ABC News comes now with a story that the COVID-19 virus may have emerged from a Chinese lab — an idea laughable just last year when Trump-backers advanced it. Bill Whittle also finds reports that suggest hydroxychloroquine may be effective against the virus, and some election irregularities may have happened. Will the trickle of support for what used to be called conspiracy theories do anything to change the hive mind?
Right Angle is a production of our Members.
Video below hosted at Rumble.
20 replies on “New Reports Suggest Last Year’s Conspiracy Theories about COVID and Election May Be True”
I’ve posted numerous times in various forums – including on Facebook – that the NIH published a paper back in March of 2020 that Fauci obviously knew about, indicating that hydroxychloroquine was proven effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes CoVID-19. His statements that HCQ was “untested”, would require years of testing (which it already had, proving it was safe to use for malaria and other diseases), and shouldn’t be used were deceptive lies. He has lied repeatedly, in spite of knowing it had already been used effectively, especially when used early in the course of the disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7078228/
Anybody got any good conspiracy theories? All mine came true.
We shouldn’t be teaching critical race theory, we should be teaching critical thinking…
Good job men. I’ve always loved the story about the National guard and President Bush. Now we don’t even get to see the evidence much of the time and just for that reason. Just believe what the experts say.
Thanks,
Michael Teutsch, Phd (psychologically handicapped devote)
Science and what we call science are not necessarily the same thing. Science is simply this…Knowledge. But the guess work that many do, falls well short of science. Especially when it’s financed by governments that have ulterior motives, and/or when the evidence supports the Bible.
Want to see the hubris for yourself? Check out “Patterns of Evidence” documentary series. Many secular scientists, and scholars refuse to take hard facts as evidence, because it proves the Exodus and the account of Moses.
True, much of what is called “science” is not even “science like”, but more propaganda driven that scientifically facts driven. Statistics is one such “science” that is used to beat everyone over the head with “facts”. Even though any statistician will tell you, statistical reports say whatever “facts” they tell it show. Heck chances are palm reading probably is more trustworthy than statistics reports. I have also read/watched some skeptical scientists attempt to disprove biblical facts/histories and end up actually becoming believers through their own studies.
That’s why I strongly recommend the Patterns of Evidence documentary series. It won’t disappoint.
Like Harry F, I loved math in school, and science and the scientific method. It led me to a career in product design, engineering and R&D, something I’ve done for 40 years now. Seeing data, or information presented, and taking the extra (many steps sometimes) to validate the information presented IS a learned skill. I was just lucky to learn that very early in my career.
I taught this skill to my wife starting in 2008. My oldest daughter picked up the skill from me somewhere around 2012. It can be taught.
Tangentially – can we stop calling it Political Science and start calling it what it is, Political theory or Political Opinion or Political Observations? Poly-Thee, PolyOps, PolyObs.
Funny how Dr. Vladimir Zelenko got it right with his actions – based in fact and not theory – that achieved positive results. His reward, first he was mocked, then pigeon-holed, finally he got ‘disappeared’. Actually, his reward was the good feeling knowing his work may have saved so many lives.
A natural progression … ?
PolyOps > PolySci > PsyOps
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
Steve’s mention about “don’t change the data” reminded me of a funny scene from the movie “Big Business” … an underling of the Bette Midler business character reported a problem with a product testing that was killing lab rats. Bette Midler’s response? “Buy stronger rats” Sadly we can laugh at that, but having the data hidden in real time can kill more than the rats!
Great discussion, as always.
I also think that for the average person it’s far easier to believe anything that causes alarm or panic, versus anything that shows a way out or positive results may be possible. In the case of hydroxychloroquine, it was easy for the Left to manipulate people into believing it was a hoax because that meant that not only was there still no positive medical information out there, but also it was obviously proof that our President was a horrible person. Easy to believe the worst, hard to push past the fog to see the positive data. Even conservative writers are still pushing the ‘hoax’ story and not bothering to look at the facts coming out now about hydroxychloroquine. It reminds me of the hysteria over ‘second hand smoke’ and it’s ‘deadly effects’, which have never been proven but which are accepted as ‘settled science’. People want to believe the worst, because if they believe in hopeful news it might not turn out well and they can’t stand the thought of that. Better to believe the worst and be happily surprised if the results are better than expected. Of course, they would have to follow up on the story to know that there were good results out there…
I was trained as a Chemical Engineer. I love math. I do it in my head. I love data. I can graph it on Excel using one X axis and 2 Y axieses. A person who came into the company to teach Excel (years ago when it was fairly new) said was not possible. I showed her how I did it. The problem now is getting the raw, non interpreted data. And having the knowledge of how to interpret it. I also know and can evaluate statistics. Back in the early days of the Dominion machine brouhaha, I got ahold of a snippet of the code. I saw what was obviously a variable, not a constant, that could change counts. If you code a lot, you can tell. (20 years programming for a living) Does it prove it manipulated things? No. But It proved you could. You would have to see the value, which could change as the program is running. Look for the people who have, and can interpret data.
Sometimes when dealing with something that should not change, but can, the fact that it CAN proves either the person creating the tool was incompetant or malicious.
In strategic and tactical situations the adversary’s intent is always secondary or tertiary to his capabilities. You must assume that if the adversary can he will. You have to make this assumption because why does he have a capacity if he has no intent to use it? Of course he’s going to use it, it’s just a matter of under what conditions that usage is going to occur.
Ok, so I’m aware that might be a bit of a taint left in my brain from previous experience but the rules I learned in that capacity have served me well in less extreme situations. Though maybe slightly paranoid too 😉
But just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
I think we need to rephrase that quip…
When they are all out to get you, being paranoid is a survival trait.
Dr. Douglas G. Frank, a physicist, is working with Excel spreadsheets and using polynomials to show graphs that an algorithm was used all across the US to control the election. He said it was used in every county in every state utilizing information from the 2010 census. His videos are on You Tube if interested.
Speaking of Firefly references, Steve, is your “I aim to misbehave” talk that you gave at CPAC 2010 out there anywhere?
Steve spoke?! As in, In Public? Gotta see this. I have always wondered if Steve got out on the road occasionaly to speak like Mr. Whittle does.
Not sure where it may be or if he used it. I remeber chatting with him and he said he was going to use it in whatever talk he was going to give