My reply to this latest excursion by Paul Alexander into the land of fallacy (see the accompanying photo).
_________
No, once again, Malone invented nothing.
Malone used existing cell transfection reagents in a particular way for a specific therapeutic purpose, which I have already explained many different times.
The people of three DIFFERENT companies used three different, existing varieties of cell transfection reagents in a different way (the infecting of healthy cells with viral genes) for a different purpose, ostensibly as a “vaccine,” but given the amount of serious adverse events (known in detail before they ever came on the “market” as EUA products), coverup, runaround, special definitions, and vituperation against critics, the actual purpose had to be something entirely different.
So Malone did something innovative, though unsuccessful, with cell transfection reagents at point A decades ago and others did something extremely stupid and dangerous with cell transfection reagents at point B just a short while ago.
That one preceded the other in time does not make the former responsible for the latter. Maintaining otherwise is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo, propter hoc.
Example 1: “I saw a guy smoking in a certain location where later a building burned down; therefore, he was the arsonist.”
Example 2: “Malone used cell transfection reagents decades ago to introduce human genes into human cells. Covid Inc uses cell transfection reagents to introduce viral genes into human cells. Therefore, Malone caused the actions of Covid Inc.”
That two different people or groups used the same primary mechanism of action but for very different purposes and with very different outcomes does not make the one the equivalent of the other. Maintaining otherwise is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term; here, the middle term is “the primary mechanism of action.”
Example 1: “Members of my political party are so fucking tired of all the shit being pulled by another political party. Members of that other political party say they are so fucking tired of what they claim to be all the shit my political party is pulling by pointing out what they are doing. Therefore, my political party is the same as or no different from the other political party.” The middle term is “being so fucking tired.”
Example 2: “The Republican Party raises and spends a lot of money on campaign ads and get out the vote efforts to get people elected to offices in the federal government. The Democrat Party raises and spends a lot of money on campaign ads and get out the vote efforts to get people elected to offices in the federal government. Therefore, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties because it’s all about money and control.” The middle term here is “raising and spending a lot of money on campaign ads and get out the vote efforts to get people elected to offices in the federal government.”
Example 3: “I want my money to be used for my own purposes and needs. A robber wants my money to be used for his own purposes and needs. Therefore, there’s no difference between the two of us because we both want exactly the same thing to be used for exactly the same classes of purpose.” The middle term is “my money and its uses.”
Example 4: “I eat carrots. Bugs Bunny eats carrots. Therefore, I am Bugs Bunny.” The middle term is “eating carrots.”
Example 5: “Malone used cell transfection reagents to introduce exogenous genes into cells. Covid Inc uses cell transfection reagents to introduce exogenous genes into cells. Therefore, Malone is part of Covid Inc.” The middle term is “using cell transfection reagents to introduce exogenous genes into cells.”
Variations on those types of arguments are used by the unscrupulous to try to sue gun manufacturers because a crook used the product in an unlawful manner for an unlawful purpose to harm someone else.
The fact that a steak knife can be used to murder someone or opening packages or eating a delicious juicy steak does not make Chicago Cutlery responsible for the death of a victim stabbed through the heart with a Chicago Cutlery paring knife, or a utility tools manufacturer, or responsible for destroying the ecosystem by encouraging the eating of meat and, therefore, the cattle industry, and, therefore, the proliferation of methane-farting animals.
The fact that Henry Ford put owning and operating a motor vehicle within the reach of the general public does not make Henry Ford, his descendants, the Ford Motor Company in particular, or the automotive industry in general responsible for Bonny and Clyde, bank robberies that use get-away vehicles or some maniacal Muslim mowing down a bunch of pedestrians with a panel van any more than Paul Masson or Orson Wells is responsible for someone who got drunk and got pregnant or for any other possible thing arising from or facilitated by the state of being inebriated.
And why not blame the DOV for the crimes committed by licensed drivers?
Maxim to remember here: It’s not the similarities but the differences that make the difference. Bonobos and humans are said to share over 99% of the same genes, but that overlap isn’t sufficient to justify boning a bonobo.
So in the matter of the primary mechanism of action of the viral mRNA products that is also exactly the same as the primary mechanism of action that is the mainstay of molecular biology research worldwide, focus on the differences that make the difference and stop boning bonobos.
I wonder if he is able to understand what you are saying even though you included examples. It’s his “daily song” for a few years. I got tired of it and unsubscribed.
Unsubbed yonks ago. Alexander is an earnest but stupid guy.