The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

Do you think the Illuminati is real?

  • Total voters
    239
McLaren
Share another source commenting on the study, please.

Far-right websites (which is exactly what Zero Hedge is), esp. one that then links to a tweet made by another far-right publication's founder (The Federalist), have on multiple occasions, taken these sorts of studies & purposely misconstrued the information by hiding the whole study.
Click to expand...


By Gina Kolata
The New York Times
  • Published Nov. 18, 2020Updated Nov. 19, 2020, 8:51 a.m. ET
Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial. But the findings conflict with those from a number of other studies, experts said, and is not likely to alter public health recommendations in the United States.

The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Critics were quick to note the study’s limitations, among them that the design depended heavily on participants reporting their own test results and behavior, at a time when both mask-wearing and infection were rare in Denmark.

Coronavirus infections are soaring throughout the United States, and even officials who had resisted mask mandates are reversing course. Roughly 40 states have implemented mask requirements of some sort, according to a database maintained by The New York Times.


Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, advocates a national mask mandate, as does President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“I won’t be president until January 20th, but my message today to everyone is this: wear a mask,” Mr. Biden recently wrote on Twitter.

From early April to early June, researchers at the University of Copenhagen recruited 6,024 participants who had been tested beforehand to be sure they were not infected with the coronavirus.

Half were given surgical masks and told to wear them when leaving their homes; the others were told not to wear masks in public.

At that time, 2 percent of the Danish population was infected — a rate lower than that in many places in the United States and Europe today. Social distancing and frequent hand-washing were common, but masks were not.

About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.

“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” said Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the study and a cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen. “Not a lot.”

Dr. Mette Kalager, a professor of medical decision making at the University of Oslo, found the research compelling. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.

Other experts were unconvinced. The incidence of infections in Denmark was lower than it is today in many places, meaning the effectiveness of masks for wearers may have been harder to detect, they noted.

Participants reported their own test results; mask use was not independently verified, and users may not have worn them correctly.

“There is absolutely no doubt that masks work as source control,” preventing people from infecting others, said Dr. Thomas Frieden, chief executive of Resolve to Save Lives, an advocacy group, and former director of the C.D.C., who wrote an editorial outlining weaknesses of the research.


“The question this study was designed to answer is: Do they work as personal protection?” The answer depends on what mask is used and what sort of exposure to the virus each person has, Dr. Frieden said, and the study was not designed to tease out those details.

“An N95 mask is better than a surgical mask,” Dr. Frieden said. “A surgical mask is better than most cloth masks. A cloth mask is better than nothing.”

The study’s conclusion flies in the face of other research suggesting that masks do protect the wearer. In its recent bulletin, the C.D.C. cited a dozen studies finding that even cloth masks may help protect the wearer. Most of them were laboratory examinations of the particles blocked by materials of various types.

Susan Ellenberg, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, noted that protection conferred by masks on the wearer trended “in the direction of benefit” in the trial, even if the results were not statistically significant.

“Nothing in this study suggests to me that it is useless to wear a mask,” she said.


Dr. Elizabeth Halloran, a statistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, said the usefulness of masks also depends on how much virus a person is exposed to.

“If you show this article to a health care provider who works in a Covid ward in a hospital, I doubt she or he would say that this article convinces them not to wear a mask,” she said.

But Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, described the previous evidence that masks protect wearers as weak. “These studies cannot differentiate between source control and personal protection of the mask wearer,” she said.

Dr. Laine said the new study underscored the need for adherence to other precautions, like social distancing. Masks “are not a magic bullet,” she said. “There are people who say, ‘I’m fine, I’m wearing a mask.’ They need to realize they are not invulnerable to infection.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/health/coronavirus-masks-denmark.html
 
Last edited:
x3ra
So the study did say that Masks were basically useless.
Click to expand...
This is right on the line of being considered posting false information, so I'd urge you to be more careful what you say.

Did you read the paper? It does not say that masks are 'basically useless'... this (incase you missed it) is what the paper is about:

Objective: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.
Click to expand...

The paper says:

These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect.
Click to expand...

That only confirms what we already knew... that wearing a mask in public is not about protecting yourself, but is about protecting other people. Wearing a mask in a place where no-one else is bothering is likely not going to do you much good, but if everyone else was wearing a mask, then everyone would be better off.

The paper is quite specifically not about ascertaining how effective masks are in stopping infected people from infecting others, it's about who well masks protect people in settings where masks and social distancing are not present... and that is a million miles from saying that masks are 'basically useless'.

The paper also states:

The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections
Click to expand...
... which is basically what you (and I'm guessing many others) have just done.
 
Last edited:
I
x3ra
So the study did say that Masks were basically useless. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...op-covid-iowa-gov-insists-there-evidence-both
Click to expand...
I really thought you would have actually learnt about checking sources before posting them, I guess not.

This is the report that I believe was rejected by a number of peer reviewed publications, no wonder when you look at its limitations.

“Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

No wonder given that the report acknowledges missing data, variable adherence (ie people didn’t do what they wheee supposed to) and that its self reported by the participants (that invalidates it immediately).

All that and it still doesn’t manage to prove what your source claims it does.

It not worth the paper it’s printed on, so no CT exists about why this was rejected, it’s deeply flawed and posted in your personal favourite, a pay to publish journal.
 
Last edited:
So ?
In the late 1800s, standard cancer treatment involved surgically removing tumors or cancerous tissues; there was no chemotherapy, radiation, or cancer drugs. But one man, William Coley — a cancer researcher and bone surgeon who worked at New York Cancer Hospital — stumbled upon a strange discovery that would pave the way for modern immunotherapy, various trajectories of cancer treatment that involve triggering the immune system to attack cancer cells.

One of Coley’s patients began recovering from cancer after he was infected with Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria, the microbe that causes strep throat. It was this event that led Coley to theorize that post-surgical infections actually helped defeat cancer by mobilizing the immune system against it. In the 1890s he experimented with what became known as Coley’s toxins — mixtures of dead bacteria, particularly streptococcus, injected into cancer patients to trigger their immune systems. He kept a series of case reports on it, but most of his scientific peers rejected the idea, writing it off as crazy and dangerous. He died in 1936, his work surpassed by chemotherapy and radiation, without ever knowing that Coley’s toxins would someday lead to the birth of modern immunotherapy.

Maybe your passion for peer-review is misplaced.
 
x3ra
So ?
In the late 1800s, standard cancer treatment involved surgically removing tumors or cancerous tissues; there was no chemotherapy, radiation, or cancer drugs. But one man, William Coley — a cancer researcher and bone surgeon who worked at New York Cancer Hospital — stumbled upon a strange discovery that would pave the way for modern immunotherapy, various trajectories of cancer treatment that involve triggering the immune system to attack cancer cells.

One of Coley’s patients began recovering from cancer after he was infected with Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria, the microbe that causes strep throat. It was this event that led Coley to theorize that post-surgical infections actually helped defeat cancer by mobilizing the immune system against it. In the 1890s he experimented with what became known as Coley’s toxins — mixtures of dead bacteria, particularly streptococcus, injected into cancer patients to trigger their immune systems. He kept a series of case reports on it, but most of his scientific peers rejected the idea, writing it off as crazy and dangerous. He died in 1936, his work surpassed by chemotherapy and radiation, without ever knowing that Coley’s toxins would someday lead to the birth of modern immunotherapy.

Maybe your passion for peer-review is misplaced.
Click to expand...
You think that shouting and assuming that peer review hasn’t changed in around a hundred years somehow changes the issues with that study?

Sorry, but no it doesn’t.

Then again we’ve been down this path before.
 
Peer-review is by no means perfect. It is itself subject to bias, as most things in research are. Evidence from a peer-reviewed article does not make it reliable, based only on that fact. And by the same token not being peer-reviewed does not make it wrong. Why does everything need to be about peer-review, don't you want to talk about the interesting parts?
 
Last edited:
x3ra
Peer-review is by no means perfect. It is itself subject to bias, as most things in research are. Evidence from a peer-reviewed article does not make it reliable, based only on that fact.
Click to expand...
It’s almost as if you’ve never had peer review explained to you.

Which is amazing as it’s literally been explained to you multiple times.
 
Last edited:
Peer review is susceptible to confirmatory bias, amongst other things.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01173636

Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system

Abstract


Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. However, its ramifications for the behavior of scientists have yet to be adequately explored. For example, although publication is a critical element in determining the contribution and impact of scientific findings, little research attention has been devoted to the variables operative in journal review policies. In the present study, 75 journal reviewers were asked to referee manuscripts which described identical experimental procedures but which reported positive, negative, mixed, or no results. In addition to showing poor inter-rater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective. The implications of these findings for epistemology and the peer review system are briefly addressed.


or

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...mitted-again/AFE650EB49A6B17992493DE5E49E4431



Abstract
A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.

The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.

With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.

The peer-review process is flawed.

The use of it as a means to defeat an argument without discussing the merits of the argument, is derailing the discussion also. And I think that ought to be against the rules. But you will continue to use it so .



 
998664e78c96e55ca9a014e4ff4ba038.gif
 
x3ra
Peer review is susceptible to confirmatory bias, amongst other things.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01173636

Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system

Abstract


Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. However, its ramifications for the behavior of scientists have yet to be adequately explored. For example, although publication is a critical element in determining the contribution and impact of scientific findings, little research attention has been devoted to the variables operative in journal review policies. In the present study, 75 journal reviewers were asked to referee manuscripts which described identical experimental procedures but which reported positive, negative, mixed, or no results. In addition to showing poor inter-rater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective. The implications of these findings for epistemology and the peer review system are briefly addressed.


or

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...mitted-again/AFE650EB49A6B17992493DE5E49E4431



Abstract
A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.

The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.

With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.

The peer-review process is flawed.

The use of it as a means to defeat an argument without discussing the merits of the argument, is derailing the discussion also. And to be against the rules. But you will continue to use it so .
Click to expand...

Once again this has been explained to you countless times.

Is peer review perfect? No.

Is peer review the best system for testing the validity of a claim that we have? Yes

Has x3ra offered a valid alternative beyond claiming what the hell you like and assuming its correct? No.

Has x3ra ever used this as an attempt to distract from their poor reasoning and sources before? Yes. repeatedly.

Is it better than the alternative if making **** up as you go along? Yes.

Does any of this invalidate the clear flaw in your argument that you are now attempting to distract from (as per your normal MO)? No.

Oh and I've clearly covered the 'merit; of your argument as well, so that's a strawman.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I'm drawing the line at sharing content on COVID-19 that is clearly false and goes beyond what I think is a legitimate discussion.

As such, while conspiracy theories are not welcome in the COVID thread, neither is blatantly false information on COVID welcome in this thread either... the former is to keep an important discussion from being derailed, the latter is my interpretation of what our forum rules allow/are intended for.
 
Last edited:
The feet are not lining up properly with the stairs, unless one leg is longer than the other.
 
He looks like a tenor, ready to bust into Nessun Dorma.


And I know it's the "grand staircase", but that shot makes a 6'3 man look like he's 5'6.
 
TexRex
Why not bring in one of the fakes? Or find a body double and do a digital face swap?
Click to expand...
You're making it sound like these things are planned out in advance. They could just as easily have had a catastrophic argument on the way to the shoot and Mel could maybe have pulled a 🤬 Christmas and refused to appear in the pic at the last minute, leading to Trump deciding to deepfake it in after.

Except Trump doesn't like to have the word fake associated with his presidency so he called it deeptruthing instead.

Maybe the Melbots were all out for maintenance or something. :lol:
 
Last edited:
No, Biden Doesn’t Have a ‘Chinese Handler.’ He’s a US Secret Service Agent.

(Language warning.)

Conspiracy theorists were quite active during U.S. President Joe Biden’s inauguration, trading spurious claims that senior Secret Service agent David Cho was a “Chinese handler.”

Far-right Facebook and Twitter users became obsessed with the “China man” who “followed Biden all ****ing day,” as Twitter user We the People put it.

“I just asked why has Creepy Joe got a Chinese handler,” user mynameismyown said in a tweet. “It's so blatant, their (sic) not even trying to hide it anymore.”

“How is Biden not a Flag of China puppet? All I’ve seen him do is shuffle from place to place—sometimes with his Chinese handler, sometimes with his wife handler—reading what’s handed to him & then signing what’s handed to him. He doesn’t even have a personality that I can see—only anger,” one user said in a tweet.

The baseless theories came in the wake of months of Trump administration’s attempts to portray Biden as weak on China while accusing his son Hunter of having sketchy business ties with Chinese companies. The same beliefs have also caught on among some pro-democracy supporters in Hong Kong and pro-Trump critics of the Chinese government.

Cho, a Korean-American agent, was picked to lead Biden’s presidential security detail at Wednesday's ceremonies. He is also a decorated member of the agency that protects U.S. leaders and their families.

In 2019, Cho received the Department of Homeland Security’s exceptional service gold medal. The award was “for tireless and direct participation in high-level negotiations” during the second summit between former President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam.

According to the Washington Post, the perfectionist supervisor was second-in-command of the Secret Service during Trump’s term in office.

Cho’s service as Biden’s lead detail was also celebrated by Asian-Americans who hailed the display of diversity on inauguration day, from officials to performers to Secret Service agents.

Some Korean Twitter users even pointed out an unintended pun: Cho is actually pronounced similar to “Joe” leading them to joke that there were two “Joes” on that historic day in Washington, D.C.

“The racist, conspiratorial garbage about Biden’s "Chinese Handler" (aka David Cho the head of his secret service detail) is another example of the perpetual othering of Asian Americans. He literally is willing to take a bullet for the president, instead he’s just a foreign plant,” wrote one user.

The Secret Service could not be reached for comment.
Click to expand...
 
UKMikey
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure the extra tails aren't original (e.g. not early Germanic/Norse), and this is probably a generic studio design that's been used in hundreds of sets over the years... but in this mad pre-post-Trump era it seems weirdly possible that somebody knew :lol:
 

Latest Posts

Back