Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[jhkim]

Take a look at some of his archived tweets, he's almost as much of a loon as Kiero: https://web.archive.org/web/20160428205144/https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7

Ok. Let's go with he's an alt-right, holocaust denier. That does not impute the information in that Substack article, which comes from Yle.

  What is the definition of a holocaust denier?  I have seen that moniker tossed around for things that did not involve denying of the holocaust.   I would like a detailed definition of that that means exactly.  Maybe one for white supremacist and racist as well.  Why we are at it, get one on paper for alt right.  Because those words seem to cover broader and broader varieties of people/actions all the time.

For Peter Imanuelsen, the claims of being a Holocaust denier come from posts like this:


Source: https://kwasbeb.se/2017/05/02/en-av-soppans-alla-ingredienser/

He claims that evidence of his Holocaust denial are fabrications.

If these are true, that doesn't invalidate the covid evidence he cites, but it is significant for context. For example, Holocaust deniers can honestly cite that some claims of how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust are almost certainly overestimates. In their context, such an overestimate shows evidence of how the narrative is being stretched. For Holocaust believers, though, it doesn't deny the basic truth of the Holocaust.

It is similar with the claim that only four thousand people died of covid in Finland instead of six thousand. I haven't checked the details there, but even if true, the issue is how much it changes the narrative.

[Ratman_tf]

Take a look at some of his archived tweets, he's almost as much of a loon as Kiero: https://web.archive.org/web/20160428205144/https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7

Ok. Let's go with he's an alt-right, holocaust denier. That does not impute the information in that Substack article, which comes from Yle.

  What is the definition of a holocaust denier?  I have seen that moniker tossed around for things that did not involve denying of the holocaust.   I would like a detailed definition of that that means exactly.  Maybe one for white supremacist and racist as well.  Why we are at it, get one on paper for alt right.  Because those words seem to cover broader and broader varieties of people/actions all the time.

For Peter Imanuelsen, the claims of being a Holocaust denier come from posts like this:


Source: https://kwasbeb.se/2017/05/02/en-av-soppans-alla-ingredienser/

He claims that evidence of his Holocaust denial are fabrications.

If these are true, that doesn't invalidate the covid evidence he cites, but it is significant for context. For example, Holocaust deniers can honestly cite that some claims of how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust are almost certainly overestimates. In their context, such an overestimate shows evidence of how the narrative is being stretched. For Holocaust believers, though, it doesn't deny the basic truth of the Holocaust.

It is similar with the claim that only four thousand people died of covid in Finland instead of six thousand. I haven't checked the details there, but even if true, the issue is how much it changes the narrative.

Does a couple thousand change the narrative that dramatically? I also don't think Nazi apologia is that similar to questioning the recent Covid shenanigans. Only at the base question of "How many people died?" But we have direct, recent evidence that Covid numbers have been exaggerated. Nazi apologia is scrutinizing 75ish year old history for discrepancies in order to deny or downplay the henious actions of some of our fellow human beings.

[dkabq]

Take a look at some of his archived tweets, he's almost as much of a loon as Kiero: https://web.archive.org/web/20160428205144/https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7

Ok. Let's go with he's an alt-right, holocaust denier. That does not impute the information in that Substack article, which comes from Yle.

  What is the definition of a holocaust denier?  I have seen that moniker tossed around for things that did not involve denying of the holocaust.   I would like a detailed definition of that that means exactly.  Maybe one for white supremacist and racist as well.  Why we are at it, get one on paper for alt right.  Because those words seem to cover broader and broader varieties of people/actions all the time.

For Peter Imanuelsen, the claims of being a Holocaust denier come from posts like this:


Source: https://kwasbeb.se/2017/05/02/en-av-soppans-alla-ingredienser/

He claims that evidence of his Holocaust denial are fabrications.

If these are true, that doesn't invalidate the covid evidence he cites, but it is significant for context. For example, Holocaust deniers can honestly cite that some claims of how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust are almost certainly overestimates. In their context, such an overestimate shows evidence of how the narrative is being stretched. For Holocaust believers, though, it doesn't deny the basic truth of the Holocaust.

It is similar with the claim that only four thousand people died of covid in Finland instead of six thousand. I haven't checked the details there, but even if true, the issue is how much it changes the narrative.

He is not making the claim. He's just repeating what was published in an article on the Yle website. And Yle is Finland's public service media company. The Finnish Parliament decides on Yle's task and funding.

It is not clear what "narrative" you are referring to.


Checking the details is a simple as clicking on the two links.
https://yle.fi/news/3-12668492
https://yle.fi/aihe/s/about-yle/public-service

[dkabq]

Take a look at some of his archived tweets, he's almost as much of a loon as Kiero: https://web.archive.org/web/20160428205144/https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7

Ok. Let's go with he's an alt-right, holocaust denier. That does not impute the information in that Substack article, which comes from Yle.

  What is the definition of a holocaust denier?  I have seen that moniker tossed around for things that did not involve denying of the holocaust.   I would like a detailed definition of that that means exactly.  Maybe one for white supremacist and racist as well.  Why we are at it, get one on paper for alt right.  Because those words seem to cover broader and broader varieties of people/actions all the time.

For Peter Imanuelsen, the claims of being a Holocaust denier come from posts like this:


Source: https://kwasbeb.se/2017/05/02/en-av-soppans-alla-ingredienser/

He claims that evidence of his Holocaust denial are fabrications.

If these are true, that doesn't invalidate the covid evidence he cites, but it is significant for context. For example, Holocaust deniers can honestly cite that some claims of how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust are almost certainly overestimates. In their context, such an overestimate shows evidence of how the narrative is being stretched. For Holocaust believers, though, it doesn't deny the basic truth of the Holocaust.

It is similar with the claim that only four thousand people died of covid in Finland instead of six thousand. I haven't checked the details there, but even if true, the issue is how much it changes the narrative.

Does a couple thousand change the narrative that dramatically? I also don't think Nazi apologia is that similar to questioning the recent Covid shenanigans. Only at the base question of "How many people died?" But we have direct, recent evidence that Covid numbers have been exaggerated. Nazi apologia is scrutinizing 75ish year old history for discrepancies in order to deny or downplay the henious actions of some of our fellow human beings.

Mis-counting by 40% does change the narrative dramatically. It demonstrates that those in charge of doing the counting were either incompetent or purposefully over-counted to stoke fear in the public.

[jhkim]

I also don't think Nazi apologia is that similar to questioning the recent Covid shenanigans. Only at the base question of "How many people died?" But we have direct, recent evidence that Covid numbers have been exaggerated. Nazi apologia is scrutinizing 75ish year old history for discrepancies in order to deny or downplay the henious actions of some of our fellow human beings.

We also have direct, recent evidence that covid numbers have been downplayed - like the cover-up of deaths in New York nursing homes, or China's claim that it only had 5000 covid deaths total, which is unbelievably low compared to all other countries. There is a lot of possible uncertainty with covid deaths, because

1) Worldwide, many people died without having taken a covid test.
2) The vast majority of deaths don't have an autopsy and a proven cause of death established.

This has lead to many claims back and forth over how to count in the absence of an autopsy proving cause of death, and how to estimate those who weren't tested.

[Ratman_tf]

I also don't think Nazi apologia is that similar to questioning the recent Covid shenanigans. Only at the base question of "How many people died?" But we have direct, recent evidence that Covid numbers have been exaggerated. Nazi apologia is scrutinizing 75ish year old history for discrepancies in order to deny or downplay the henious actions of some of our fellow human beings.

We also have direct, recent evidence that covid numbers have been downplayed - like the cover-up of deaths in New York nursing homes, or China's claim that it only had 5000 covid deaths total, which is unbelievably low compared to all other countries. There is a lot of possible uncertainty with covid deaths, because

1) Worldwide, many people died without having taken a covid test.
2) The vast majority of deaths don't have an autopsy and a proven cause of death established.

This has lead to many claims back and forth over how to count in the absence of an autopsy proving cause of death, and how to estimate those who weren't tested.

Also the cases that were lumped into dying from Covid, when they died from some other cause, but tested positive for Covid. There's been a lot of shenanigans going on regarding the response to Covid, and plenty of reason for scrutiny and scepticism.

[jhkim]

I also don't think Nazi apologia is that similar to questioning the recent Covid shenanigans. Only at the base question of "How many people died?" But we have direct, recent evidence that Covid numbers have been exaggerated. Nazi apologia is scrutinizing 75ish year old history for discrepancies in order to deny or downplay the henious actions of some of our fellow human beings.

We also have direct, recent evidence that covid numbers have been downplayed - like the cover-up of deaths in New York nursing homes, or China's claim that it only had 5000 covid deaths total, which is unbelievably low compared to all other countries. There is a lot of possible uncertainty with covid deaths, because

1) Worldwide, many people died without having taken a covid test.
2) The vast majority of deaths don't have an autopsy and a proven cause of death established.

This has lead to many claims back and forth over how to count in the absence of an autopsy proving cause of death, and how to estimate those who weren't tested.

Also the cases that were lumped into dying from Covid, when they died from some other cause, but tested positive for Covid. There's been a lot of shenanigans going on regarding the response to Covid, and plenty of reason for scrutiny and scepticism.

Yes, I absolutely agree there is reason for scrutiny and skepticism. There have been a lot of varying claims from varying sources about it.

[Ratman_tf]

I also don't think Nazi apologia is that similar to questioning the recent Covid shenanigans. Only at the base question of "How many people died?" But we have direct, recent evidence that Covid numbers have been exaggerated. Nazi apologia is scrutinizing 75ish year old history for discrepancies in order to deny or downplay the henious actions of some of our fellow human beings.

We also have direct, recent evidence that covid numbers have been downplayed - like the cover-up of deaths in New York nursing homes, or China's claim that it only had 5000 covid deaths total, which is unbelievably low compared to all other countries. There is a lot of possible uncertainty with covid deaths, because

1) Worldwide, many people died without having taken a covid test.
2) The vast majority of deaths don't have an autopsy and a proven cause of death established.

This has lead to many claims back and forth over how to count in the absence of an autopsy proving cause of death, and how to estimate those who weren't tested.

Also the cases that were lumped into dying from Covid, when they died from some other cause, but tested positive for Covid. There's been a lot of shenanigans going on regarding the response to Covid, and plenty of reason for scrutiny and scepticism.

Yes, I absolutely agree there is reason for scrutiny and skepticism. There have been a lot of varying claims from varying sources about it.

Congratulations. You are now a MEGA MAGA anti-vaxx science denier who eats horse paste.

[Kiero]

We also have direct, recent evidence that covid numbers have been downplayed - like the cover-up of deaths in New York nursing homes, or China's claim that it only had 5000 covid deaths total, which is unbelievably low compared to all other countries. There is a lot of possible uncertainty with covid deaths, because

1) Worldwide, many people died without having taken a covid test.
2) The vast majority of deaths don't have an autopsy and a proven cause of death established.

This has lead to many claims back and forth over how to count in the absence of an autopsy proving cause of death, and how to estimate those who weren't tested.

Sorry, this is utter bullshit. The entire fiction of "covid deaths" falls apart because of the entirely new and novel cause of death they invented in 2020.

Namely that anyone who dies of any cause, within 28/60 days of a positive "covid test" is classed as a covid death. That is garbage and designed to deliberately obfuscate and over-inflate the figures.

[GeekyBugle]

Take a look at some of his archived tweets, he's almost as much of a loon as Kiero: https://web.archive.org/web/20160428205144/https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7

Ok. Let's go with he's an alt-right, holocaust denier. That does not impute the information in that Substack article, which comes from Yle.

  What is the definition of a holocaust denier?  I have seen that moniker tossed around for things that did not involve denying of the holocaust.   I would like a detailed definition of that that means exactly.  Maybe one for white supremacist and racist as well.  Why we are at it, get one on paper for alt right.  Because those words seem to cover broader and broader varieties of people/actions all the time.

For Peter Imanuelsen, the claims of being a Holocaust denier come from posts like this:


Source: https://kwasbeb.se/2017/05/02/en-av-soppans-alla-ingredienser/

He claims that evidence of his Holocaust denial are fabrications.

If these are true, that doesn't invalidate the covid evidence he cites, but it is significant for context. For example, Holocaust deniers can honestly cite that some claims of how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust are almost certainly overestimates. In their context, such an overestimate shows evidence of how the narrative is being stretched. For Holocaust believers, though, it doesn't deny the basic truth of the Holocaust.

It is similar with the claim that only four thousand people died of covid in Finland instead of six thousand. I haven't checked the details there, but even if true, the issue is how much it changes the narrative.

Bolding mine, the only part worth addressing since you yourself admit that the holocaust/nazi charges are just a genetic fallacy.

Let me give you an example:

"Last year there was a 200% increase in murders in city X"

"Last year 3 people were murdered in city X versus 1 murder the year before"

It's the same reason why they stoped publicizing the deaths and changed to cases.

Inflating the numbers makes it easier to scare people.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

Mis-counting by 40% does change the narrative dramatically. It demonstrates that those in charge of doing the counting were either incompetent or purposefully over-counted to stoke fear in the public.

It also significantly affects the key calculations of case fatality rates and infection fatality rates, which are the figures most often used to indicate appropriate policy responses. If those rates turn out in real life to have been significantly over-estimated, then the case for repeating or retaining those policies goes out the window.

[Kiero]

It also significantly affects the key calculations of case fatality rates and infection fatality rates, which are the figures most often used to indicate appropriate policy responses. If those rates turn out in real life to have been significantly over-estimated, then the case for repeating or retaining those policies goes out the window.

I hate to break it to you, Stephen, but there never was a case for those policies. It was always a lie. Many of the architects looked at China and wondered if they could pull off the same repressive shit, then were pleasantly surprised when the bovine majority willingly went along with it.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

... there never was a case for those policies. It was always a lie.

Oh, you don't have to convince me of that. I lost all fear of the bug the moment the Diamond Princess stats came out in April 2020. But being able to artificially inflate CFRs and IFRs is one of the reasons the lie was more convincing than it might have been.

That said, I think there was as much Gell-Mann amnesia going on as there was deliberate lying. Gell-Mann amnesia is, of course, as any Michael Crichton fan will know, the effect by which one can read a popular media article on a topic one knows very well, see for oneself how badly the media usually botch it up, and then somehow forget this experience when evaluating media articles on topics one doesn't know well, thereby assuming with no justification whatsoever that they are somehow more accurate in others' expertises than they are in your own.

In this case, everybody involved in trying to manage the pandemic almost certainly engaged in a little, shall we say, constructive exaggeration of their own areas of responsibility, to try to get people to take it more seriously -- the people studying contagion erred on the high side for safety, the people tallying death rates erred on the side of including rather than excluding, the people studying masks exaggerated effectiveness so as to maximize participation, etc., etc., etc. ... and somehow nobody quite realized that if they were doing this, probably everybody else was as well, and the cumulative effect of all those distortions created a runaway panic.

Which is not to say there weren't plenty of deliberate, malicious lies as well -- Pfizer's and Moderna's actions amount to war crimes, as far as I'm concerned -- but only that I don't think we need to assume widespread conscious conspiracy as an explanation for the entire thing. (Except perhaps on China for covering it up, and on the Democratic Party for exploiting it to put favourable election-procedure laws in place.)

[Kiero]

Oh, you don't have to convince me of that. I lost all fear of the bug the moment the Diamond Princess stats came out in April 2020. But being able to artificially inflate CFRs and IFRs is one of the reasons the lie was more convincing than it might have been.

That said, I think there was as much Gell-Mann amnesia going on as there was deliberate lying. Gell-Mann amnesia is, of course, as any Michael Crichton fan will know, the effect by which one can read a popular media article on a topic one knows very well, see for oneself how badly the media usually botch it up, and then somehow forget this experience when evaluating media articles on topics one doesn't know well, thereby assuming with no justification whatsoever that they are somehow more accurate in others' expertises than they are in your own.

In this case, everybody involved in trying to manage the pandemic almost certainly engaged in a little, shall we say, constructive exaggeration of their own areas of responsibility, to try to get people to take it more seriously -- the people studying contagion erred on the high side for safety, the people tallying death rates erred on the side of including rather than excluding, the people studying masks exaggerated effectiveness so as to maximize participation, etc., etc., etc. ... and somehow nobody quite realized that if they were doing this, probably everybody else was as well, and the cumulative effect of all those distortions created a runaway panic.

Which is not to say there weren't plenty of deliberate, malicious lies as well -- Pfizer's and Moderna's actions amount to war crimes, as far as I'm concerned -- but only that I don't think we need to assume widespread conscious conspiracy as an explanation for the entire thing. (Except perhaps on China for covering it up, and on the Democratic Party for exploiting it to put favourable election-procedure laws in place.)

Absolutely, the Diamond Princess should have been the end of all the sensationalist scaremongering.

I've lost the ability not to see this as orchestrated given how many of the same people keep popping up in different areas. Like the aforementioned James C Smith, connected with Reuters (media), Pfizer (Big Pharma) and the WEF. Goes beyond coincidence.

Then we have slips like this in an interview (Stanley Johnson is the father of former British PM Boris Johnson):

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1591766939436986368

He's not just some random crank, he's former European Commissioner with "business ties" to China. Talking about how all this eco-bollocks with climate change and carbon credits is route into the Social Credit system.

[Kiero]

For those of you who still think it's a coincidence that all these things are happening together. FTX (the Bidens money-laundering outfit of choice in Ukraine) funded the "trial" that concluded Ivermectin doesn't work on covid (even though it does): https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1592597971727962113

FTX is also a "partner" of the WEF.

No sign of co-ordination or orchestration, though...