Find me on twitter! Click the link in the description below! Me bad want money now. On twitter though, nearly double digit followers. I just want 12, DUCY
I promote off-guardian.org, https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19, Richieallen.co.uk, UK column youtube channel as alternative media, there may be others, let me know. But "public opinion" is created and controlled by the mass media
Conspiracy crank? No. Edward bernays, father of public relations.
Awful lot of words just to say "I actually am a conspiracy crank and I only want to be right on the web"
The harm is large enough that the healthcare system is overrun with illness.
There we have it, you saw something on TV and you believed it. Don't usually go in for the "sheeple" label, not wanting to appear smug, but on this occasion it describes precisely the groupthink on display. Frigging utter morons.
Nah. I just have friends that work in hospitals. If this is some global conspiracy, they've done an amazing job of getting play actors across the nation and around the world to fake it.
You should try visiting some hospitals right now. Maybe getting information from places other than the internet. Do your own on-the-ground research. You know... the things that you claim to have done as a flat earther, while never once producing any evidence. That sort of stuff.
As I already stated, many hospitals were already bursting due to years of privatisation, under funding and particularly in the UK a crisis in social care which was in need of 4 billion pounds of funding and received just 2bn from the May government, which means patients lying in hospital beds and taking up space because there is nowhere to send them in the community. Of course, there were variations depending on the location and time of attendance. Exactly the same now, many hospitals like ghost towns as all routine appointments cancelled and, surprise surprise, no surge in Covid-19 patients because.... Drum roll.... Most cases are symptomless and those with symptoms are asked to stay away!
Ask your pals in the hospitals whether old folks in the US have faced the same tyranny as in the UK - citizens with serious ongoing illnesses have been sent DNR notices which they are expected to sign, one report states a man refused to sign and the doctor signed on his behalf... And when those people die, guess what their death will be recorded as? Corona baby and you know it. Already happening, see Swiss propaganda research for evidence of this morbid accountancy trick. And here, an excellent summary of this practice in the latest article published at off-guardian.org
Germany
Quote:
On March 20th the President of Germany’s Robert Koch Institute confirmed that Germany counts any deceased person who was infected with coronavirus as a Covid19 death, whether or not it actually caused death.
This totally ignores what Dr Sucharit Bhakdi calls the vital distinction between “infection” and “disease”, leading to stories such as this, shared by Dr Hendrik Streeck:
In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that was without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics.
How many “Covid19 deaths” in Germany, fall into this bracket? We don’t know, and will likely never know.
The US
Quote:
In the United States, a briefing note from the CDC’s National Vital Statistics Service read as follows [our emphasis]:
It is important to emphasise that Coronavirus Disease 19, or Covid-19, should be reported for all decedents where the disease caused or is presumed to have caused or contributed to death.
“Presumed to have caused”? “Contributed”? That’s incredibly soft language, which could easily lead to over-reporting.
The referenced detailed “guidance” was released April 3rd, and is no better [again, our emphasis]:
In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely.
Are careful records being kept to separate “Covid-19” from “presumed Covid-19”? Are the media making sure they respect the distinction in their reporting?
Absolutely not.
Ireland
Quote:
Northern Ireland’s HSC Public Health Agency is releasing weekly surveillance bulletins on the pandemic, in those reports they define a “Covid19 death” as:
individuals who have died within 28 days of first positive result, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death
I was told on 2p2 that I 'would not find a single expert' to state that coronavirus is around the same lethality as flu while I claimed the mortality rate would approximate that of seasonal flu.
Exhibit A - Dr John Ioannidis.
Quote:
Greek-American physician-scientist and writer who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself, meta-research primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences. Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.
Born in New York City in 1965, Ioannidis was raised in Athens, Greece. He was Valedictorian of his class at Athens College, graduating in 1984, and won a number of awards, including the National Award of the Greek Mathematical Society. He graduated in the top rank of his class at the University of Athens Medical School, then attended Harvard University for his medical residency in internal medicine. He did a fellowship at Tufts University for infectious disease.
He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine and adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine. He has also been President of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology, and is one of the most-cited medical researchers of all time.
Since 2010 Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director, along with Steven N. Goodman, of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS). He is the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.
our data suggests that covid-19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza
So sit the feck down whoever accuses me of "covid denialism".
2) Debunking coronavirus PSEUDOSCIENCE
Is sars-cov2 a 'novel coronavirus' that causes a new disease covid-19? If you think the answer is yes you will first need to debunk Dr Andrew Kaufman. Dr. Kaufman is a board certified MD licensed in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. He is also a former medical instructor of hematology and oncology at the Medical University of South Carolina and a graduate in Bachelors of Science in Biology at the MIT.
He argues, convincingly to me as a layman, that there has been no valid test to determine whether a novel virus exists - what he refers to as the 'gold standard', an apparently basic term in this field that first year medical students know. Without a gold standard there is nothing to compare test results to. The entire narrative behind this scam rests not on science, but pseudoscience. What the pseudo-testing shows is generic genetic material. He demonstrates that the cells attributed to the 'novel' coronavirus are exosomes produced by the body as a response to toxins, 'insults' such as stress, cancer, radiation, infection, diseases (and speculates of the possibility of 5G as a specific aggravating factor though no research is available).
This explains why there are an estimated 80% false positive results. This really is astonishing as politicians in the west clamour for 'more testing' they do not realise (or perhaps do realise) these tests are bunk and will find any old genetic material as a result of natural defence to a vast array of possible insults.
3) Debunking the cultists
For those who feel the need to wear a Bane-style/Ninja face mask, and particularly to dictatorial politicians demanding citizens join the cult of covid, the WHO itself (could I get a more hostile witness) says this:
Quote:
If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
I'm considering having this printed on a shirt, should the govt dictate that I wear a mask in order to get on a bus, for instance.
4) Who is behind the leading contender for vaccine production in the UK?
For once, not Bill Gates it seems. Although Gates has funded 'our' Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty to the tune of £31m for vaccine 'research' on Africans...
Quote:
In 2008, he was awarded $40m (£31m) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for malaria research in Africa
… as well as a handout to the Imperial College London, specifically Neil "foot and mouth disaster" Ferguson, who have fed the govt disastrous models dictating govt policy despite their predictions of UK coronavirus deaths being around 480 000 too high.
UK journalist Richie Allen (richieallen.co.uk) on his radio show exposed the links between the people running the Oxford University effort to find a 'vaccine', Google, and the Bilderberg group. Oxford uni is developing and from next week human testing a vaccine. The owner of the vaccine is "vaccitech", an offshoot of the University, a company owned by GV, (Google ventures) the investment arm of 'Alphabet group'.
Quote:
Vaccitech is backed by leading investment institutions, including GV (formerly Google Ventures), Sequoia Capital China, Liontrust (formerly Neptune), Korea Investment Partners and Oxford Sciences Innovation
Alphabet group owns "DeepMind technologies" - an AI company doing machine learning operating without human input... Alphabet big cheese Eric Shmidt is an annual Bilderberger -
Quote:
Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt says that Google DeepMind, the London artificial intelligence company that Google acquired in 2014 for $500 million (£352 million), is "one of the greatest British success stories of the modern age."
Since the anti-body test is twice removed from a non-existent gold standard we might expect its false positive rate to be 96% ( 1 - [1 - 0.8][1 - 0.8] ). Of course, the real false positive rates on all the tests is 100% because the virus doesn't even exist. Maybe the dead bodies in those freezer trucks are all staged as well. Cool.
That's correct, the virus does not exist, that is, there is no scientific validation for its existence where the virus has been isolated and identified. Koch's postulates - proof that a microbe causes a disease - have not been fulfilled for this "Novel coronavirus". Yes you could argue the false positive rate is 100% but that itself is giving the testing too much credit. Initially I was citing a study of Wuhan which estimated a false positive rate of over 50% which means the testing is flawed - which is important if you are 'tested' positive and lose 2 weeks income or are proscribed potentially dangerous anti-viral drugs. But what Dr Kaufman shows is that the test itself is not a test, ie there is no control group, and we all know how important that is, right? Right. What they are looking for is a sequence of RNA that matches the sequence they believe to be the virus, but they are finding generic sequences of DNA whose properties match with exosomes that are produced naturally by the body to deal with toxins. Kaufman uses the example of sending a guy with a red hat into a sports stadium and then looking for him in the stands. We find 6 guys with a red hat so we conclude the guy is in the stand. But he actually took the hat off and threw it away. Correlation is not causation, and we all know how important that is, right? Like if you find a freezer truck of dead bodies you don't know the cause of death, for instance. A report of a New York paramedic detailed his night shift as a horrifying war zone. Perhaps this is a regular night in New York but more importantly the article finished by stating 'none of the 12 deceased described in the article were tested positive for coronavirus'. And did you hear about the guy hit by a bus who died, after testing positive for coronavirus?
That's correct, the virus does not exist, that is, there is no scientific validation for its existence where the virus has been isolated and identified.
Scientists are sequencing the genome of the virus. It's hard to do that if something doesn't exist or has not been isolated or identified.
Feud over Stanford coronavirus study: ‘The authors owe us all an apology’ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/...ll-an-apology/
---------------------------------------
Loud sobbing reported from under reverend Bayes' grave stone.
Seriously, I might use this as an example in my class to show how NOT to do statistics. Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives.
=====================
I'd have a lot more respect for what Billy Shears presents if he would work as hard to research and present the other side of the story as well. That would make him a seeker of truth rather than the propaganda troll that he is. Sad. It's a waste of a good mind.
They are not scientists, even a layman like me (and you should really take the blinkers off here) can see this is really a joke. In amongst a bunch of pretender sycophants in the comments in the piece there is this question
"So where is the gold standard initially made regarding covid19?"
That is a great question which is unanswered. They are taking generic sequences of RNA from a patient - tell me, how the feck do they know the patient is infected prior to taking the sample from them and then what are they comparing this with to determine the patient is carrying the 'virus'?
Feud over Stanford coronavirus study: ‘The authors owe us all an apology’ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/...ll-an-apology/
---------------------------------------
Loud sobbing reported from under reverend Bayes' grave stone.
Seriously, I might use this as an example in my class to show how NOT to do statistics. Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives.
=====================
I'd have a lot more respect for what Billy Shears presents if he would work as hard to research and present the other side of the story as well. That would make him a seeker of truth rather than the propaganda troll that he is. Sad. It's a waste of a good mind.
PairTheBoard
There is a lot of filibuster and ad hom in that piece, not much in the way of actual critique. The authors say
"In response, on Sunday, the Stanford study’s authors said they are planning to soon release a detailed appendix that addresses many of the “constructive comments and suggestions” the team has received."
So we will see what they respond with. Of course, Dr Kaufman has already destroyed he entire procedure of testing so the whole thing is moot. All testing kits are bunk, so that criticism is fair, but that is the pot calling the kettle black.
And also the reason I cited Dr Ioannidis was because I was told I would not find an expert to state this 'pandemic' is akin to seasonal flu. This wasn't actually in this thread but since this is the only place I am allowed to post there it is.
The piece itself is good, from a journalistic POV. My problem is their criticism is weighted towards ad hom and over the top lambasting without much detail of what they are actually objecting to.
These statements in particular:
"I have zero confidence in the Santa Clara serology study, and the recent work of Eran Bendavid generally."
“They’re the kind of screw-ups that happen if you want to leap out with an exciting finding,” he wrote, “and you don’t look too carefully at what you might have done wrong.”
"Others accused the authors of having agendas before going into the study. Back in March, Bhattacharya* and Bendavid*wrote*an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that a universal quarantine may not be worth the costs.*Their colleague John Ioannidis has*written*that we lack the data to make such drastic economic sacrifices."
Specifically state what the real concerns are with the data.
The piece itself is good, from a journalistic POV. My problem is their criticism is weighted towards ad hom and over the top lambasting without much detail of what they are actually objecting to.
These statements in particular:
"I have zero confidence in the Santa Clara serology study, and the recent work of Eran Bendavid generally."
“They’re the kind of screw-ups that happen if you want to leap out with an exciting finding,” he wrote, “and you don’t look too carefully at what you might have done wrong.”
"Others accused the authors of having agendas before going into the study. Back in March, Bhattacharya* and Bendavid*wrote*an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that a universal quarantine may not be worth the costs.*Their colleague John Ioannidis has*written*that we lack the data to make such drastic economic sacrifices."
Specifically state what the real concerns are with the data.
Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk
Why don't you quote those passages of the article where they state those concerns?
You made a citation that apparently invalidates part of the study I referenced. I am trying to work out what the complaint is but this is too cryptic for me to understand:
"Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives."
Since you posted it I wondered whether you know what it means, as is usually the case for the person posting to know what it is they are posting. Or is it deliberately dense jargon to throw people off while pretending to offer some technical reason why the work to show much higher infection rates should be ignored?
You made a citation that apparently invalidates part of the study I referenced. I am trying to work out what the complaint is but this is too cryptic for me to understand:
"Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives."
Since you posted it I wondered whether you know what it means, as is usually the case for the person posting to know what it is they are posting. Or is it deliberately dense jargon to throw people off while pretending to offer some technical reason why the work to show much higher infection rates should be ignored?
Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the rest of the discussion in that article where they talk about their concerns?
Loud sobbing reported from under reverend Bayes' grave stone.
Seriously, I might use this as an example in my class to show how NOT to do statistics. Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives.
So, you have quoted the above, I am assuming you have some idea what this means? There is no shame in not knowing, I don't know either. All these supposed 2p2 maths bods, anybody have a clue?
So, you have quoted the above, I am assuming you have some idea what this means? There is no shame in not knowing, I don't know either. All these supposed 2p2 maths bods, anybody have a clue?
Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk
The first place to look is in the rest of the discussion in that article where they talk about their concerns. Why don't you do that and post whatever else they say that you don't understand. If you are seeking the truth about this it's on you to vet the evidence you presented by examining the other side of the story and giving a balanced report.. You don't seem at all interested in doing this. So, like I said before.
"Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives."
So, you have quoted the above, I am assuming you have some idea what this means? There is no shame in not knowing, I don't know either. All these supposed 2p2 maths bods, anybody have a clue?
Maybe you should spend some time to demonstrate that you are trying to understand.
Do you know what a CI is?
Do you know what a "false positive" is?
Do you know what "the observed fraction of positives" means?
Do you know what "larger than" means?
The first place to look is in the rest of the discussion in that article where they talk about their concerns. Why don't you do that and post whatever else they say that you don't understand. If you are seeking the truth about this it's on you to vet the evidence you presented by examining the other side of the story and giving a balanced report.. You don't seem at all interested in doing this. So, like I said before.
PairTheBoard
Are you trying to cover for the fact that you cited something to make a point yet you don't know what the thing you cited actually means? That is all I can conclude.
Maybe you should spend some time to demonstrate that you are trying to understand.
Do you know what a CI is?
Do you know what a "false positive" is?
Do you know what "the observed fraction of positives" means?
Do you know what "larger than" means?
Do you understand what this statement means?
"Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives."
If so then please explain and put PTB out of his misery. You don't need to ask whether I understand the decontextualised phrases, just explain the whole statement. Thanks.
"Note that the CI on specificity includes false positive rates larger than the observed fraction of positives."
If so then please explain and put PTB out of his misery. You don't need to ask whether I understand the decontextualised phrases, just explain the whole statement.
*Shrug* You're the one who was saying that you didn't understand it. It makes perfect sense to me. And, as is common with mathematical statements, it means exactly what it says.
