patrick.net

richwicks says

So, considering his background, I doubt it's true.

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what Ethical Skeptic has been up to for a few years now. He's been blowing the whistle on the dangers of lockdowns, vaccines and other narrative driven bullshit by using actual data. Data that you have access to if you really want to debunk. Not only a data scientist, ES has been a foremost resource on understanding logical and scientific fallacies for years now. The fact that you called his website a "substack" means you would probably benefit from his wisdom.

I think due to the precious metal hype on Patnet circa 2007-2012, I have grown conditioned to spot a promoted post when I see them.
I have noticed at The Gateway Pundit or The Liberty Daily they try to disguise adverts as real news stories. But I have noticed I don't have to click on it, or read the byline to know it's a promoted post. Every post about Precious metals, or hedging against the collapse of the dollar. They are always promoted posts..

Did any of you guys get rich during the Gold Rush of 2008?

@richwicks

Here we can see the government spook making the government look great by pointing out the stark raise in cancer after vax launch. What is your premise again?

The_Deplorable says

Hey Ceffer, Do you have the link for this Ethical Skeptic?

Ceffer says

@The_Deplorable, @Ceffer: So - I did find it after all:

https://swisscows.com/en/web?query=%22Non-Alcohol+related+Liver+Mortality+did+not+arrive+with+Covid%22

which resolved to this:

https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1678234361236189184

And UNBELIEVABLY it showed up even under Google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Non-Alcohol+related+Liver+Mortality+did+not+arrive+with+Covid%22

I rarely can find anything useful under Google - since this is Twitter, I assume they just ban yandex from indexing the site, or it's a low priority for Yandex to search it.

Just 6-10 words can find it, IF a search engine found it. I used swisscows.com there.

Now you know how to do it - so do it, before you post.

Notice "the Ethical Skeptic" however DID NOT include source data, so you have no goddamned idea of whether what you are looking at is real although there is a link which you'll have to type in:

https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10-provisional.html

And there is indeed data where (maybe?) you can reconstruct the graph: You'll need data for K71-K76 which covers liver diseases - that's "6. Select underlying cause of death:". K70 covers alcohol related liver disease. You can select age groups, locale by state, many things. This might be useful for @Onvacation

richwicks says

Notice "the Ethical Skeptic" however DID NOT include source data

What exactly do you think the link on graph is? What is source data to you? Also, is your premise seriously "this guy is pretending the data correlates with remdesivir killing people via liver failure that disappeared after they stopped using it to treat COVID in order to make 'anti-vaxxers' look bad"? Must be political humor.

DhammaStep says

What exactly do you think the link on graph is? What is source data to you?

I didn't see any link other than a URL, I had to type in, then figure out how to use the Wonder database, click through it, and find out how it COULD be reconstructed.

When I do research, I present all my data, all my sources, and make it easy to verify because God knows, I can easily make a mistake, and unlike a lot of people, I want to know when I do - so I make it as EASY AS POSSIBLE for people to verify my conclusions.

Why doesn't everybody?

DhammaStep says

Also, is your premise seriously "this guy is pretending the data correlates with remdesivir killing people via liver failure that disappeared after they stopped using it to treat COVID in order to make 'anti-vaxxers' look bad"?

No, because a fucking link wasn't recorded, I had to spend an hour tracking down the Twitter post, because 1 second for the original poster was too much fucking effort to include. So, I had to go to yandex, then swisscows (where I did find it), then only to find FOR ONCE Google included. The procedure is to pick out 6-10 words, typed exactly was you see them, in quotes into a search engine. Then you have to go through the results to see if it's there.

It's a fucking pain in the ass that EVERYBODY has to do, instead of just the original poster.

When you write a report, you include a bunch of sources in your report so it can be validated as true. You had to get your sources anyhow, you needed to get your data ANYHOW, why did you keep it all private? Why the fuck do people INSIST on doing this? Half the shit on the Internet is bullshit, when it's not, include your fucking sources.

Our "news" media NEVER does, and people who are presenting actual data, INEXPLICABLY don't either.

I don't have blind trust in anybody.

Look through this thread, I did the work. Nobody else can be bothered.

richwicks says

Look through this thread, I did the work

You literally didn't do anything but find a link that was already on the image. People that actually analyze the data do the work.

DhammaStep says

richwicks says

Look through this thread, I did the work

You literally didn't do anything but find a link that was already on the image. People that actually analyze the data do the work.

Oh it was??

Here - at the ORIGINAL resolution of this post here's "the link that was already in the image":



In PNG format (that's lossless), so that's the best quality you can get from the original image posted here, unless you find the original twitter post which I found, but wasn't included, because.. Just post any shit and don't let anybody verify. It's FUN!

Do you have fucking super powers? Can you read that image? I can blow it up 500% and it's just a jumble of dots to me.

I'm constantly vexxed by people who are like "fuck you, if you want to know if it's true, spend an hour trying to figure it out", when 90% of the goddamned time it ISN'T true. Here's somebody going to a website, taking a FUCKING PHOTOGRAPH of it, and not bothering to tell anybody where it came from, because they are either stupid twats, or lying.

I mean, why bother to include proof the government just killed a bunch of fucking people? Let people guess, keep it in the realm of "conspiracy theory" rather than just fucking PROVING OUR GOVERNMENT JUST MURDERED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.

richwicks says

I'm constantly vexxed by people

I am vexxed by people that say "this claim is bullshit" without demonstrating it at all, all while sitting on their high horse about being able to type addresses into a URL bar.

DhammaStep says

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what Ethical Skeptic has been up to for a few years now. He's been blowing the whistle on the dangers of lockdowns, vaccines and other narrative driven bullshit by using actual data.

No, I don't. You know why? NOBODY INCLUDED A LINK to him.

I guess I ought to know everybody.

I'll just rely on CENSORED SEARCH ENGINES to find out anything about him.

Because a link is just fucking impossible to include. It took me about 10 second to write this WHY BOTHER TO INCLUDE THAT? That would make it easy, rather than having to go through 10 search engines to find it.

richwicks says

DhammaStep says

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what Ethical Skeptic has been up to for a few years now. He's been blowing the whistle on the dangers of lockdowns, vaccines and other narrative driven bullshit by using actual data.

No, I don't. You know why? NOBODY INCLUDED A LINK to him.

I guess I ought to know everybody.

I'll just rely on CENSORED SEARCH ENGINES to find out anything about him.

Because a link is just fucking impossible to include. It took me about 10 second to write this WHY BOTHER TO INCLUDE THAT? That would make it easy, rather than having to go through 10 search engines to find it.

Most of that is your own personal problem. I have no problem finding information on my own when presented with key data. I've even linked to ES myself in the past. Now, can you demonstrate why he's wrong or do I have to read another adolescent tantrum about hyperlinks that ignores my request?

richwicks says

I'm constantly vexxed by people

Me too, but I tolerate or ignore them. I haven't had to physically fight them since jr high.

richwicks says

, I had to spend an hour tracking down the Twitter post,

You should update your methodology. It shouldn't take an hour for you to find a post like that when you have: the date, time, username, and the website the post is from is kind of obvious. Shouldn't be more than two minutes tops.

DhammaStep says

Most of that is your own personal problem. I have no problem finding information on my own when presented with key data.

Then why didn't you find the link and post it? Why did I have to? Why do I always have to here? Nobody else does so this is a RUMOR site, not an information site.

I don't believe you. I have been researching on the Internet for 30 years. There was a SHORT golden age with Google, it's been gone for 15 years, and that was the only time it was easy.

there was a time that the first 6 words on what I wrote would have showed up on Google after a day. Not anymore. I used to save information that way, but Google deleted it all and Yandex didn't exist then.

You claimed the link "was posted", this link:



That's not legible, so you have to go through the tedium of hoping you can find a few words from the text, which nobody does, apparently. After you do that, you have to find the link in a PNG:



Then you need to type it in, good luck doing that on a phone or a tablet, you have to be on a computer, then you have to reconstruct the data from what was written in the image to find out if the data being presented in the graph is accurate.

richwicks says

I don't believe you

That's great: https://www.qwant.com/?q=twitter.com%3A+ethicalskeptic+remdesivir+2023&t=web

Look, if you can't either admit you're wrong or demonstrate where ES is wrong, then you're no better than the government you hate.

DhammaStep says

That's great: https://www.qwant.com/?q=twitter.com%3A+ethicalskeptic+remdesivir+2023&t=web

Look, if you can't either admit you're wrong or demonstrate where ES is wrong or demonstrate where ES is wrong.

Wrong about what?

I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying it's very difficult, for absolutely no reason, to prove he's correct. Why do people do this? Couldn't upload the CSV, even though he had to construct one in order to create the graph? That would have taken 1/2 second, but NOOOO - now everybody has to do it to verify it's correct by spending a 1/2 reconstructing the CSV, instead of just being able to check 1/2 dozen random values to verify those match. Don't make the URL clickable, make an image in a graph. I mean, a QR code could do that if they wanted to compartmentalize it in the image:



But of course, there's never a liar on the Internet, is there?

Make as difficult and hard as possible to verify anything, that's the way to get people to go through all your stuff.

LOL!

https://t.me/EthanLucasShow/10590

richwicks says

I'm not saying he's wrong.

"So, considering his background, I doubt it's true. It's misinformation to make it appear that anti-covid vaccine anything is just lies and hysteria. Eventually somebody will post that screenshot somewhere, and there will be a person (or a bot) ready to pounce on it to show "this is false!!" - I don't think the post actually exists." - rickwicks, Jul 10, 2023 - https://patrick.net/comment?comment_id=1969340

Okay, I think we're good here.

DhammaStep says

"So, considering his background, I doubt it's true.

He's fucking intelligence. That alone is a reason to be suspicious.

Did YOU reconstruct the data?

No. You just believe he's not full of shit, MAYBE he's not. You know where the burden of proof lies, why does he raise the burdern?

Construct the CSV, post it here, create the graph, verify he's correct. You seem to think this is trivial, I know it's not. I bet you can't do this in less than 3 hours.

I might do this, but I'm at the moment, I'm working on going through a bunch of encryption algorithms and understanding weaknesses. For me at least, that requires some amount of concentration. Understanding how encryption methods can be cracked IS NOT trivial for me to understand. I'm wondering if you could construct a stream cipher using a block cipher to produce a stream. Turns out that A5/1 sucks and that's what they use for GSM - your phone. That's essentially broken.

richwicks says

Did YOU reconstruct the data?

LMAO. You make wild speculation based on an emotional response to meager information and somehow I'm on the hook for disproving your claims? HAHAHAHA! No wonder you've got such a strong response to a logician, you're bogged down in pathological thought processes. I would recommend focusing on your work instead of spending hours getting lost trying to find a twitter post that literally no one asked you to do.

Red Cross is a spy militia posing as a charitable organization. They run drugs, weapons, soldiers, illicit organ traffic, cash for payoffs and kidnap children from disaster sites for trafficking..

https://t.me/SGTnewsNetwork/48529

DhammaStep says

LMAO. You make wild speculation based on an emotional response to meager information and somehow I'm on the hook for disproving your claims?

I hold the default position. You know where the burden of proof lies. You make a claim, you back it up. I will find out if Ethical Skeptic is lying or not. You'll just blindly believe him. That's the problem with our society. Rachael Maddow says that the vaccine is good, and if you take it, you will stop the virus from replicating, and it's entirely safe and totally effective, and since you are now immune you stop the pandemic.


original link

Why would she lie? You have to check data, and people have to PRODUCE data, otherwise it's just a cult of personality, which you've engaged in, because you don't verify claims. I do. I have to do that with every fucking person I depend on information from, except the rare exception, where they produce their sources. They're great.

Believing people blindly is stupid, and I know, how much bullshit there is. It's not left or right, it's everywhere. They don't care what you believe, as long as it's not the truth. That's what keeps the people fighting. Oh the left made a bullshit claim! SURE DID, but then the right makes a bullshit claim...

As long as nobody is right, there's no converts.

The Ethical Skeptic quoted by Ceffer says

"Those who have made arguments that Remdesivir was deadly, have a data to back up their contention as a hypothesis."

Yes, we have data proving that Remdesivir is deadly. And that is why this is a fact and not a hypothesis. Remdesivir is deadly, period.

Two allegedly fake avatars and Globo Homo PM? Rishi Sunak is allegedly in the office purely for the purpose of increasing his family's wealth as much as possible. Sounds like some of our Congress critters.


https://t.me/SGTnewsNetwork/48556

richwicks says

You'll just blindly believe him

You embarass yourself with condescension. You've made several wild claims with no evidence and claim to take the superior position. You've said he was wrong without even looking into it, which you admit. Why would anyone listen to you?

Klaus and Satan aren't going to be happy with this.

New Yorker turned into propaganda scrip sheet again. Mockingbird scrips for mental crips.

Shit, wasn't he just doing his job. If you did this to Congress you'd clear out two thirds of the place and ALL of the White House and ShadowFucks.

https://t.me/SGTnewsNetwork/48612

Trump cracks me up.

DhammaStep says

richwicks says

You'll just blindly believe him

You embarass yourself with condescension. You've made several wild claims with no evidence and claim to take the superior position.

Tell me, why do you believe him?

Did you know that Vaxxed, the film, was FILLED with bullshit? Stew Peters (Stewpiders) made that. Why do you think there was a bunch of completely incorrect claims in it, and it was promoted everywhere?

There were claiming there was a like a 60% birth rate decline in Australia - OBVIOUSLY false. How could they make a mistake that huge? You know what it was based on? They looked at incomplete data for 2023 and just ignored 7 months of data wasn't available. Alex Jones frequently makes similar "mistakes". There's a reason he's called a nut, he makes false claims all the time.

You want to hide a truth? Mix it liberally with a bunch of lies. You purposely use a known dishonest person, to push the truth, and then you make it FUCKING HARD to verify anything they say. What's the point of reporting anything then if they are entirely careless about being correct?

Alex Jones has said truthful things before, but he's said a lot of bullshit as well. Why do you think he's completely unconcerned about spreading bullshit? Stew Peters does as well. There's people that are just entirely full of shit, Jim Willie, Benjamin Fulford.

But people who go through effort to be correct, you haven't heard of them.

richwicks says

Tell me, why do you believe him?

Why do you believe you deserve a dialogue now? You haven't acknowledged that I found that twitter post effortlessly with only five pieces of data. You haven't acknowledged that you made a claim that something is misinformation without actually looking at it. You've only backpedalled or deflected when called out on it. There's only one person you believe: yourself, even when you've no reason to. There's just as much value speaking to you as there is a politician.

Edit: on top of all of that, you put beliefs in my mouth and strawman me because everyone but you is too stupid to think for themselves.

DhammaStep says

richwicks says

Tell me, why do you believe him?

Why do you believe you deserve a dialogue now?

You didn't answer my question.

You don't want a dialogue because you realize I'm correct. You believe him simply because it enforces your current beliefs. I know that's tempting, but I've been burned by that BADLY.

I will spend the necessary time to reconstruct the graph based on available information, but not today.

DhammaStep says

You haven't acknowledged that you made a claim that something is misinformation without actually looking at it.

It takes hours to confirm what he claimed. He could have trivialized this, and didn't.

Why? Maybe he's just s shitty researcher, that's possible.

What is so fucking hard about including sources? Links? Nothing, but nobody will do it, so any information is reduced to rumor. Just fucking stupid.

richwicks says

You didn't answer my question

Prime narcissism. Your claims and questions must be answered but mine must be ignored. Good luck with the data. I'm sure data is analysis is absolutely simple!

richwicks says

You don't want a dialogue because you realize I'm correct

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're right! I don't want to talk to you because you're so right about everything! It's not that you see everything black and white like a teenager that makes immediate judgements without data to back it up then demands everyone else be held to a higher standard. lmao

DhammaStep says

Prime narcissism. Your claims and questions must be answered but mine must be ignored

What is so hard about including sources to claims?

I know why you would avoid this. You're lying or spreading incorrect information.

You would ALWAYS omit data if you were lying. After 30 years of having hyperlinks, the only reason you wouldn't include source material, is you don't have discernment. You don't care about being unassailable in your conclusion.

https://patrick.net/post/1343769/2022-02-24-greeted-like-liberators-ukraine?start=1123#comment-1853120

I'm a little different, and in a day or two, I'll demonstrate with "Ethical" Skeptic. IF I don't find an error in his graph, I'll start looking for errors in other posts. If I cannot find any after 6 or so, I'll consider him relatively reliable.

richwicks says

What is so hard about including sources to claims?

I know why you would avoid this. You're lying or spreading incorrect information.

Do you literally have no idea you're the one that made a speculative claim without sources? Are you okay, man? Like... ES puts his sources on the graphs, he's not hiding anything. He's not the one making the screencaps. I'm not the one posting the screencaps either, why am I beholden to this? You spent hours of your life getting mad about search engines and image quality while making wild claims based on your emotional response to the word "intelligence." Man.. go take a vacation.

DhammaStep says

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're right! I don't want to talk to you because you're so right about everything!

I don't know if I'm correct. I'm asking you why you think "Ethical" Skeptic is correct. I always, always, always, check claims before I trust people.

DhammaStep says

It's not that you see everything black and white like a teenager that makes immediate judgements without data to back it up then demands everyone else be held to a higher standard.

True and false are black and white. It's binary.

It's not a higher standard, it's just a fucking easy to implement standard.

It's easy for me to claim "Ukraine was overthrown by the United States", but how did I come to that conclusion?

https://patrick.net/post/1343769/2022-02-24-greeted-like-liberators-ukraine?start=1123#comment-1853120

I've explained it there. I can write it out again, as I know it practically by heart now. Victoria Nuland had a phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt where she was picking out the government of Ukraine. The phone call was released on youtube on Feb 4, 2014:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM

She decided that Arseniy Yatseniuk would take control of the government.

The problem is that the current president Viktor Yanukovych didn't leave power until Feb 22, 2014:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych

Leonid Kuchma abandoned office on Feb 5, 2014. That was a day before the phone call was released.

This is why I believe what I believe. It's not irrational, it's not because somebody "told me", it's because I've checked and MAYBE I'm wrong, but nobody will explain it to me. @"Mostly Reader" tried to bully me into accepting I was wrong, but never bothered to explain how I was wrong. He couldn't explain why I was wrong, and I believe that's most likely because I'm NOT wrong.

@DhammaStep - I'm incorrect - it wasn't the documentary Vaxxed that is bullshit, it's "Died Suddenly".


original link

You want to start about 37 minutes in, before that it's just them shooting the shit.

The_Deplorable says

Remdesivir is deadly, period

And the manufacturer knew that before they ever released it. Link in the RFK book.

Nurses in the covid ward called it "run death is near".