https://centrist.nz/state-broadcaster-in-climate-reporting-scandal-hides-evidence-of-massive-heatwave-that-dwarfs-recent-hottest-years/
Anyone can make a mistake (in this case close to incompetence) but the state >broadcaster should own up and correct this one but apparently they know best. >Just more of the well deserved descent into oblivion of the MSM.
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://centrist.nz/state-broadcaster-in-climate-reporting-scandal-hides-evidence-of-massive-heatwave-that-dwarfs-recent-hottest-years/
Anyone can make a mistake (in this case close to incompetence) but the state >>broadcaster should own up and correct this one but apparently they know best. >>Just more of the well deserved descent into oblivion of the MSM.
I think tho only person who listens to Red Radio here is Rich.
On 2025-03-12, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Anyone can make a mistake (in this case close to incompetence) but the state >>>broadcaster should own up and correct this one but apparently they know best.https://centrist.nz/state-broadcaster-in-climate-reporting-scandal-hides-evidence-of-massive-heatwave-that-dwarfs-recent-hottest-years/
Just more of the well deserved descent into oblivion of the MSM.
I think tho only person who listens to Red Radio here is Rich.
Nothing wrong with this. In a free society one may listen to free speech.
On 13 Mar 2025 04:05:58 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Anyone can make a mistake (in this case close to incompetence) but the statehttps://centrist.nz/state-broadcaster-in-climate-reporting-scandal-hides-evidence-of-massive-heatwave-that-dwarfs-recent-hottest-years/
broadcaster should own up and correct this one but apparently they know best.
Just more of the well deserved descent into oblivion of the MSM.
I think tho only person who listens to Red Radio here is Rich.
Nothing wrong with this. In a free society one may listen to free speech.
Nevertheless the single mistake is notable in that it is very rare
from Radio NZ, and it was corrected when drawn to RNZ's attention.
Here is another report that gives some of the reasons for another
comparison of summer heat with 1935 - with some reasons given: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/it-hasnt-been-this-hot-since-1935-whats-changed/BS5Y4C5BNCFBQEE3QWE6YV2BYY/
On 13 Mar 2025 04:05:58 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:No it is not rare and they refused to correct it until they had no choice and then did so only in part.
On 2025-03-12, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Anyone can make a mistake (in this case close to incompetence) but the >>>>statehttps://centrist.nz/state-broadcaster-in-climate-reporting-scandal-hides-evidence-of-massive-heatwave-that-dwarfs-recent-hottest-years/
broadcaster should own up and correct this one but apparently they know >>>>best.
Just more of the well deserved descent into oblivion of the MSM.
I think tho only person who listens to Red Radio here is Rich.
Nothing wrong with this. In a free society one may listen to free speech.
Nevertheless the single mistake is notable in that it is very rare
from Radio NZ, and it was corrected when drawn to RNZ's attention.
Here is another report that gives some of the reasons for another
comparison of summer heat with 1935 - with some reasons given: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/it-hasnt-been-this-hot-since-1935-whats-changed/BS5Y4C5BNCFBQEE3QWE6YV2BYY/
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:43:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 13 Mar 2025 04:05:58 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Anyone can make a mistake (in this case close to incompetence) but the statehttps://centrist.nz/state-broadcaster-in-climate-reporting-scandal-hides-evidence-of-massive-heatwave-that-dwarfs-recent-hottest-years/
broadcaster should own up and correct this one but apparently they know best.
Just more of the well deserved descent into oblivion of the MSM.
I think tho only person who listens to Red Radio here is Rich.
Nothing wrong with this. In a free society one may listen to free speech.
Nevertheless the single mistake is notable in that it is very rare
from Radio NZ, and it was corrected when drawn to RNZ's attention.
Here is another report that gives some of the reasons for another >>comparison of summer heat with 1935 - with some reasons given: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/it-hasnt-been-this-hot-since-1935-whats-changed/BS5Y4C5BNCFBQEE3QWE6YV2BYY/
RNZ represents only the voice of the bureaucracy.
Why? Because they are the bureaucracy. Regardless of what government
is in power, their programming content does not change.
RNZ will rarely if ever air an opinion or take an editorial stance
which calls for lower taxes and smaller and more eifficient
government, because to do that would be to make a case for their own
demise.
Bill.
Why? Because they are the bureaucracy. Regardless of what government is
in power, their programming content does not change.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:06:49 +1300, BR wrote:
Why? Because they are the bureaucracy. Regardless of what government is
in power, their programming content does not change.
Spoken like a true self-confessed representative of the lying media.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 04:36:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:06:49 +1300, BR wrote:
Why? Because they are the bureaucracy. Regardless of what government is
in power, their programming content does not change.
Spoken like a true self-confessed representative of the lying media.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. If you believe in man made
climate change, you are a representative of the lying media, which
includes RNZ.
Bill.
If you believe that actions of mankind have not affected our climate
then you are crazy; I do not know of anyone that believes climate
change is only caused by actions of mankind, but that would be an
equally crazy belief. So we are only talking about the degree to which
our climate has been and may in future be affected by actions of
mankind.
Some of the most dramatic climate effects have appeared
following a volcanic eruption, and months later crops in a different
part of the world may be affected by changes in temperature caused by
dust clouds.
There is also a strong consensus among scientists that
there is a positive correlation between some actions of man and
subsequent changes in weather patterns.
Radio New Zealand merely reports different views from different
groups; with a tendency to report actual events as well as views from >politicians (where there is a slight bias in time to the current
government who have access to professional advice).
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:09:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Water probably mostly returned to the ocean fairly quickly, but the
wrote:
If you believe that actions of mankind have not affected our climate
then you are crazy; I do not know of anyone that believes climate
change is only caused by actions of mankind, but that would be an
equally crazy belief. So we are only talking about the degree to which
our climate has been and may in future be affected by actions of
mankind.
May in future be affected? So no evidence of anything. Only guesswork
and speculation. In more than 50 years, all the climate disaster
predictions from the alarmists have been wrong. That doesn't inspire
much confidence in any future predictions.
Why would man made climate change (if it exists) necessarily be a bad
thing? Do you remember when when the media were pimping rapid onset
cooling? Maybe they were right, but then along came global warming
which saved mankind from a frosty fate. Why must that be ruled out as
a valid interpretation of all the media reports?
Some of the most dramatic climate effects have appeared
following a volcanic eruption, and months later crops in a different
part of the world may be affected by changes in temperature caused by
dust clouds.
Remember all the shreiking from the usual suspects about climate
change when parts of the North Island had all the flooding? Not once
was the earlier Tongan volcanic eruption mentioned or ruled out as an >indirect cause. The thing puked up vast quatities of sea water into
the atmosphere. What happened to all the water?
No polls - just science - Reputable scientists will not includeThere is also a strong consensus among scientists that
there is a positive correlation between some actions of man and
subsequent changes in weather patterns.
Really? Who was polled?
Whatever the outcome, consensus has no place in science.Of course it does - a wide range of scientific work has given similar conclusions, leading to similar conclusions as to correlation and
ScientificWhat rubbish - there are many examples of scientific consensus
knowledge is determined by repeatable experiments and verifiable
facts, neither of which feature in any "consensus". Consensus is the
language of politics, not science.
Bureaucrats run many organisations - at heart Christopher Luxon is a bureaucrat, and major elements of the propaganda machines that helpRadio New Zealand merely reports different views from different
groups; with a tendency to report actual events as well as views from >>politicians (where there is a slight bias in time to the current
government who have access to professional advice).
Radio New Zealand is a government bureaucracy. Their editorial stance
is first and foremost the product of their own self interest and job >preservation.
There is no need for a bunch of bureaucrats to be
running a media organisation, particularly when the taxpayer is on the
hook for 100% of it's funding.
What can they deliver that somebodyCoverage that is not restricted to stories that attract advertising or
with an internet connection cannot already obtain?
Bill.
Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid
viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though
rare injection mishaps.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the
Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though
rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the
truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic
results.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic
results.
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa
from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit
coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from
a meat market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account )
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens
in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was
almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a
couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory
accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic,
they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials
and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market
in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat
viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if
conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a
dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77
Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was
definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial
facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of
supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to
hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratoryÂ’s research, the details
that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero,
Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection
came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections
spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but
once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that
gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and
science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with
actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic
results.
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa
from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit
coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from
a meat market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account )
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens
in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics,
depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was
almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a
couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling
feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory
accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic,
they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials
and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory,
insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market
in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a
grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat
viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if
conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a
dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77
Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was
definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of
consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial
facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of
supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to
hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the
whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory’s research, the details
that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero,
Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>>>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic
results.
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa
from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit
coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from
a meat market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account )
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens
in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was
almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a
couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory
accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, >>>they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials
and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market
in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat
viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a
dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77
Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was
definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of
supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to
hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero,
Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection
came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections
spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but
once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that
gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and
science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus
started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with
actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>results.Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>>>>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man. >>>>>
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from >>>>a meat market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>>>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account )
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens >>>>in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>>>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory
accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, >>>>they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials >>>>and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market >>>>in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>>>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a
dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77
Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was
definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to
hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>>>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection
came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections
spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but
once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that
gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and
science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus
started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with
actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
again:
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very
busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of
unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded
idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased
Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the
"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put
people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result.
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on
for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as
the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those
and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen
22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:Laughable. You are the one that took this topic off course with sarcasm, lies, innuendo and plain abuse. And you have the effrontery to blame someone else. Your transparent deliberate politicking denial of the attempted destruction of this country by the last government will see you in whatever hell you can imagine. You will meet Ardern and others there I suspect.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic
results.
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa
from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit
coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from
a meat market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account )
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens
in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was
almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a
couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory
accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic,
they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials
and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market
in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat
viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if
conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a
dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77
Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was
definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial
facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of
supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to
hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory’s research, the details
that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero,
Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
You are off topic, Wily Nilly
came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infectionsYou changed the topic you ghastly excuse for a human being.
spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but
once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that
gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and
science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus >started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with
actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>>>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>results.Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>>>>>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man. >>>>>>
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from >>>>>a meat market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>>>>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account )
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens >>>>>in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>>>>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, >>>>>they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials >>>>>and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market >>>>>in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>>>>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>>>>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection
came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections
spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but >>>> once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that
gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and
science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus >>>> started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with
actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
again:
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very
busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded
idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased
Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the
"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put
people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result.
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on
for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as
the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those
and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen
22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:41:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolutely I have, you are lying once more.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>>>>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>>results.Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though >>>>>>>>>rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man. >>>>>>>
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from >>>>>>a meat market:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>>>>>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account )
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens >>>>>>in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>>>>>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, >>>>>>they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials >>>>>>and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market >>>>>>in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>>>>>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>>>>>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>>>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection
came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections
spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but >>>>> once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that >>>>> gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and
science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus >>>>> started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with
actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
again:
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very
busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded
idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased
Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the
"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put >>>people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result.
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on
for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as
the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those
and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen >>>22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
I have quoted the source a number of times, and you never disputed the >accuracy of the comparison of "excess deaths" by country.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:41:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolutely I have, you are lying once more.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is >>>>again:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Scientific evidence
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>>>>>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>>>results.has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>>>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though
rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man. >>>>>>>>
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from >>>>>>>a meat market:
First paragraphs:https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>>>>>>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account ) >>>>>>>
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens >>>>>>>in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>>>>>>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, >>>>>>>they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials >>>>>>>and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market >>>>>>>in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>>>>>>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>>>>>>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>>>>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn.
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection >>>>>> came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections
spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but >>>>>> once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that >>>>>> gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and
science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus >>>>>> started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with
actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>>>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very >>>>busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>>>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded >>>>idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased
Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the >>>>"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put >>>>people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result.
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>>>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on >>>>for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as
the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>>>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those >>>>and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen >>>>22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
I have quoted the source a number of times, and you never disputed the >>accuracy of the comparison of "excess deaths" by country.
Now, prove your post.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 04:15:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:41:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolutely I have, you are lying once more.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is >>>>>again:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Scientific evidence
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>>>>>>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>>>>results.has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>>>>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost >>>>>>>>>>>though
rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man. >>>>>>>>>
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from >>>>>>>>a meat market:
First paragraphs:https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html >>>>>>>>https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account ) >>>>>>>>
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens >>>>>>>>in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>>>>>>>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, >>>>>>>>they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials >>>>>>>>and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market >>>>>>>>in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>>>>>>>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>>>>>>>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>>>>>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn. >>>>>>>>
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection >>>>>>> came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections >>>>>>> spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but >>>>>>> once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that >>>>>>> gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and >>>>>>> science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus >>>>>>> started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with >>>>>>> actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>>>>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very >>>>>busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>>>>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded >>>>>idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased >>>>>Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the >>>>>"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put >>>>>people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result.
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>>>>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on >>>>>for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as >>>>>the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>>>>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those >>>>>and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen >>>>>22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
I have quoted the source a number of times, and you never disputed the >>>accuracy of the comparison of "excess deaths" by country.
Now, prove your post.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 04:15:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:41:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Absolutely I have, you are lying once more.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is >>>>>>again:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific evidence
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the >>>>>>>>>>truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>>>>>results.has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>>>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>>>>>>>>>>>viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost >>>>>>>>>>>>though
rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man. >>>>>>>>>>
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from >>>>>>>>>a meat market:
https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account ) >>>>>>>>>https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens >>>>>>>>>in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists >>>>>>>>>quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, >>>>>>>>>they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials >>>>>>>>>and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market >>>>>>>>>in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a >>>>>>>>>grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the >>>>>>>>>whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>>>>>>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn. >>>>>>>>>
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection >>>>>>>> came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections >>>>>>>> spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but >>>>>>>> once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that >>>>>>>> gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and >>>>>>>> science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus >>>>>>>> started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with >>>>>>>> actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>>>>>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very >>>>>>busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>>>>>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded >>>>>>idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased >>>>>>Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the >>>>>>"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put >>>>>>people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result. >>>>>>
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>>>>>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on >>>>>>for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as >>>>>>the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>>>>>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those >>>>>>and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen >>>>>>22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
I have quoted the source a number of times, and you never disputed the >>>>accuracy of the comparison of "excess deaths" by country.
Now, prove your post.
Answer the question, support your posts. Then and only then will I engage.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:18:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou must be trying to be funny. well you failed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 04:15:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:41:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Absolutely I have, you are lying once more.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is >>>>>>>again:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in >>>>>>>>>>>>>fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid
viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>though
rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the
truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>>>>>>results.
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>>>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>>>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from
a meat market:
https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account ) >>>>>>>>>>https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens >>>>>>>>>>in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>>>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>>>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists
quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>>>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>>>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>>>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic,
they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials >>>>>>>>>>and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>>>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market >>>>>>>>>>in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a
grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>>>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>>>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>>>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>>>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>>>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>>>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>>>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>>>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>>>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>>>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>>>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the
whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details >>>>>>>>>>that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>>>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>>>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn. >>>>>>>>>>
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection >>>>>>>>> came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections >>>>>>>>> spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but
once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that >>>>>>>>> gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and >>>>>>>>> science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus
started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>> actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>>>>>>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very >>>>>>>busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>>>>>>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded >>>>>>>idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased >>>>>>>Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the >>>>>>>"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put >>>>>>>people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result. >>>>>>>
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>>>>>>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on >>>>>>>for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as >>>>>>>the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>>>>>>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those >>>>>>>and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen >>>>>>>22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
I have quoted the source a number of times, and you never disputed the >>>>>accuracy of the comparison of "excess deaths" by country.
Now, prove your post.
Answer the question, support your posts. Then and only then will I engage.
Try these:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8912932/figure/fig2/
and >https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S0140-6736%2821%2902796-3
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:18:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou must be trying to be funny. well you failed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Try these:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 04:15:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Abuse gone
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:41:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Absolutely I have, you are lying once more.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is >>>>>>>>again:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid
viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>though
rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but the
truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>>>>>>>results.
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>>>>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>>>>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated from
a meat market:
https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account ) >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens
in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>>>>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>>>>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists
quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>>>>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>>>>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>>>>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic,
they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials
and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>>>>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market
in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a
grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>>>>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>>>>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>>>>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>>>>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>>>>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>>>>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>>>>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>>>>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>>>>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>>>>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>>>>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the
whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the details
that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>>>>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>>>>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn. >>>>>>>>>>>
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection >>>>>>>>>> came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections >>>>>>>>>> spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - but
once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that >>>>>>>>>> gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and >>>>>>>>>> science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the virus
started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>> actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>>>>>>>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very >>>>>>>>busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>>>>>>>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded >>>>>>>>idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased >>>>>>>>Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the >>>>>>>>"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put >>>>>>>>people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result. >>>>>>>>
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>>>>>>>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on >>>>>>>>for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as >>>>>>>>the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>>>>>>>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those >>>>>>>>and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen >>>>>>>>22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
I have quoted the source a number of times, and you never disputed the >>>>>>accuracy of the comparison of "excess deaths" by country.
Now, prove your post.
Answer the question, support your posts. Then and only then will I engage. >>
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8912932/figure/fig2/
and >>https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S0140-6736%2821%2902796-3
Neither of those prove anything.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:55:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:18:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou must be trying to be funny. well you failed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Try these:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 04:15:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Abuse gone
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:41:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Now, prove your post.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 23:00:54 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>That is not accurate, you have never proved that.
On 2025-03-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they did, but Willy deleted the post I made - here it is >>>>>>>>>again:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:25:05 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:56:45 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) >>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific evidence
has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Covid
viruses, and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>though
rare injection mishaps.
You are so full of shit, Rich, that you are 100% shit -- a shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>man.
Now that is just nasty, Willy - I have not given you anything but >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
truth, albeit a brief coverage of our excellent Covid pandemic >>>>>>>>>>>>>results.
Here is an example of your shit "scientific consensus", a mea-culpa >>>>>>>>>>>>from the New York Times, published just today, about their shit >>>>>>>>>>>>coverage of the shit "scientific consensus" that COVID originated >>>>>>>>>>>>from
a meat market:
https://archive.is/CQzbl ( for those without a NYTimes account ) >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html
First paragraphs:
"Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous >>>>>>>>>>>>pathogens
in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, >>>>>>>>>>>>depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was >>>>>>>>>>>>almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western >>>>>>>>>>>>scientists
quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a >>>>>>>>>>>>couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling >>>>>>>>>>>>feathers.
Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory >>>>>>>>>>>>accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 >>>>>>>>>>>>pandemic,
they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health >>>>>>>>>>>>officials
and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood >>>>>>>>>>>>market
in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance >>>>>>>>>>>>lost a
grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat >>>>>>>>>>>>viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- research that, if >>>>>>>>>>>>conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a >>>>>>>>>>>>dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world -- no fewer than 77 >>>>>>>>>>>>Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the >>>>>>>>>>>>organization.
So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was >>>>>>>>>>>>definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like >>>>>>>>>>>>consensus.
We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of >>>>>>>>>>>>consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial >>>>>>>>>>>>facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of >>>>>>>>>>>>supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to >>>>>>>>>>>>hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing >>>>>>>>>>>>the
whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory?s research, the >>>>>>>>>>>>details
that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been >>>>>>>>>>>>terrifyingly lax."
Your understanding of the modern-day corruption of science is zero, >>>>>>>>>>>>Rich. All your mealy-mouthed writings are worthy only of scorn. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You are off topic, Wily Nilly - we knew roughly where the infection >>>>>>>>>>> came from - I have a friend who was in Wuhan when the infections >>>>>>>>>>> spread - it took three months for him to get back to New Zealand - >>>>>>>>>>>but
once it spread the only relevance of how it started was whether that
gave any indication of how it could be stopped. It never did, and >>>>>>>>>>> science does not have definitive proof of what happened when the >>>>>>>>>>>virus
started to spread, so your change of topic has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>> actions to limit harm once it arrived in New Zealand.
Pity the Labour Government did not limit the harm.
*** You may not be aware but the politically motivated and organised >>>>>>>>>"protest" at parliament did result in Wellington Hospital being very >>>>>>>>>busy during that time dealing with larger than normal numbers of >>>>>>>>>unvaccinated idiots with Covid, but despite that bunch of deluded >>>>>>>>>idiots, there were other so-called "protests" that also increased >>>>>>>>>Covid infection rates, and possibly deaths. That was all part of the >>>>>>>>>"NZ Taxpayer Union" motivated pushback against a government that put >>>>>>>>>people first, and was assisting better business profits as a result. >>>>>>>>>
Overall, mortality statistics (and yes they are scientific and widely >>>>>>>>>accepted - they are after all what life insurance companies depend on >>>>>>>>>for profit!) show that, had we had the same additional mortality as >>>>>>>>>the USA or UK, we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths. Our >>>>>>>>>economy was also quicker to bounce back after the pandemic that those >>>>>>>>>and many other countries. ***
So would you have preferred the USA reactions to the virus and seen >>>>>>>>>22,000 more deaths in New Zealand?
I have quoted the source a number of times, and you never disputed the >>>>>>>accuracy of the comparison of "excess deaths" by country. >>>>>>Absolutely I have, you are lying once more.
Answer the question, support your posts. Then and only then will I engage. >>>
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8912932/figure/fig2/
and >>>https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S0140-6736%2821%2902796-3
Neither of those prove anything.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:48:29 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:09:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
If you believe that actions of mankind have not affected our climate
then you are crazy; I do not know of anyone that believes climate
change is only caused by actions of mankind, but that would be an
equally crazy belief. So we are only talking about the degree to which >>>our climate has been and may in future be affected by actions of
mankind.
May in future be affected? So no evidence of anything. Only guesswork
and speculation. In more than 50 years, all the climate disaster >>predictions from the alarmists have been wrong. That doesn't inspire
much confidence in any future predictions.
Why would man made climate change (if it exists) necessarily be a bad >>thing? Do you remember when when the media were pimping rapid onset >>cooling? Maybe they were right, but then along came global warming
which saved mankind from a frosty fate. Why must that be ruled out as
a valid interpretation of all the media reports?
Some of the most dramatic climate effects have appeared
following a volcanic eruption, and months later crops in a different
part of the world may be affected by changes in temperature caused by >>>dust clouds.
Remember all the shreiking from the usual suspects about climate
change when parts of the North Island had all the flooding? Not once
was the earlier Tongan volcanic eruption mentioned or ruled out as an >>indirect cause. The thing puked up vast quatities of sea water into
the atmosphere. What happened to all the water?
Water probably mostly returned to the ocean fairly quickly,
but the
effect of solid materials, including dust, would have had a much wider
impact over a longer period, affecting both climate and crops /
farming for a much longer period.
No polls - just science - Reputable scientists will not include
There is also a strong consensus among scientists that
there is a positive correlation between some actions of man and >>>subsequent changes in weather patterns.
Really? Who was polled?
conclusions that are not justified from their experiments, but a range
of data collection and physical experiments have convinced many
scientists that mankind has had and is having an impact on both short
and long term climate
- in addition to short and longer term trends
and random incidents that are "natural". Polls can of course be
misleading in themselves - one firm (no longer part of an industry
body) is believed to use polls to give clients answers that they want
- usually for advertising purposes, whether political or commercial.
Slanted questions or lead to slanted conclusions, and questions that
require "interpretation" of answers may be subject to bias by those
asking the questions . . .
Whatever the outcome, consensus has no place in science.Of course it does - a wide range of scientific work has given similar >conclusions, leading to similar conclusions as to correlation and
causation.
Scientific
knowledge is determined by repeatable experiments and verifiable
facts, neither of which feature in any "consensus". Consensus is the >>language of politics, not science.
What rubbish - there are many examples of scientific consensus
eventually overcoming bias -
that the earth rotates around the sun and
that moons rotate around planets were early scientific discoveries
that eventually overcame religious "consensus."
Scientific evidence has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid
viruses,
and that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though
rare injection mishaps.
Radio New Zealand merely reports different views from different
groups; with a tendency to report actual events as well as views from >>>politicians (where there is a slight bias in time to the current >>>government who have access to professional advice).
Radio New Zealand is a government bureaucracy. Their editorial stance
is first and foremost the product of their own self interest and job >>preservation.
There is no need for a bunch of bureaucrats to beBureaucrats run many organisations - at heart Christopher Luxon is a >bureaucrat, and major elements of the propaganda machines that help
running a media organisation, particularly when the taxpayer is on the
hook for 100% of it's funding.
the coalition are largely bureaucratic in nature.
Public broadcasting has an important role in most developed countries
of giving unbiased reporting of issues
- and where there are different
opinions making sure that they are appropriately reflected.
Profit is
not a motive for public radio or television - audience numbers are,
and they get good coverage by news that suits most New Zealanders.
It is noticeable that their major critics do not want unbiased reporting
What can they deliver that somebody
with an internet connection cannot already obtain?
Coverage that is not restricted to stories that attract advertising or
meet political views of owners and staff.
Bill.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:16:20 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:48:29 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:09:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
If you believe that actions of mankind have not affected our climate >>>>then you are crazy; I do not know of anyone that believes climate >>>>change is only caused by actions of mankind, but that would be an >>>>equally crazy belief. So we are only talking about the degree to which >>>>our climate has been and may in future be affected by actions of >>>>mankind.
May in future be affected? So no evidence of anything. Only guesswork
and speculation. In more than 50 years, all the climate disaster >>>predictions from the alarmists have been wrong. That doesn't inspire
much confidence in any future predictions.
Why would man made climate change (if it exists) necessarily be a bad >>>thing? Do you remember when when the media were pimping rapid onset >>>cooling? Maybe they were right, but then along came global warming
which saved mankind from a frosty fate. Why must that be ruled out as
a valid interpretation of all the media reports?
Some of the most dramatic climate effects have appeared
following a volcanic eruption, and months later crops in a different >>>>part of the world may be affected by changes in temperature caused by >>>>dust clouds.
Remember all the shreiking from the usual suspects about climate
change when parts of the North Island had all the flooding? Not once
was the earlier Tongan volcanic eruption mentioned or ruled out as an >>>indirect cause. The thing puked up vast quatities of sea water into
the atmosphere. What happened to all the water?
Because water droplets are heavy and fall as rain within a relativelyWater probably mostly returned to the ocean fairly quickly,
How do you know that?
Which wrong disaster prediction are you referring to?but the
effect of solid materials, including dust, would have had a much wider >>impact over a longer period, affecting both climate and crops /
farming for a much longer period.
No polls - just science - Reputable scientists will not include
There is also a strong consensus among scientists that
there is a positive correlation between some actions of man and >>>>subsequent changes in weather patterns.
Really? Who was polled?
conclusions that are not justified from their experiments, but a range
of data collection and physical experiments have convinced many
scientists that mankind has had and is having an impact on both short
and long term climate
Then why have all their disaster predictions turned out to be wrong?
As above - no polls; why would you think an opinion poll would give- in addition to short and longer term trends
and random incidents that are "natural". Polls can of course be
misleading in themselves - one firm (no longer part of an industry
body) is believed to use polls to give clients answers that they want
- usually for advertising purposes, whether political or commercial. >>Slanted questions or lead to slanted conclusions, and questions that >>require "interpretation" of answers may be subject to bias by those
asking the questions . . .
So again, for the record, how was this consensus arrived at? Who was
polled?
You see, I can point you to a link that lists, by name, 31,487I do vaguely recall such a poll - do you have a reference to it?
scientists who signed a petition urging the US government not to sign
up to the Kyoto agreement in which they stated: "There is no
convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or
other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future,
cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of
the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many
beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of
the Earth"
So let's be having a list of the scientists who disagree with them.
Whatever the outcome, consensus has no place in science.Of course it does - a wide range of scientific work has given similar >>conclusions, leading to similar conclusions as to correlation and >>causation.
Scientific
knowledge is determined by repeatable experiments and verifiable
facts, neither of which feature in any "consensus". Consensus is the >>>language of politics, not science.
What rubbish - there are many examples of scientific consensus
eventually overcoming bias -
Overcoming bias? It's not about overcoming bias. It's about
establishing scientific fact. "Bias" is a politician word, just like >"consensus". The speed of light is the same for all observers. There
is no consensus about that. Consensus is not needed when there is
universal agreement.
that the earth rotates around the sun and
that moons rotate around planets were early scientific discoveries
that eventually overcame religious "consensus."
one url from such a search is : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001282Scientific evidence has shown that some vaccines, such as those used for Covid, did in
fact reduce the number of deaths from those infected with the Covid >>viruses,
What evidence?
Try a Google search on "Did vaccines reduce Covid deaths.
See the articles from the search aboveand that the lives saved vastly outnumbered those lost though
rare injection mishaps.
How many lives were saved? Numbers please.
Do you have any evidence of that assertion?Radio New Zealand merely reports different views from different
groups; with a tendency to report actual events as well as views from >>>>politicians (where there is a slight bias in time to the current >>>>government who have access to professional advice).
Radio New Zealand is a government bureaucracy. Their editorial stance
is first and foremost the product of their own self interest and job >>>preservation.
There is no need for a bunch of bureaucrats to be
running a media organisation, particularly when the taxpayer is on the >>>hook for 100% of it's funding.
Bureaucrats run many organisations - at heart Christopher Luxon is a >>bureaucrat, and major elements of the propaganda machines that help
the coalition are largely bureaucratic in nature.
Public broadcasting has an important role in most developed countries
of giving unbiased reporting of issues
There is nothing unbiased about RNZ. They are pro big government,
because big government is what they need to survive. They are one of a
very long list of government departments that need to be
disestablished.
- and where there are different
opinions making sure that they are appropriately reflected.
Who is tasked with making sure the opinions are "apropriately
reflected"?
I am not aware of any party in government that agrees with yourProfit is
not a motive for public radio or television - audience numbers are,
and they get good coverage by news that suits most New Zealanders.
There is no case for governments to run media organisations anymore.
In the early days of broadcasting a radio was a luxury item that few
people could not afford, and a single AM transmitter was a large
expensive power hungry industrial plant. Advertising revenue could
never have covered the expense. Anyone who owned a radio was required
to pay an annual license fee. Those times are well and truly over. RNZ
and TVNZ are dinosaurs from the past which now serve no purpose other
than to spin for the bureaucrats who run them.
Successive government's, including the current government, haveIt is noticeable that their major critics do not want unbiased reporting
No, their major critics don't like being forced to pay for it.
Are you really that ignorant of what RNZ does?What can they deliver that somebody
with an internet connection cannot already obtain?
Why do you say that, Bill?Coverage that is not restricted to stories that attract advertising or
meet political views of owners and staff.
That's got to be the howler of the year.
Bill.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:10:54 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,843 |
| Posted today: | 1 |