorcycle deaths to the flu if someone had asymptomatic flu in their system.

If you can't argue with consistent data and methods, it's a worthless argument.

3
The lockdown itself is causing excess deaths, as Thork pointed out. They are being mis-attributed to Covid because it's a highly transmissible harmless disease (or as harmful as the flu) that everyone gets. Unlike with the flu in previous years, the government is putting anything down as Covid, even if you die of a motorcycle accident with Covid in your system, as we saw in the other thread. That is a fraud on the public to make Covid into a bigger deal than it is.

The excess deaths that they couldn't pin on Covid are up all around during this Covid pandemic:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361

Quote
A study analyzing US mortality in March-July 2020 reported a 20% increase in excess deaths, only partly explained by COVID-19. Surges in excess deaths varied in timing and duration across states and were accompanied by increased mortality from non–COVID-19 causes.

Caused by the lockdown.

Th data is clearly manipulated. The fact is that they are misreporting any death to be caused by Covid if there is Covid in your system.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/questions-over-the-accuracy-of-how-the-state-tracks-covid-deaths/283-0b1b7b6c-695e-4313-92cf-a4cfd7510721

Quote
So what does that policy mean in practice? We asked Modie about a hypothetical case where someone died from a motorcycle crash and also had COVID-19. Would that be counted as a COVID-19 death?

“It would be,” Modie explained. “But I must go back to the point about how we used this data, which is to help us track how COVID-19 is spread in the community.”

They didn't do that in previous years. If you had the flu and died in a motorcycle accident you were not counted as a flu death.

Why the new procedure?

It's a lie and a manipulation to fudge the numbers. You are perpetuating fraudulent arguments that do not hold up.

4
Incorrect. You claimed that the vaccine doesn't stop you from catching Covid right here:

The vaccine doesn't stop you catching Covid

5
The study demonstrates that these two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections.
Hope that helps.

So you're wrong then. You said that it does not reduce infection or transmission.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services says that when most people are vaccinated the disease can't spread:

https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/work/index.html



This is literally the opposite of what you say vaccines do.

6
I don't understand how Vaccines Work™

Indeed. I'll add that to the long list...
The vaccine doesn't stop you catching Covid, it stops you developing symptoms serious enough to require hospitalisation - in most cases, not all before you start picking more cherries.
Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

Wrong. They do claim it stops you from catching Covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Quote
A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Quote
The study demonstrates that these two mRNA vaccines can reduce the risk of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, not just symptomatic infections.

7
The vaccines are Highly Effective™


8

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: July 26, 2021, 05:54:41 AM »
Muh deadly virus


10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 24, 2021, 04:25:27 AM »
Are people being held down and injected?

Pretty much. They are being told that they can't go to the hospital or to shopping centers if they don't get the injection:

Quote
"From the beginning of August, the health pass will apply to cafés, restaurants and shopping centres, as well as in hospitals, retirement homes and medical and social establishments, and also on planes, trains and buses for long journeys. Again, only those who have been vaccinated and tested negative will be allowed access to these places," Macron said earlier this week.

Quote from: Rama Set
Ask your government why they tried to balance individual rights against collective rights.

Just a few posts ago you were arguing in favor of breaking the Nuremberg Code to force or coerce people into taking the experimental vaccines. Now you are arguing that being put into quarantine infringes on rights.  ::)

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 23, 2021, 08:01:05 PM »
Tom supports the CCP welding people in to their homes and lying about COVID cases to bring numbers down. Interesting strategy.

Pretty sure forced quarantine is more morally justifiable than forced experimental injection.
 
What do you think happens to you when you are on board a ship and your shipmates are found to be communicating a contagious disease? Quarantine.

How is it that China knew what to do, but other countries led many thousands to their deaths?

So the Nazi's just had to say "it was to save lives" and their forced medical experiments would be okay?

False equivalence.

Germany had invaded Poland first, and then other countries within Europe. There was a war on, with France, UK, and latterly the USA, all joining as allies to fight back the Germans, defend their own countries, and halt what the Germans were doing to the Jews and others.

None of that applies here and now.

Uh, what? The Nuremberg Code was created because of Germany, but wasn't directed only at Germany. Not sure why you think only the Nazis can do unethical things.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 23, 2021, 06:22:10 AM »
The Hypocratic Oath isn't legally binding either. People value it for reasons other than legality.

Quote from: Tumeni
It is not for the purpose of an experiment. It is to save lives.

So the Nazis just had to say "it was to save lives" and their forced medical experiments would be okay?

Quote from: Tumeni
600k deaths in less than a year should make it clear to you that the standard 10 to 15 years were not available.

China didn't have a problem with extinguishing Covid without forcefully or coersively injecting experiments into people. Their pandemic only lasted about a month and a half or so. What's the problem with your country?


13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 22, 2021, 04:31:55 PM »
The repeated word/phrase in the code is experiment/experimentation.

Applying a vaccine to prevent the spread of a pandemic is not experimentation. It's a treatment.

Wikipedia;

"The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation created by the USA v Brandt court as one result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. In a review written on the 50th anniversary of the Brandt verdict, Katz writes that "a careful reading of the judgment suggests that" the authors wrote the Kodex "for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.""

The vaccines haven't been tested long term. They are new, and involve never before deployed genetic programming which permanently reprograms our bodies to produce a substance it does not normally produce. How in the world is that not experimental?

It usually takes a long period of time to test drugs and vaccines:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK24645/

Drug Animal Testing:

"This stage of safety testing usually takes about 4 years. Drug companies test for mutagenicity (ability to cause genetic changes) and carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer). The drugs are also tested to confirm that they do not cause infertility (inability to have children) or birth defects. This stage of safety testing takes many years, because it may take a long period of time for animals to develop cancer or infertility as a result of a toxic drug."

It takes years for a reason.

The whole process of human drug testing typically takes a long time:

"Clinical testing is complex and time-consuming, averaging 14 years to complete Phase I through III testing to gain FDA approval."

Typical vaccine development:

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."

So it takes 10 to 15 years normally. Why is that? Because they don't want to give people things which might cause adverse effects down the line.

Obviously if Nazi Germany was claiming that its experiments during WWII were "approved" and "fine", and "in our estimation it's safe" and "we tested it on some mice for a short time," that would still violate the Nuremberg Code when they forced it on people. The government's opinion is irrelevant. They are still experiments, no matter what the government claims.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 21, 2021, 11:28:26 PM »
That's not what the New England Journal of Medicine think it's for.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006

The article says that it applies to ulterior form of constraint and coercion, not just direct forced injection:

Quote
1.The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision

It then goes on to give an example with the malaria treatment from Andrew Ivy, co-author of the code:

Quote
Ivy explained that these common-sense principles mirrored the understanding shared by everyone in practice in the medical community.12 The first principle was that a physician would never do anything to a patient or subject before obtaining his or her consent. Ivy also asserted that, unlike Leibbrand, he did not consider prisoners to be in an inherently coercive situation and thus unable to give consent, because in democratic countries where the rights of individuals are respected, prisoners can always say yes or no without fear of being punished.12 He testified:

"The American malaria experiments with 800 or more prisoners were absolutely justified, scientifically, legally and ethically even if they bring with them danger to human life. To treat malaria was an important scientific problem, and so long as the subjects volunteer and are explained the hazards of the experiments, there is no ethical reason against it. . . . If prisoners condemned to death are volunteers, then it was ethical to do just that."

During cross-examination, Ivy acknowledged that there were no written principles of research in the United States or elsewhere before December 1946 and that the principles adopted by the American Medical Association were expressly formulated for the Doctors' Trial.12 Ivy also recognized that the right of the research subject to withdraw from an experiment may not always exist, as in the malaria experiments in which the subjects had already been infected, or in dangerous experiments in which the subjects could be severely injured or fatally harmed. Ivy agreed with Leibbrand that researchers must refuse to conduct experiments on human beings when ordered by the state in order “to save lives,” because in such cases subjects would not be volunteers. He declared that “[t]here is no justification in killing five people in order to save the lives of five hundred” and that “no state or politician under the sun could force [him] to perform a medical experiment which [he] thought was morally unjustified.”12 Ivy also stressed that the state may not assume the moral responsibility of physicians to their patients or research subjects, arguing that “[E]very physician should be acquainted with the Hippocratic Oath [which] represents the Golden Rule of the medical profession in the United States, and, to [his] knowledge, throughout the world.”12

See the last bolded piece. It doesn't matter if the treatment saves many lives. It's still unethical to coerce people into taking it.

The article also emphasizes the right to withdraw:

Quote
Medical Ethics and Human Rights

The judges at Nuremberg, although they realized the importance of Hippocratic ethics and the maxim primum non nocere, recognized that more was necessary to protect human research subjects. Accordingly, the judges articulated a sophisticated set of 10 research principles centered not on the physician but on the research subject. These principles, which we know as the Nuremberg Code, included a new, comprehensive, and absolute requirement of informed consent (principle 1), and a new right of the subject to withdraw from participation in an experiment (principle 9). The judges adopted much of the language proposed by Alexander and Ivy but were more emphatic about the necessity and attributes of the subject's consent and explicitly added the subject's right to withdraw.

15
Since one party got 5% and the other party got 0% it would suggest that people didn't just select it as a joke.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 21, 2021, 05:36:20 PM »
Anyway, back on topic, France is upping the ante.

Macron is done politely pleading with the French to get vaccinated.

He is now playing hardball and came with the shock announcement that life for the unvaccinated will become miserable.

"From the beginning of August, the health pass will apply to cafés, restaurants and shopping centres, as well as in hospitals, retirement homes and medical and social establishments, and also on planes, trains and buses for long journeys. Again, only those who have been vaccinated and tested negative will be allowed access to these places," Macron said earlier this week.

The prospect of not being able to do anything fun during the summer and beyond made people jump into action.

In the first 24 hours after the speech, more than a million people booked vaccination appointments – 20,000 per minute. A record since the start of the campaign.

Vive la France!

Please familiarize yourself with the Nuremberg Code.


18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 08:18:26 PM »
There are experiments in there showing that the effect aligns with the equivalence principle.
The first one of those is from NASA. I didn't think you trusted them? Or do you only trust them when you get results which you think back up your views?

If the mainstream narrative is saying that the equivalence principle is being verified to high altitudes, you can't turn around and tell me that it's not. You are arguing yourself into a corner about these gravitational variations that supposedly exist but lack evidence.

Quote
Quote
The word 'emperical' isn't even in there. You appear to just be making things up.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_evidence_do_you_have.3F

Quote
The evidence for a Flat Earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the Sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach

That's an entirely different article and talking about one type of approach. I don't see what you are ranting about.

Quote
Quote
You are basically screaming at us to ignore evidence, to ignore your logical errors and to just accept uncontrolled experiments.

I'm suggesting you be logically consistent. You are not - a good example of that you have inadvertently exposed in this thread. You claim the results of an experiment as backing up your view. The results of which come from NASA, an organisation who you distrust...except, apparently, when they produce data which you think backs up what you believe. So NASA are faking all their missions...oh, but not the one whose data you want to cherry pick. You see the issue?

Nope. It's completely logical. It presents it as the mainstream narrative on the non-variations seen with time dilation. Mainstream says there are no detectable time variations by altitude, so the RE position is that there are no detectable time variations.

By your logic we should accept the scale experiments that very by latitude, even though they are uncontrolled and we know the atmosphere affects them.

By your logic we should discard the other contradictory experiments by latitude where variations do not manifest.

By your logic, even if the mainstream narrative is that there are no variations seen with time by latitude or altitude, we should discard that data and assume that there are experiments somewhere that prove your spinning globe and gravity.

Totally ridiculous. Totally illogical. The conclusion from these experiments isn't that you are somehow right. The conclusion from the experiments is that you appear to be incorrect unless you have some compelling new data to present.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 10:01:51 AM »
Incorrect. There is a link in that section with references to various experiments on that.

Do you mean the "Gravitational Time Dilation" link? Fair enough if so, it wasn't clear that was even about the same topic.

The altitude variations section links to this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravitational_Time_Dilation

There are experiments in there showing that the effect aligns with the equivalence principle.

And the latitude experiments referenced in the link contradict each other, as well. One has variations and the other does not.

Quote
You do this consistently - any "empirical observations" which you think back up your views are readily accepted without scrutiny. You then claim that your theories are based on "empirical observations".

The word 'emperical' isn't even in there. You appear to just be making things up.

Quote
The level of scrutiny you apply to any experiment is entirely dependent on whether the results confirm to your world view.
It's pretty disingenuous.

There are a number of references showing that the environment affects the scale. If you are insisting on those scale experiments without acknowledging that it is affected by the atmosphere it makes you the disingenuous one. You are basically screaming at us to ignore evidence, to ignore the logical errors and to just accept uncontrolled experiments. A terrible way to argue. You would do better by actually collecting evidence that is in your favor rather than your tactic of arguing that you don't have to.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 09:23:12 AM »
Its quite a amusing that you have a paragraph on "Altitude Tests" where you claim that "gravity does not deviate from the Universality of Free Fall or the Equivalence Principle", with no evidence presented.

Incorrect. There is a link in that section with references to various experiments on that.

Quote
Literally the next paragraph "Latitude Tests" you note that gravity measurements vary by latitude and then explain away why that might be.

And the explanation is that the experiment is not controlled against the environment, with references showing that the environment affects the scale. This hurts your insistence that we take uncontrolled experiments as fact.

There is also a link in that section which shows latitude tests which did not see variations by latitude, in contradiction to Einsteins's prediction and the scale latitude experiments. You ignored this.

Quote
You claim to base your opinions on empirical observations, but when observations don't back up what you believe you simply explain them away.

You ignored the links in those sections that show contradicting experiments to the idea. You saw the links, ignored them, and came here to tell us about 'no evidence'. That is dishonest.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 410  Next >