The coronavirus scam

[Arthur Brain]

Dr. Fauci is no expert. He is an egotistical, fortune-seeking, narcissistic quack. Don't try to give me the baloney that he knows what is best for this country and for individuals. If he had known and done what was best for us he would never have funded gain of function research on developing bat viruses dangerous to humans.

I didn't even mention Fauci and I could care less about your opinion of him either. I asked what credentials you have to determine what constitutes facts, evidence and science. Do you have any?

 

[Right Divider]

I didn't even mention Fauci and I could care less about your opinion of him either. I asked what credentials you have to determine what constitutes facts, evidence and science. Do you have any?

Nobody needs "credentials" to "determine what constitutes facts, evidence and science".

There you go worshipping experts again.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nobody needs "credentials" to "determine what constitutes facts, evidence and science".

There you go worshipping experts again.

Oh, so anybody can make up whatever "facts" they like then? They can't, but they can sure invent their own opinions as if they are.

Tell me RD, are you worshipping an 'expert' if you consult your local general practitioner for medical advice? Or don't you do that when the need arises?

 

[Right Divider]

Oh, so anybody can make up whatever "facts" they like then? They can't, but they can sure invent their own opinions as if they are.

Do you still not even know what a fact is?

Tell me RD, are you worshipping an 'expert' if you consult your local general practitioner for medical advice?

No

Or don't you do that when the need arises?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do you still not even know what a fact is?

No

Of course I know what a fact is and it's not open to subjective opinion. I presume that you know that?

Right, so you're not 'worshipping an expert' when you visit your general practitioner when in need of medical advice. Your GP is an expert else why consult him? Why not consult your local quack who moonlights as a doctor when his real expertise may lie in mending roof tiles instead?

So, if presumably you're not going to question the credentials of an expert who will be best qualified to aid in treatment of whatever disease, symptoms or ailments you may be suffering from, why question the credentials of experts who are better versed in the field of virology, transmission, protective measures and the like?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How is what you're doing not an appeal to authority either?

Because I'm not claiming that "because he's an expert, therefore he's right."

You've posted a video from youtube which presumably you agree with, correct? On what basis? Why?

Because the video shows how ineffective masks are against stopping aerosols.

The good doctor doesn't just claim it. He demonstrates it to be so.

But you just can't believe your lying eyes, can you?

What expertise do you have on the subject at hand to comment?

I have the ability to see and to reason. That's all anyone needs.

Why should it trump what accredited experts in the field have to say on the matter?

Because it isn't just an "accredited expert in the field" saying something. It's a man on video demonstrating exactly how the masks DO NOT stop aerosolized particles that are of equal size or larger than the particles in which the virus is transmitted.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It trumps it simply because it's a demonstration, rather than a mere claim by an expert.

 

[ok doser]

It trumps it simply because it's a demonstration, rather than a mere claim by an expert.

Reproducibility

The defining characteristic of good science

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because I'm not claiming that "because he's an expert, therefore he's right."



Because the video shows how ineffective masks are against stopping aerosols.

The good doctor doesn't just claim it. He demonstrates it to be so.

But you just can't believe your lying eyes, can you?



I have the ability to see and to reason. That's all anyone needs.



Because it isn't just an "accredited expert in the field" saying something. It's a man on video demonstrating exactly how the masks DO NOT stop aerosolized particles that are of equal size or larger than the particles in which the virus is transmitted.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It trumps it simply because it's a demonstration, rather than a mere claim by an expert.

Well, yes you are. You're claiming such because you've seen a video on YT and have brought into his narrative, that's it. You buy into his demonstration and subsequent explanations why, exactly? You've no expertise on the matter have you? How do you know that his 'demonstration' trumps accredited experts in the field? Break it down and explain how it dismantles such.

Have you any idea just how many similar videos are out there that are available on social media touting similar premises? Are they all to be taken seriously as well?

Now, why should any of these be taken seriously and taken above credited sources on the matter from actual experts? Or next time you need a filling, go to your nearest car mechanic instead. He might do a sideline in dentistry.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, yes you are.

Well, no, I'm not.

You clearly don't know what an appeal to authority is. Allow me to define it for you, from Wikipedia:

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument

I have in no way, shape, or form, claimed that the opinion of the man in the video has any bearing on what he demonstrates in the video as true or false.

You and yours, however, have constantly and repeatedly claimed that "because the experts say so," masks must be effective.

You're claiming such because you've seen a video on YT

Yes, because he demonstrates clearly, so that such demonstration can be repeated and tested, that the argument he is making is valid.

It has nothing to do with his accreditation.

and have brought into his narrative, that's it.

What narrative?

Again, he demonstrated, clearly and repeatably, that masks are ineffective at stopping aerosols.

You buy into his demonstration and subsequent explanations why, exactly?

For the exact same reason people accept Newton's demonstration of gravity. Because it's repeatable and observable, as doser said above, as any good science should be.

You've no expertise on the matter have you?

I have the ability to see with my eyes, and use my brain to reason. Don't you?

How do you know that his 'demonstration' trumps accredited experts in the field?

Because masks have holes in them that will only allow objects smaller than those holes through them.
Because the covid is an aerosol based virus.
Because the aerosol particles emitted by vapes are smaller than the holes.
Because, as far as I can tell, those particles are of equal size or larger than the particles that the covid is transmitted in.
Because the aerosol he inhales and then exhales through the mask clearly penetrates all of the masks that he wears, and is visible when it does so.

Need I go on? Can you use your brain yet?

Have you any idea just how many similar videos are out there that are available on social media touting similar premises?

How many of them demonstrate clearly, and more importantly, repeatably, how masks don't stop aerosols?

Are they all to be taken seriously as well?

All the ones that demonstrate clearly and repeatably that masks do not stop aerosols, yes.

Now, why should any of these be taken seriously and taken above credited sources on the matter from actual experts?

Because they are demonstrable and repeatable.

Claims are just that, no matter who makes them.

Or next time you need a filling, go to your nearest car mechanic instead. He might do a sideline in dentistry.

Non sequitur.

 

[ok doser]

Well, no, I'm not.

You clearly don't know what an appeal to authority is. Allow me to define it for you, from Wikipedia:

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument

I have in no way, shape, or form, claimed that the opinion of the man in the video has any bearing on what he demonstrates in the video as true or false.

You and yours, however, have constantly and repeatedly claimed that "because the experts say so," masks must be effective.



Yes, because he demonstrates clearly, so that such demonstration can be repeated and tested, that the argument he is making is valid.

It has nothing to do with his accreditation.



What narrative?

Again, he demonstrated, clearly and repeatably, that masks are ineffective at stopping aerosols.



For the exact same reason people accept Newton's demonstration of gravity. Because it's repeatable and observable, as doser said above, as any good science should be.



I have the ability to see with my eyes, and use my brain to reason. Don't you?



Because masks have holes in them that will only allow objects smaller than those holes through them.
Because the covid is an aerosol based virus.
Because the aerosol particles emitted by vapes are smaller than the holes.
Because, as far as I can tell, those particles are of equal size or larger than the particles that the covid is transmitted in.
Because the aerosol he inhales and then exhales through the mask clearly penetrates all of the masks that he wears, and is visible when it does so.

Need I go on? Can you use your brain yet?



How many of them demonstrate clearly, and more importantly, repeatably, how masks don't stop aerosols?



All the ones that demonstrate clearly and repeatably that masks do not stop aerosols, yes.



Because they are demonstrable and repeatable.

Claims are just that, no matter who makes them.



Non sequitur.

If cloth masks stopped the transmission of virus, Infected health care workers could continue caring for the most vulnerable patients.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, no, I'm not.

You clearly don't know what an appeal to authority is. Allow me to define it for you, from Wikipedia:

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument

I have in no way, shape, or form, claimed that the opinion of the man in the video has any bearing on what he demonstrates in the video as true or false.

You and yours, however, have constantly and repeatedly claimed that "because the experts say so," masks must be effective.



Yes, because he demonstrates clearly, so that such demonstration can be repeated and tested, that the argument he is making is valid.

It has nothing to do with his accreditation.



What narrative?

Again, he demonstrated, clearly and repeatably, that masks are ineffective at stopping aerosols.



For the exact same reason people accept Newton's demonstration of gravity. Because it's repeatable and observable, as doser said above, as any good science should be.



I have the ability to see with my eyes, and use my brain to reason. Don't you?



Because masks have holes in them that will only allow objects smaller than those holes through them.
Because the covid is an aerosol based virus.
Because the aerosol particles emitted by vapes are smaller than the holes.
Because, as far as I can tell, those particles are of equal size or larger than the particles that the covid is transmitted in.
Because the aerosol he inhales and then exhales through the mask clearly penetrates all of the masks that he wears, and is visible when it does so.

Need I go on? Can you use your brain yet?



How many of them demonstrate clearly, and more importantly, repeatably, how masks don't stop aerosols?



All the ones that demonstrate clearly and repeatably that masks do not stop aerosols, yes.



Because they are demonstrable and repeatable.

Claims are just that, no matter who makes them.



Non sequitur.

Yes, you are. You parrot on about aerosol particles et al as if you're an expert on the spread of virus transmission when you're only going on what you've seen in them and then expect others to give credence to the same videos you post that run contrary to expert opinion on the matter, else why post them? For what purpose?

There's no reason to in short. You're not an expert and neither am I. I'm still going to consult a doctor when needs be instead of a car mechanic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, you are.

No. This is fun, isn't it?

You parrot on about aerosol particles et al as if you're an expert on the spread of virus transmission

Nope.

when you're only going on what you've seen in them and then expect others to give credence to the same videos you post that run contrary to expert opinion on the matter, else why post them? For what purpose?

There's no reason to in short. You're not an expert and neither am I.

Never claimed to be.

What I HAVE claimed is the ability to see with my eyes and think with my brain, and to reason.

Something "Arthur Brain" apparently can't do.

I'm still going to consult a doctor when needs be instead of a car mechanic.

Again, non-sequitur.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No. This is fun, isn't it?



Nope.



Never claimed to be.

What I HAVE claimed is the ability to see with my eyes and think with my brain, and to reason.

Something "Arthur Brain" apparently can't do.



Again, non-sequitur.

Not really...

Right, you aren't, so why should anything you put up that runs against established clinics and bodies that specialise in virology etc be given any sort of credence? Because they fit your preferred narrative? That's not how things work and expertise isn't to be given short shrift because it doesn't coincide with what you would rather believe etc. Otherwise, again, go visit an expert mechanic to get your teeth seen to and see how that works out.

There's no 'non-sequitur' going on at all, at least from my side of the argument here. If you're fine with a qualified doctor giving you medical diagnoses (you are aren't you?) then why so shy of experts in the field of virology doing the same? Or would you actually rather have steeplejacks giving their expert opinion on medical ailments and the like?

 

[way 2 go]

California and Texas still the same results despite Texas having no mask mandates or ccp lockdowns


.

 

[JudgeRightly]

. . . why should anything you put up that runs against established clinics and bodies that specialise in virology etc be given any sort of credence?

Because they clearly and repeatably demonstrate the opposite of what said entities are claiming.

Because they fit your preferred narrative?

Nope.

. . . expertise isn't to be given short shrift because it doesn't coincide with what you would rather believe etc.

Of course not.

However, when it is demonstrable that the opposite of what such entities claim is true and verifiable, there is reason to doubt said entities.

Otherwise, again, go visit an expert mechanic to get your teeth seen to and see how that works out.

You seem fascinated with this idea we are claiming that people who are not in a relevant field are saying things that go against the claims of the "established" medical community, to the point where it's clouding your view.

Have you noticed that not once have I cited or referenced a non-medical (or former) practitioner on this or related topics?

Which is why I'm calling you out on your non-sequitur.

And to be honest, now that I think about it, it's not a non-sequitur, it's a straw man.

You're attacking my argument because you think I'm saying something that I'm not.

To use your analogy, I'm not recommending going to a car mechanic for dental work.

What I'm doing is akin to getting a second opinion from a local Auto & Body shop after going to a shady chain store mechanic.

There's no 'non-sequitur' going on at all,

Supra.

at least from my side of the argument here. If you're fine with a qualified doctor giving you medical diagnoses (you are aren't you?) then why so shy of experts in the field of virology doing the same?

For the exact same reason I've been saying in my last couple of posts.

The "experts'" claims are demonstrably wrong, as the video (made by a retired "expert", and not just some random person) showed.

Or would you actually rather have steeplejacks giving their expert opinion on medical ailments and the like?

Supra.

 

[marke]

I didn't even mention Fauci and I could care less about your opinion of him either. I asked what credentials you have to determine what constitutes facts, evidence and science. Do you have any?

Bill Maher has been fully vaccinated against covid and he now has covid. I don't need idiots like Fauci telling me to trust their vaccines.

 

[marke]

I didn't even mention Fauci and I could care less about your opinion of him either. I asked what credentials you have to determine what constitutes facts, evidence and science. Do you have any?

Fauci is the 'expert' so many deluded democrats quote in support of trashing the economy and people's lives. The sooner we stop listening to group-think stupid experts and start using common sense and paying more attention to actual science the better off we will be.

 

[marke]

Oh, so anybody can make up whatever "facts" they like then? They can't, but they can sure invent their own opinions as if they are.

Tell me RD, are you worshipping an 'expert' if you consult your local general practitioner for medical advice? Or don't you do that when the need arises?

Senator Johnson was told by his physician that he was safer not getting the vaccine since he already had more antibodies from recovering from covid than vaccines could give him.

 

[marke]

Of course I know what a fact is and it's not open to subjective opinion. I presume that you know that?

Right, so you're not 'worshipping an expert' when you visit your general practitioner when in need of medical advice. Your GP is an expert else why consult him? Why not consult your local quack who moonlights as a doctor when his real expertise may lie in mending roof tiles instead?

So, if presumably you're not going to question the credentials of an expert who will be best qualified to aid in treatment of whatever disease, symptoms or ailments you may be suffering from, why question the credentials of experts who are better versed in the field of virology, transmission, protective measures and the like?

Like Senator Johnson, I have had covid. I am comfortable taking the advice Sen. Johnson's physician gave him and will not take the vaccine because my body already has more antibodies against covid because I recovered from covid than I could get from a vaccine.

 

[marke]

Well, yes you are. You're claiming such because you've seen a video on YT and have brought into his narrative, that's it. You buy into his demonstration and subsequent explanations why, exactly? You've no expertise on the matter have you? How do you know that his 'demonstration' trumps accredited experts in the field? Break it down and explain how it dismantles such.

Have you any idea just how many similar videos are out there that are available on social media touting similar premises? Are they all to be taken seriously as well?

Now, why should any of these be taken seriously and taken above credited sources on the matter from actual experts? Or next time you need a filling, go to your nearest car mechanic instead. He might do a sideline in dentistry.

Don't trust experts who tell you masks keep people safe from covid. That is not true.