• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The Dive's Covid Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlsoTapered said:
The above video keeps repeating 'he says'. This guy:

en.wikipedia.org

Angus Dalgleish - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It's well worth reading about him.
Click to expand...

Seems like medically he is qualified at least.

Not too sure what to make of the contraveries part? He's gone against the official narrative and had ties to government agencies. That's about as much as i can deduce from reading the wiki link on him.
 
I merely suggested people read about him - I wasn't suggesting that a Wikipedia page constituted a limitation.

So finding and reading journal articles he's written is what I would consider APPROPRIATE reading.
 
elgoucho9 said:
Seems like medically he is qualified at least.

Not too sure what to make of the contraveries part? He's gone against the official narrative and had ties to government agencies. That's about as much as i can deduce from reading the wiki link on him.
Click to expand...
Being medically qualified doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to research and interpreting data. I don't know how many times I need to say this before people start to understand but medical physicians are not researchers, they get WAY different training than actual scientists. Medical training is a memorization degree where doctors are taught to care for patients not do or understand research
 
I think 35+ years working in the institute of cancer research he would be able to spot patterns in what's happening surely. His medical career according to that wikipedia link looks good. For instance he helped to discoved the CD4 receptor as a major cellular recptor for HIV, i imagine to do that he had to be able to interpret patterns in what happened to patients.

I mean how does Dalgleish benefit from saying any of this if he himself had shares in Biovacc? That's like me having shares in bluelight and telling you it's a dive don't bother with it.

Personally i think him having stock in many of these things is questionable. Medical professionals having shares in vaccine companies, it's not hard to see that could lead to corruption. But to say someone that qualified who's spent that long in the field wouldn't translate to being able to read data is quite a ridiculous stance to take IMO.
 
Last edited:
He's making the fundamental error that all doctors who believe themselves able researchers do. He hasn't noted that in the UK, people who have previously suffered from cancer are specifically targeted by the NHS to receive vaccinations. So as a demographic they are MUCH more likely to have had all the boosters. So I think we can explain THAT correlation.

And people who have survived one cancer are at an increased risk of developing other cancers. That's hardly a new finding.

He hasn't, to my knowledge, published ANY paper on his opinion - I don't say hypothesis since I've just explained the correlation.

Now a study would specifically segregate patients based on how many vaccinations they have had. I'm fairly sure their will still be enough cancer patients who are unvaccinated, only has one booster and so on. That done, you have removed one bias. I can find no mention of any effort to do so.

But a proper study would require one to take a very large sample of people over 20 or 30 years to see if covid vaccination increases the statistical likelihood of those people suffering from cancer at some point. What he fails to point out is that an oncologist will have no reason to deal with a patient who doesn't have cancer. So he doesn't have an unbiased data-set.

Spontaneous tumor regression following COVID-19 vaccination | Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer

jitc.bmj.com

It's a bit like me using the above as 'proof' that covid vaccines actually cure cancer.

I've seen videos by that guy before and to quote my favourite review 'he makes a grain of sand cover a desert of lies'.

Quoting the OPINION of an oncologist is technically termed here say.
 
AlsoTapered said:
He's making the fundamental error that all doctors who believe themselves able researchers do. He hasn't noted that in the UK, people who have previously suffered from cancer are specifically targeted by the NHS to receive vaccinations. So as a demographic they are MUCH more likely to have had all the boosters. So I think we can explain THAT correlation.

And people who have survived one cancer are at an increased risk of developing other cancers. That's hardly a new finding.

He hasn't, to my knowledge, published ANY paper on his opinion - I don't say hypothesis since I've just explained the correlation.

Now a study would specifically segregate patients based on how many vaccinations they have had. I'm fairly sure their will still be enough cancer patients who are unvaccinated, only has one booster and so on. That done, you have removed one bias. I can find no mention of any effort to do so.

But a proper study would require one to take a very large sample of people over 20 or 30 years to see if covid vaccination increases the statistical likelihood of those people suffering from cancer at some point. What he fails to point out is that an oncologist will have no reason to deal with a patient who doesn't have cancer. So he doesn't have an unbiased data-set.

Spontaneous tumor regression following COVID-19 vaccination | Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer

jitc.bmj.com

It's a bit like me using the above as 'proof' that covid vaccines actually cure cancer.

I've seen videos by that guy before and to quote my favourite review 'he makes a grain of sand cover a desert of lies'.

Quoting the OPINION of an oncologist is technically termed here say.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what the first paragraph is about. He's claiming covid vaccines didn't help people with cancer. What relevence is it where they are? He's saying in the vaccinated this happened. So they had to have the vaccine either way the people he's looking at. What your saying doesn't make sense, unless you think the number of boosters accelerated cancer?

I do agree more should be done to study whether what he's saying is correct. I thought it was interesting so posted it, i was not aware there isn't a paper to back it up which i concede does beg questions.

When I google search Dalgleish himself it brings up so many questions. Like why was he ever claiming this when he owns vaccine shares, and also was instrumental in telling young people to take the jab etc. It doesn't make sense to me why then later he would make claims like this at all to be honest.
 
An article in a domain https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk that runs no ads.

As I always ask 'who gains'? Ads, at least ones that offer goods and/or services at least mean that a news outlet has a visible income stream. So any site without ads - you have to question the funding.

WHOIS is a dead end.

Searching for all email addresses attached to a domain is also a useful insight. [email protected] is the ONLY email address attached to that domain.

A bit of history:

www.desmog.com

TCW Defending Freedom (formerly The Conservative Woman)

Background The Conservative Woman (CW) is a conservative blog established in 2014 as a “counter-cultural offensive against the forces of Leftism, feminism and modernism.” [1] The CW aims to challenge what it describes as “the left-liberal cultural zeitgeist” and the “anti-family, authoritarian...
www.desmog.com www.desmog.com

Now they changed the name to TCW for a reason. Search for rebuttals of articles that ran in 'The Conservative Woman' and you will see it's not a media outlet famed for it's veracity.

As to why the good doctor wrote an article - I don't know, But the fact he begins by conflating 'suppressed' with 'not accepted by independent reviewers' might be a good reason. MANY doctors, especially those who have amassed many letters after their name that ALL just refer to their expertise in practice seem to think that they can retire into the field of research,

So if I had to guess, it's because he might have spent YEARS writing a thesis only for it to be judged unacceptable. A conflict of interest is a VERY good reason for reviewers to reject. I've been rejected but they always say why. If it's because it needs clarification, you modify and resubmit. If for the entire period of research a major contributor had a conflict of interests, it cannot be amended and resubmitted.

So that might be anywhere from 5-8 years of work that he's angry is being 'ignored'. But I'm highly skeptical that TCW was his chosen outlet - more likely he tried every decent media outlet and they all turned it down until he's reduced to having it published in TCW.

It could represent him not having an appropriate qualification to obtain a job.

That's why doctors almost universally fail when they try to write journal articles. Anyone studying for a pHd will have a supervisor who will read your proposition, guide you through the pitfalls and ensure that a submitted paper at least fulfils all of the criteria required for acceptance. But doctors almost never have supervisors. They presume they know.

It's kind of a joke within the medical research field.
 
BTW their are 384 businesses that use 73 Cornhill, London as their official address.

THE CONSERVATIVE WOMAN LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

THE CONSERVATIVE WOMAN LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Above is the Companies House data on 'The Conservative Woman'.

Laura Perrins - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Above is the Wikipedia page of the director/owner.

muckrack.com

Muck Rack | For journalists and public relations

Articles by Laura Perrins on Muck Rack. Find Laura Perrins's email address, contact information, LinkedIn, Twitter, other social media and more.
muckrack.com muckrack.com

Above is The Muck Rack listing of all the media outlets she's written for.

I could go on... but none of it is pretty.
 
Fucking noone is wearing a mask here anymore. Every fucking store i go to noone is wearing a mask because most Newfoundlanders are not big on science. I am going to continue wearing a mask until this shit is over with because i am determined not to get covid
 
elgoucho9 said:
I think 35+ years working in the institute of cancer research he would be able to spot patterns in what's happening surely. His medical career according to that wikipedia link looks good. For instance he helped to discoved the CD4 receptor as a major cellular recptor for HIV, i imagine to do that he had to be able to interpret patterns in what happened to patients.

I mean how does Dalgleish benefit from saying any of this if he himself had shares in Biovacc? That's like me having shares in bluelight and telling you it's a dive don't bother with it.

Personally i think him having stock in many of these things is questionable. Medical professionals having shares in vaccine companies, it's not hard to see that could lead to corruption. But to say someone that qualified who's spent that long in the field wouldn't translate to being able to read data is quite a ridiculous stance to take IMO.
Click to expand...
If his message hurts the pharmaceutical industry in any way, then these people are trained to attack and not believe them. The shear amount of social conditioning and propaganda it took to get people to this point is astonishing. I’m just glad I never took it and don’t have to worry about developing some immune issue or cancer lol
 
paranoid android said:
Fucking noone is wearing a mask here anymore. Every fucking store i go to noone is wearing a mask because most Newfoundlanders are not big on science. I am going to continue wearing a mask until this shit is over with because i am determined not to get covid
Click to expand...
I was in a neo liberal area the past few days. It’s the first time I saw people in masks, but it’s mostly just black people and npr listening wine aunts.
 
paranoid android said:
Fucking noone is wearing a mask here anymore. Every fucking store i go to noone is wearing a mask because most Newfoundlanders are not big on science. I am going to continue wearing a mask until this shit is over with because i am determined not to get covid
Click to expand...
can't tell if this is facetious or not?

Most newfies I know are good people.

I haven't worn a mask from the start (I did wear a bandana type "covering" when required at work). Didn't get the shot. Haven't had Covid - was testing regularly for a few years as I worked closely with the public.
 
JahBeeuS said:
can't tell if this is facetious or not?

Most newfies I know are good people.

I haven't worn a mask from the start (I did wear a bandana type "covering" when required at work). Didn't get the shot. Haven't had Covid - was testing regularly for a few years as I worked closely with the public.
Click to expand...
Based pure blood jah 🫡
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top