This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 03 Mar 22 6.13pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Personally I remember things being more regularly referred to as 'covid deaths' in the media myself. The only time we got 'deaths with covid' was when people wanted more detail....that did happen but just how many people bothered to get into the weeds rather than look at headlines. In my view that was part of the behavioural unit's remit.... the fact that behavioural units were there to manipulate mass response isn't a conspiracy theory. In my view the impression people were left with was that the death totals were solid and not some approximation of covid impact but actual covid deaths. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Mar 2022 5.56pm) No sorry Stirling, that was just poor articulation from me. It does read as a definitive statement I should have said 'from my memory' which even then is probably the most unreliable source and easily scrutinised source ever quoted on this forum. I do just remember statements such as 'with COVID' or 'COVID related' the latter of which could potentially be as applicable as saying 'green eyes related' when quoting murder victim statistics. I do agree however that the wording is open to manipulation to, putting it nicely', encourage engagement/buy-in from the public. Again happy to state I have no evidence for supporting this but willing to believe. Again I would stress that the evidence suggesting died as a direct result of COVID is as questionable as those dying having received a jab. Not saying this is absolute fact, just my interpretation so far (which is again not a reliable source).
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Stirlingsays  03 Mar 22 6.23pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
No sorry Stirling, that was just poor articulation from me. It does read as a definitive statement I should have said 'from my memory' which even then is probably the most unreliable source and easily scrutinised source ever quoted on this forum. I do just remember statements such as 'with COVID' or 'COVID related' the latter of which could potentially be as applicable as saying 'green eyes related' when quoting murder victim statistics. I do agree however that the wording is open to manipulation to, putting it nicely', encourage engagement/buy-in from the public. Again happy to state I have no evidence for supporting this but willing to believe. Again I would stress that the evidence suggesting died as a direct result of COVID is as questionable as those dying having received a jab. Not saying this is absolute fact, just my interpretation so far (which is again not a reliable source). I have to admit....given the prospect of nuclear winters....I'm getting rather nostalgic for covid. Those happy days wearing your mask walking around people in the street......warms your heart.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 03 Mar 22 6.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I have to admit....given the prospect of nuclear winters....I'm getting rather nostalgic for covid. Those happy days wearing your mask walking around people in the street......warms your heart. Ha! Very true. It does feel akin to a starving man remembering the time he rued ordering a Rump Steak as opposed to a Sirloin at a restaurant!
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 03 Mar 22 7.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
What I'm reading above is that your wife got injected and got sick but you despite being unhealthy didn't get injected and didn't get sick. All your other assumptions have been given to you by what you hear in the media propaganda and conversations with others (who have been subject to the same propaganda) that have re-enforced the same view. All you would need to do would be some cursory research around the "tests" to understand that they cannot detect an active virus and have a very high rate of false positives. But very few people do and get angry when you suggest this like you are attacking their entire world view. Bottom line is that if we had been in a pandemic there would have been significant excess mortality and there hasn't been and nobody can explain this. The tests do not have a high rate of false positives. Please show me your proof As you know, you do not test someone after they have had covid until at least 90 days have elapsed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 03 Mar 22 10.14pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
The tests do not have a high rate of false positives. Please show me your proof As you know, you do not test someone after they have had covid until at least 90 days have elapsed. I assume you are talking about antibody tests. I’m talking about the PCR/Drosden test which was the entire basis for the whole 2 years of nonsense. The inventor Karry Mullis (who won a nobel prize for this) stated it should never be used as a diagnostic test and that “if done well, it can find anything in anyone”. He also had some very interesting things to say about Tony Fauci and happened to die just before the pandemic. You can easily find this on Youtube. Edited by W12 (03 Mar 2022 10.15pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 03 Mar 22 10.20pm | |
|---|---|
|
Karry Mullis on Fauci I know who sounds like they are lying
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 03 Mar 22 10.22pm | |
|---|---|
|
I found it for you:
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 03 Mar 22 10.41pm | |
|---|---|
|
“This rate of false positives PCR test results has been estimated at between 0.8% and 4.3%” Think about how many “cases” that generates when you are testing millions of people every week. It makes the idea that the number of “cases” is important as meaningless. And then there were the computer models….
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 03 Mar 22 11.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
“This rate of false positives PCR test results has been estimated at between 0.8% and 4.3%” Think about how many “cases” that generates when you are testing millions of people every week. It makes the idea that the number of “cases” is important as meaningless. And then there were the computer models…. How did the UK response actually affect you ?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 03 Mar 22 11.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
“This rate of false positives PCR test results has been estimated at between 0.8% and 4.3%” Think about how many “cases” that generates when you are testing millions of people every week. It makes the idea that the number of “cases” is important as meaningless. And then there were the computer models…. You clearly have an agenda You obtained your data from the ONS but don’t appear to have understood its response correctly. It said: The results show that when we consider that the sensitivity of the test could lie between 85% and 95% (with around 95% probability) and specificity is above 99.9%, the prevalence rate would be slightly higher but still very close to the main estimate we publish in our weekly bulletin. There are more false negatives than false positives. Even if at the lowest point of range at 95.7%, I make the tests pretty accurate. Then consider most people have more than one test. Perhaps you can do the maths. Edited by Mapletree (03 Mar 2022 11.16pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 03 Mar 22 11.18pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
How did the UK response actually affect you ? Eh?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 03 Mar 22 11.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Eh? Well it's just that you cannot find one positive thing to say. I mean thousands of lives have been saved by the jab, you could even argue that the jab caused the mutation and the mutation was weaker for our benefit. It could be also argued that, those that died because (maybe) of the jab would no doubt have died with covid. Their chances were enhanced but alas it failed. And let's say you are correct in that it was pointless. Tell that to the millions who didn't die but felt so much better mentally even if it was a placebo in their arm. Sort of kills your argument about the jab but you get what I'm saying.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.