Why are all the Covid conspiracy theory’s coming true?

[sunnnysideup]

Honest question?

@Staryflight445

‘ that's a lazy, unsubstantiated lie - the unvaccinated are not burdening hospitals and they are certainly not to blame for the backlog of patients. Don't be deceived.

All they have to do is put a few actors on TV, ostensibly unvaxxed, telling people to get jabbed with their last dying breath and people like you pounce at the opportunity to parrot these spoonfed narratives, designed to sow fear’
^^
Genuinely really concerned about anyone who believes this.

You'd be surprised.

ITV ran two separate segments covering 2 young men getting "sick" with COV!D. They were both interviewed from their hospital bed but camera crews managed to film their emotional pleas to the camera about their "struggle", urging people to "please get vaccinated"

BUT it didn't take long to put two and two together. BOTH of these men are actors. What are the odds, eh?

I'll just leave this bit of breaking news here...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/21/wuhan-scientists-planned-releaseskin-penetrating-nanoparticles/

[quote IncredulousOne]I'll just leave this bit of breaking news here...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/21/wuhan-scientists-planned-releaseskin-penetrating-nanoparticles/[/quote]
Yikes, another outlandish theory confirmed. A lab engineered bio-weapon, gifting big pharma a huge boon.

OP, word to the wise--check thread titles for random apostrophes if you want to be taken seriously! ;)

Everyone, making 967 jokes about microchips is getting a bit old now. It wasn't all that witty the first time round. Please give it a rest, for God's sake.

Conspiracy theories themselves are nearly always rubbish. However, the reason why people start believing in conspiracy theories is, by contrast, a very serious matter and one that requires proper discussion.

Often, people start to believe in conspiracy theories when a) people with public/medical authority tell people things that don't make sense, and b) people with public/medical authority are caught out as having told lies to people. Unfortunately, both these things have happened repeatedly during this pandemic, and it's feeding the fear, paranoia, and belief in bizarre theories about things.

There needs to be some serious discussion about poor public messaging and lack of transparency, when we are doing the autopsy of this pandemic in a couple of years time.

New conspiracy here.. they are going to starve Us/introduce rations as they can’t get food supplies in.. every time I go to Morrison’s I can’t get the half of what I need. They have signs up and apologising for lack of stock. We will all lose weight and this will reduce the obesity crisis and pressure on nhs 😂😂😂

‘ There lies the problem, they are absolutely in denial of any possibility that the vaccines pose any sort of risk.

If they were, they would be upfront about the adverse reactions and recall it. But no, they have no interest in being transparent about the side effects, even the most extreme and fatal.’

@aboverubies7 they make you read a leaflet before giving you the vaccine which details all of the known side effects including the most serious.
They’re nothing different to the side effects known when it comes to other vaccines.
They have never been risk free.
You can easily find said side affects online too, nobody, absolutely nobody is disputing that issues can arise after having a vaccine.

It’s fairly standard knowledge @aboverubies7 what method is used for most vaccines.
Perhaps improve your knowledge and understand how our body reacts to these and why these new vaccines also work/ are safe.
It’s not a new method of vaccine and has been in the making for over 20 years.

You’re right, I am triggered highly by people like you. You are nothing more than an uneducated scaremonger and literally do no good to anyone. If anything, people like you cause more damage than good.
You’ve got to ask yourself, why are you so influenced by these nonsensical people who throw such ridiculous claims out there? What do you think their purpose is?

So aboverubies7 the hospital allowed an actor who was not sick to attach himself to equipment on the ward and was filmed for tv? It was all a lie? They tought no one would find out they were actors despite using their real names? Actors don't get covid?

I'm sorry, but that sounds exactly like the usual conspiracy theory stuff doing the rounds.

The whole crisis actor story looks like people have trawled the internet to find actors who may or may not look like the men in hospital. It's just like fake letters that go around facebook.

Also the whole crisis actor thing is highly offensive as it has it's roots in denial of mass school shootings in the US.

Said leaflet info.

Nothing medical is risk free, it’s about whether the risk of the illness is higher than the risk from taking the vaccine (which is mostly the case).
You can’t even get an epidural without signing to say you consent after reading that a side affect of that is death.

Didnt upload…

Oh it did… 🤦🏼‍♀️😅

@IncredulousOne

I just looked up ivermectin on the Cochrane website.

This is the go-to place to look up meta-analyses of data from multiple studies. We can discuss both meta-analyses and the Cochrane library further if you like?

Here is the analysis of the ivermectin data

www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

Here is the last paragraph and I will put some of it in bold

"National and international guidelines regarding the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 have been developed over the past 12 months. Recommendations from the WHO, updated 31 March 2021 (WHO 2021b); European Medicines Agency, updated 22 March 2021 (EMA 2021); Infectious Diseases Society of America, updated 13 February 2021 (IDSA 2021); and the COVID Management Guidelines India Group, updated 15 May 2021 (COVID Guidelines India 2021), concur that ivermectin should only be used for treatment of COVID‐19 in the context of clinical trials. The EMA additionally advises against the use of ivermectin for prophylaxis outside RCTs. (EMA 2021). The US NIH guidance updated on 11 February 2021 describes 'insufficient data' to permit a recommendation for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID‐19 (NIH 2021). One statement in February 2021 by Merck, a manufacturer of ivermectin, describes the conclusions of their review of the evidence as providing "no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or efficacy in patients with COVID‐19" (Merck 2021). "

Let’s face it though. Conspiracy theories are created by fear.
Unfortunately fear allows for easy manipulation with misinformation.
It really is sad to see such content on this thread that is full of more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese.

When we have a range of sources online that we can trust and bust the myths with.

The main conspiracy theorists I’ve seen online are generally known to the police and a bit ‘rough’ and probably just enjoy spreading fear and misinformation because they hate the system.

We’re all entitled to our own opinions but those opinions should at least come from trusted, correct information and not lies.

So you claim "there is currently no robust evidence for ivermectin". i think you're talking rubbish (yet again).

I've never known anyone to be so aggressively wrong about things. You certainly have an interesting posting technique. Your claims about ivermectin are wrong. I've addressed all of them before - suggest you do a little search on this.

I've reviewed most of the ivermectin lit as an epidemiologist. There is no robust (i.e., good quality, non-biased evidence) showing robust evidence of effect. More recently, several RCTs have found to be fraudulent. I'll copy my review of one below from yet another ivermectin thread.

Here you go:ivmmeta.com/That's a meta-analysis of 64 different studies - 56 of which showed a positive effect from ivermectin. By the way, the link is just the meta-analysis, but will allow you to find each of the individual studies.

This website is pseudo-science nonsense. The author has randomly picked outcomes from all studies that show some kind of positive effect, ignoring those that don't (and that's glossing over the many other issues). Have posted on this before.

Oh, and just to be clear, you said there is "no robust evidence for ivermectin". You didn't say "there are no studies I like which show robust evidence for ivermectin". You said "no robust evidence for ivermectin". So for your assertion to be true, you will need to disprove each and every one of these 56 studies which showed a positive benefit. Please be my guest to go ahead ant try...I will also draw your attention to tweet's by the FDA referring to Ivermectin as horse dewormer - which conveniently neglects to mention that it is also used widely in human medicine.

I have explained on many threads why a specific study is low quality and therefore cannot be used to infer causality. If you're happy to take the 3 hours necessary to read a paper - check it's methods, assess for ROB and do basic checks like making sure the numbers in tables add up, I'd be happy to discuss.

The FDA referred to veterinary grade ivermectin as a "horsewormer" which is true. This was necessary because people are literally taking the veterinary formulation of ivermectin, not safe for human consumption, leading to toxicity and overdoses. No one is denying (human grade) ivermectin is an effective safe treatment for some parasitic diseases.

For example:

ollyollyoxenfree Fri 03-Sep-21 20:03:54
Another day, another fraudulent ivermectin study

This one had massive red flags anyway - claimed a 100% prevention in ivermectin cases compared to controls (literally no intervention has such a huge effect size), an apparently 0% drop out rate, errors in tables, poor methodological design, analyses/graphics conducted in excel, no discussion section of the paper.

Oh, and it was accepted within 7 days into a predatory journal, and was by a lead author who despite having been an academic for 25 years had no previous publication.

And now it looks like the study was never actually conducted:

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data

All directed to @IncredulousOne ^

@herecomesthsun

The assertion by ollyolly was that there was "no robust evidence for ivermectin". I have demonstrated that there is.

You are welcome to state (as you have done) that other organisations have reached different conclusions as to its efficacy, but that doesn't negate the fact that ollyolly was (once again) spouting horses**t as fact.

Whilst I don’t especially believe a lab break in Wuhan occurred they do happen.

The last victim of smallpox was because of a lab break in England, I worked on this campus for many years though in a different dept. My older colleagues had worked on the campus at the time of this outbreak and told me about it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-45101091

They had lockdowns when the Great Plague was ravaging the UK in 1665. Eyam in Derbyshire chose at that time to cut itself off from the entire world. You can still see the holes cut in stone for villagers to leave money soaked in vinegar at the supplies drop off point.

As a young member of medical staff in the late 1980’s I had to have the Hepatitis B jab, you had to have it.

Pandemics usually take at least two years to burn themselves out. Without modern medical techniques the stats would look far grimmer. They can only ever be estimations but the Black Death very possibly wiped out up to 50% of Medieval Europe. Myself and an old colleague from those medical times agreed way back in March 2020 that life would be totally abnormal for at least two years. Nature is the one thing that humans will never ever have full control over.

The we have all been chipped is what I would call an actual conspiracy. theory. Lots of the stuff listed in the op are just measures that are tackling a tragedy in our lifetime that have actually happened before.

[quote IncredulousOne]@herecomesthsun

The assertion by ollyolly was that there was "no robust evidence for ivermectin". I have demonstrated that there is.

You are welcome to state (as you have done) that other organisations have reached different conclusions as to its efficacy, but that doesn't negate the fact that ollyolly was (once again) spouting horses**t as fact.[/quote]
But there isn't - see my post above.

And I said, probably hundreds of times on MN, there is no robust evidence for a causal effect of ivermectin on COVID outcomes.

For the sake of trying to limit the endless going round in circles on ivermectin, here's the last thread on it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/a4337107-Ivermectin-bonkersness?msgid=110468929

[quote sunnnysideup]@Ostara212 Ah yes, mandatory vaccination is another one. And it has been made mandatory for care home workers already. What’s to stop it being made mandatory in other industries?
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/15/covid-jabs-to-become-mandatory-for-care-home-staff-in-england

I’m not a conspiracy theorist honest 😅 although I have massive reservations (to put it lightly) about the Covid vaccine. I like to keep an open mind to anything and so many of these conspiracies everyone laughed at early 2020 and now true.[/quote]
I think you have no idea what conspiracy theory actually means!

@aboverubies7

You can find a lot of accounts of anti vaxxers unfortunately dying of Covid on this site. I don't believe they're all actors. You can easily look up the Facebook pages of quite a few of them and see all the anti vax misinformation they were posting. Until Covid put a stop to it.

www.sorryantivaxxer.com

That's hard hitting BlueBlancmange. Some of them are so young too.

@knittingaddict

So aboverubies7 the hospital allowed an actor who was not sick to attach himself to equipment on the ward and was filmed for tv? It was all a lie? They tought no one would find out they were actors despite using their real names? Actors don't get covid?

I'm sorry, but that sounds exactly like the usual conspiracy theory stuff doing the rounds.

Believe it or not, this is actually something that does go on, easy money. See this link

www.talenttalks.co.uk/audition/24488/