J
John S
Guest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
John Robertson
Guest
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
Guest
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
I find this more informative.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The number of people infected is still rising exponentially.
The Chinese efforts to lock down their population and minimise the opportunities for the infection to spread hasn't yet shown up in any drop in the number of new infections, which isn't all that surprising, since it takes a couple of days for people to get sick enough to need to go to their doctor and get tested.
Nobody is going to start feeling safe until the rate of new infections starts decreasing, and even that might reflect a change in the virus that slows down the time it takes before it's victims become visibly sick. Of course that would make it less likely to kill you, which would be a bonus.
About a quarter of common colds are corona virus infections, so that's where evolution would take it. It may take a while to get there.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
I find this more informative.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The number of people infected is still rising exponentially.
The Chinese efforts to lock down their population and minimise the opportunities for the infection to spread hasn't yet shown up in any drop in the number of new infections, which isn't all that surprising, since it takes a couple of days for people to get sick enough to need to go to their doctor and get tested.
Nobody is going to start feeling safe until the rate of new infections starts decreasing, and even that might reflect a change in the virus that slows down the time it takes before it's victims become visibly sick. Of course that would make it less likely to kill you, which would be a bonus.
About a quarter of common colds are corona virus infections, so that's where evolution would take it. It may take a while to get there.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Guest
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 10:04:40 PM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.
> Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
There are other sources confirming the data.
> Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administer.
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???
"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"
And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?
"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"
He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.
> Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
There are other sources confirming the data.
> Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administer.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???
"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"
And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?
"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"
Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Are you nuts, by the way??? Aren't you the guy who drives a 50 mile range EV on trips of hundreds of miles by charging from stranger's 120 volt outlets?
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???
"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"
And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?
"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"
Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Are you nuts, by the way??? Aren't you the guy who drives a 50 mile range EV on trips of hundreds of miles by charging from stranger's 120 volt outlets?
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:29:34 PM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
What he actually says is that some of the base sequences look like base sequences in unrelated viruses. He doesn't say how much alike they are, or how long they or how frequently these base sequences come up in other viruses, so it's essentially alarmist nonsense.
Which he is strangely reluc6ant to identify, probably because they make ZeroHedge look mainstream.
What research? Where? Google doesn't throw up anything.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 10:04:40 PM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???
"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"
And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?
"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"
He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.
What he actually says is that some of the base sequences look like base sequences in unrelated viruses. He doesn't say how much alike they are, or how long they or how frequently these base sequences come up in other viruses, so it's essentially alarmist nonsense.
Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
There are other sources confirming the data.
Which he is strangely reluc6ant to identify, probably because they make ZeroHedge look mainstream.
Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administrator.
What research? Where? Google doesn't throw up anything.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
On 2020-02-05 20:55, John Robertson wrote:
The CDC and the WHO are chronically unable to find their asses with both
hands, a map, GPS, radar, etc., and the people who actually know largely
aren't talking.
The CDC's finest hour was during the anthrax scare, when they
continually asserted that the anthrax powder wasn't weaponized, whereas
it turned out to have come from Fort Detrick's bioweapons program.
They'd run the sample through an autoclave before looking at it, which
"turned the spores into hockey pucks."
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
The CDC and the WHO are chronically unable to find their asses with both
hands, a map, GPS, radar, etc., and the people who actually know largely
aren't talking.
The CDC's finest hour was during the anthrax scare, when they
continually asserted that the anthrax powder wasn't weaponized, whereas
it turned out to have come from Fort Detrick's bioweapons program.
They'd run the sample through an autoclave before looking at it, which
"turned the spores into hockey pucks."
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
W
Whoey Louie
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:04:40 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
It's the new internet age. Previously kooks and shysters had much greater
difficulty finding an audience and spreading this stuff. Like, what would
they have done in this case? Put out a newsletter once a month? How
would they find people interested in crazy conspiracy stuff? The internet
has and is changing the world and unfortunately some of it is in really bad
and dangerous ways. Look at what just happened to Trump. He believed
crazy BS about the DNC server being in Ukraine, Crowdstrike being a Ukranian
company, Ukraine not Russia meddling in the election. The internet spread
all those lies and BS which apparently originated with Putin and Russia's
GRU. I guess it's arguable whether Trump really believed it or not, but
he definitely used it and acted on it.
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???
"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"
And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?
"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"
Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
It's the new internet age. Previously kooks and shysters had much greater
difficulty finding an audience and spreading this stuff. Like, what would
they have done in this case? Put out a newsletter once a month? How
would they find people interested in crazy conspiracy stuff? The internet
has and is changing the world and unfortunately some of it is in really bad
and dangerous ways. Look at what just happened to Trump. He believed
crazy BS about the DNC server being in Ukraine, Crowdstrike being a Ukranian
company, Ukraine not Russia meddling in the election. The internet spread
all those lies and BS which apparently originated with Putin and Russia's
GRU. I guess it's arguable whether Trump really believed it or not, but
he definitely used it and acted on it.
Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Are you nuts, by the way??? Aren't you the guy who drives a 50 mile range EV on trips of hundreds of miles by charging from stranger's 120 volt outlets?
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Guest
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
LOL-
People with AIDS are immune to SARS as was proven in that last epidemic in whenever it was.
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
LOL-
People with AIDS are immune to SARS as was proven in that last epidemic in whenever it was.
J
John Robertson
Guest
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.
Their FAQ says:
--------------------(quote)-------------------------
Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.
Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.
Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------
Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?
They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:
âŚaddthis.com
âŚajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
âŚgoogle-analytics.com
âŚgooglesyndication.com
âŚgoogletagmanager.com
âŚpagefair.com
âŚpagefair.net
âŚpub.network
âŚquantserve.com
âŚrealtimestatistics.net
Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...
And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?
John :-#(#
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
I find this more informative.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.
Their FAQ says:
--------------------(quote)-------------------------
Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.
Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.
Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------
Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?
They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:
âŚaddthis.com
âŚajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
âŚgoogle-analytics.com
âŚgooglesyndication.com
âŚgoogletagmanager.com
âŚpagefair.com
âŚpagefair.net
âŚpub.network
âŚquantserve.com
âŚrealtimestatistics.net
Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...
And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?
John :-#(#
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:29:34 AM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
Zero Hedge is definitely promoting the idea it is a bioweapon. Zero Hedge is the source of this info.
There are no other sources, only other sites echoing what they found on Zerohedge.
Are you really so gullible that you can't tell when you are being zoomed?
No, none of this is true. There is nothing that was originated and there is nothing to "currently administer". The basic premise of your original post was about adding genes to the virus to "build ACE2 receptors". The genes to utilize the ACE2 receptors in the host were already in the virus as that is how the virus attacks the host cell. That was present in SARS and in many other corona viruses for a long, long time.
The entire idea is based on BS pseudo-science. So give it up and stop being an idiot.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 10:04:40 PM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???
"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"
And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?
"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"
He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.
Zero Hedge is definitely promoting the idea it is a bioweapon. Zero Hedge is the source of this info.
Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
There are other sources confirming the data.
There are no other sources, only other sites echoing what they found on Zerohedge.
Are you really so gullible that you can't tell when you are being zoomed?
Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administer.
No, none of this is true. There is nothing that was originated and there is nothing to "currently administer". The basic premise of your original post was about adding genes to the virus to "build ACE2 receptors". The genes to utilize the ACE2 receptors in the host were already in the virus as that is how the virus attacks the host cell. That was present in SARS and in many other corona viruses for a long, long time.
The entire idea is based on BS pseudo-science. So give it up and stop being an idiot.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 4:44:07 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
Just to clarify they aren't talking about nucleic acid, they are talking about a protein. Of course there is a correlation, but it can be an important distinction.
"We found four new insertions in the protein of 2019-nCoV- âGTNGTKRâ (IS1), âHKNNKSâ (IS2), âGDSSSGâ (IS3) and âQTNSPRRAâ (IS4) (Figure 2). To our surprise, these sequence insertions were not only absent in S protein of SARS but were also not observed in any other member of the Coronaviridae family "
These sequences are all short, but this could be significant.
Zerohedge acknowledged that the other reports are just reposting their original info.
I found a mention of a Dr Stone in related research, but nothing directly to the point of corona viruses.
I'm not digging anymore. This guy Edward is batshit crazy and wants desperately to believe this stuff.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:29:34 PM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 10:04:40 PM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
John
or panic:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon
Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???
"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"
And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?
"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"
He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.
What he actually says is that some of the base sequences look like base sequences in unrelated viruses. He doesn't say how much alike they are, or how long they or how frequently these base sequences come up in other viruses, so it's essentially alarmist nonsense.
Just to clarify they aren't talking about nucleic acid, they are talking about a protein. Of course there is a correlation, but it can be an important distinction.
"We found four new insertions in the protein of 2019-nCoV- âGTNGTKRâ (IS1), âHKNNKSâ (IS2), âGDSSSGâ (IS3) and âQTNSPRRAâ (IS4) (Figure 2). To our surprise, these sequence insertions were not only absent in S protein of SARS but were also not observed in any other member of the Coronaviridae family "
These sequences are all short, but this could be significant.
Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.
There are other sources confirming the data.
Which he is strangely reluc6ant to identify, probably because they make ZeroHedge look mainstream.
Zerohedge acknowledged that the other reports are just reposting their original info.
Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.
Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administrator.
What research? Where? Google doesn't throw up anything.
I found a mention of a Dr Stone in related research, but nothing directly to the point of corona viruses.
I'm not digging anymore. This guy Edward is batshit crazy and wants desperately to believe this stuff.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Guest
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 8:19:22 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
You title that "more on the coronavirus??? The speaker is a pilot, he doesn't know much about viruses. The video is not "more" of anything. As far as the aircraft goes, he only talks about the 737 cabin air conditioning, which is hardly a virus safe process.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
You title that "more on the coronavirus??? The speaker is a pilot, he doesn't know much about viruses. The video is not "more" of anything. As far as the aircraft goes, he only talks about the 737 cabin air conditioning, which is hardly a virus safe process.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, he also only really addressees the issue of recirculating the air when there is still an issue of being infected the first time the air passes past you. Maybe my info is wrong, but I've been told the air enters at various spots, but it moves the length of the passenger cabin so everyone ahead of you can give you an infection.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 8:19:22 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
You title that "more on the coronavirus??? The speaker is a pilot, he doesn't know much about viruses. The video is not "more" of anything. As far as the aircraft goes, he only talks about the 737 cabin air conditioning, which is hardly a virus safe process.
Yeah, he also only really addressees the issue of recirculating the air when there is still an issue of being infected the first time the air passes past you. Maybe my info is wrong, but I've been told the air enters at various spots, but it moves the length of the passenger cabin so everyone ahead of you can give you an infection.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:57:46 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:
Old Bill runs any reports he cites past Snopes and believes everything
they OK is 100% truthful. Wot a twit! :-D
wrote:
And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?
Old Bill runs any reports he cites past Snopes and believes everything
they OK is 100% truthful. Wot a twit! :-D
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.
Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:
Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.
Sources:
Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Outbreak Notification - National Health Commission of the Peopleâs Republic of China (NHC)
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) - Australian Government Department of Health
World Development Indicators (WDI) - World Bank
All of those references are links.
--
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
I find this more informative.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.
Their FAQ says:
--------------------(quote)-------------------------
Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.
Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.
Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------
Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?
They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:
âŚaddthis.com
âŚajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
âŚgoogle-analytics.com
âŚgooglesyndication.com
âŚgoogletagmanager.com
âŚpagefair.com
âŚpagefair.net
âŚpub.network
âŚquantserve.com
âŚrealtimestatistics.net
Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...
And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?
John :-#(#
They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.
Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:
Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.
Sources:
Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Outbreak Notification - National Health Commission of the Peopleâs Republic of China (NHC)
Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) - Australian Government Department of Health
World Development Indicators (WDI) - World Bank
All of those references are links.
--
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
J
John Robertson
Guest
On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.
Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?
Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...
Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.
John :-#(#
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
I find this more informative.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.
Their FAQ says:
--------------------(quote)-------------------------
Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.
Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.
Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------
Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?
They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:
âŚaddthis.com
âŚajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
âŚgoogle-analytics.com
âŚgooglesyndication.com
âŚgoogletagmanager.com
âŚpagefair.com
âŚpagefair.net
âŚpub.network
âŚquantserve.com
âŚrealtimestatistics.net
Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...
And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?
John :-#(#
They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.
Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:
Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.
Sources:
Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...
All of those references are links.
My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.
Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?
Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...
Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.
John :-#(#
Guest
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:39:52 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
I think the current infection is around 100,000. Assumptions:
First 4 generations are uncontrolled grow with R0 of 4.
Currently in WH and SH is around 3.
Rest of China is between 2 and 3.
Rest of the world is around 2.
WuHan official data is not believable because they are overwhelmed.
12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/2
WH 41 164 656 2624 10496 41984 167936 335872 671744 1343488
SH 98 294 882 2646 7938 23814 71442
BJ 113 226 452 904 1808 3616 7232
US 11 22 44 88 176
WH:WuHan SH:ShanHai BJ:Beijing US:USA
On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4
I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html
I find this more informative.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.
Their FAQ says:
--------------------(quote)-------------------------
Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.
Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.
Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------
Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?
They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:
âŚaddthis.com
âŚajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
âŚgoogle-analytics.com
âŚgooglesyndication.com
âŚgoogletagmanager.com
âŚpagefair.com
âŚpagefair.net
âŚpub.network
âŚquantserve.com
âŚrealtimestatistics.net
Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...
And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?
John :-#(#
They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.
Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:
Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.
Sources:
Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...
All of those references are links.
My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.
Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?
Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...
Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.
I think the current infection is around 100,000. Assumptions:
First 4 generations are uncontrolled grow with R0 of 4.
Currently in WH and SH is around 3.
Rest of China is between 2 and 3.
Rest of the world is around 2.
WuHan official data is not believable because they are overwhelmed.
12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/2
WH 41 164 656 2624 10496 41984 167936 335872 671744 1343488
SH 98 294 882 2646 7938 23814 71442
BJ 113 226 452 904 1808 3616 7232
US 11 22 44 88 176
WH:WuHan SH:ShanHai BJ:Beijing US:USA
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 5:58:33 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
I certainly didn't run that past Snopes.
The attraction of the website is that they post graphs or the number infected every day (and the numbers of deaths).
The actual numbers line up with other reputable reports, but none of the other places I've looked at shows the graphs.
Cursitor Doom is this groups most gullible twit, closely followed by John Larkin, and John Robertson. The fact that he has taken John Robertson seriously is just one more illustration of the fact that he's terminally gullible.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:57:46 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com
wrote:
And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?
Old Bill runs any reports he cites past Snopes and believes everything
they OK is 100% truthful. Wot a twit! :-D
I certainly didn't run that past Snopes.
The attraction of the website is that they post graphs or the number infected every day (and the numbers of deaths).
The actual numbers line up with other reputable reports, but none of the other places I've looked at shows the graphs.
Cursitor Doom is this groups most gullible twit, closely followed by John Larkin, and John Robertson. The fact that he has taken John Robertson seriously is just one more illustration of the fact that he's terminally gullible.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney