CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[jshell]

Roderick Spode said:

jshell said:

Isn't it funny how he pops up within seconds of any substantial post that challenges the Covid/vaccine narrative, then tries to divert away from the core issues of those posts?

I find it fascinating that there are those 'instant responders' that will challenge even the in-depth statistical analysis by someone actually qualified to look at this stuff. Well, I say 'challenge', what I mean is: 'release the squirrels!'

Their amateur efforts just amplify the message.

Ah [T]Rollin is harmless enough, his mendacious little one liners are such obvious bait posts for attention, it's almost charming.

Give the boy a cookie and ruffle his hair. Poor simple lad. He can go back and tell the others how clever and brave he's been.

LOL, love that!

[isaldiri]

jshell said:

For the above Substack there are Discussions that can be accessed without subscribing, one of which you may like to read is this one showing A&E admissions for respiratory illness that had a massive peak in Dec 2019, dropped massively during the Covid 'peak' until rising again mid/late 2020!

https://jdee.substack.com/p/emergency-department-a...

I have read a few prior articles before. Just as anyone even vaguely well versed in statistics knows, it's quite easy to selectively pick data to fit what you want to say. Everyone with an angle always does it. The question is how much it stands up to scrutiny if one isn't already convinced.

It's exactly like how people were justifying that lockdowns helped in the economy in spring2020. While I do think people might be better off looking for articles that don't say what they would like to believe or already believe in to see rather than simply looking for articles validating their opinions, ymmv I suppose.

[Roderick Spode]

andyA700 said:

He is spot on in that video, highlighting the way the vaccine injured are being ignored by the MSM. I presented all my symptom information to my GP at the beginning of April, I am due to see him again at the end of May. I tried to logon to the Yellow Card reporting system last week and it wouldn't let me. Through various groups of vaccine injured, I know that I am not the only one unable to logon or update my symptoms.

Several of my friends who suffered vaccine harms wanted to report their symptoms, and asked the opinions of their GPs but were discouraged from doing so, and elected not to. Even though the yellow card is notionally a self-reporting system, and they believed the vaccines did the damage, it seems medical professionals do not want these harms recorded.

Previously when recounting their stories in these hallowed pages I was asked "well where are the yellow card reports?" followed by a demand for their medical records. Sure, I'll just nip down the doctors and get them. Shall I pick up a tin of custard and a newspaper on the way?

[RSTurboPaul]

Rollin said:

jshell said:

Next, we've had some discussion around whether the Vaccines actually worked. Well, if you want to follow someone who is eminently qualified, AND has crunched the number to death, then it's this guy who has worked tirelessly over the past few years.

He is also very clear, the vaccines did next to Sweet FA!

Here's his credentials first, for those who'll call him a swivel eyed loon:

"I’m a former NHS head of department for clinical audit with specialism in assessment of clinical outcomes for cardiac surgery, cardiology and cardiac anaesthesia at a busy teaching hospital. Before this I headed a statistical modelling section as a PSO/G7 UK government scientist working on a wide variety of projects.

My interest in COVID kicked-off back in April 2020 when debate centred around estimation of case fatality rates and since then I have spent upwards of 7,000 hours analysing various COVID-related datasets. These days I publish exclusively on Substack, with my output standing at +300 articles to date."

In order to read his analysis you'll have to subscribe to his Substack, but if you are REALLY interested then that'll be a very small price worth paying.

A full list of his archive is here, and is why many folks don't see conspiracy, they see lies, mistruths, obfuscation and downright dirty fking dealing!

https://jdee.substack.com/archive?sort=top

Pay to subscribe? There's a surprise.

Like the BBC, you mean?

[jshell]

isaldiri said:

jshell said:

For the above Substack there are Discussions that can be accessed without subscribing, one of which you may like to read is this one showing A&E admissions for respiratory illness that had a massive peak in Dec 2019, dropped massively during the Covid 'peak' until rising again mid/late 2020!

https://jdee.substack.com/p/emergency-department-a...

I have read a few prior articles before. Just as anyone even vaguely well versed in statistics knows, it's quite easy to selectively pick data to fit what you want to say. Everyone with an angle always does it. The question is how much it stands up to scrutiny if one isn't already convinced.

It's exactly like how people were justifying that lockdowns helped in the economy in spring2020. While I do think people might be better off looking for articles that don't say what they would like to believe or already believe in to see rather than simply looking for articles validating their opinions, ymmv I suppose.

Are you saying he's wrong or cherry-picking? He seems to spend a lot of time recycling data, checking methodology, runnning multiple scenarios etc. I'd trust him over the quite obviously motivated ONS. Worth mentioning that I'm friends with a current and local NHS statistician who agrees with him.

[r3g]

RSTurboPaul said:

Rollin said:

jshell said:

Next, we've had some discussion around whether the Vaccines actually worked. Well, if you want to follow someone who is eminently qualified, AND has crunched the number to death, then it's this guy who has worked tirelessly over the past few years.

He is also very clear, the vaccines did next to Sweet FA!

Here's his credentials first, for those who'll call him a swivel eyed loon:

"I’m a former NHS head of department for clinical audit with specialism in assessment of clinical outcomes for cardiac surgery, cardiology and cardiac anaesthesia at a busy teaching hospital. Before this I headed a statistical modelling section as a PSO/G7 UK government scientist working on a wide variety of projects.

My interest in COVID kicked-off back in April 2020 when debate centred around estimation of case fatality rates and since then I have spent upwards of 7,000 hours analysing various COVID-related datasets. These days I publish exclusively on Substack, with my output standing at +300 articles to date."

In order to read his analysis you'll have to subscribe to his Substack, but if you are REALLY interested then that'll be a very small price worth paying.

A full list of his archive is here, and is why many folks don't see conspiracy, they see lies, mistruths, obfuscation and downright dirty fking dealing!

https://jdee.substack.com/archive?sort=top

Pay to subscribe? There's a surprise.

Like the BBC, you mean?

[Timothy Bucktu]

Roderick Spode said:

Ah [T]Rollin is harmless enough, his mendacious little one liners are such obvious bait posts for attention, it's almost charming.

Give the boy a cookie and ruffle his hair. Poor simple lad. He can go back and tell the others how clever and brave he's been.

I think (t)rollin is a free opensource AI one liner bot? Whereas Coldel is the paid subscription version giving more detail in its CT analysis.

[jameswills]

Hants PHer said:

Well, I searched for it on Facebook and sure enough. it's there. It was part of the "truthbetold" rally. There's also a YouTube video about it, I checked that too. I don't have a Twitter account.
Looks like 'they' need to be better at controlling the media .

I don’t use Facebook, but I searched YouTube and couldn’t find it? Link? Nevertheless that wasn’t the point, not one mention of it on the mainstream news, I only heard of it last week and it happened over a year ago. There is no true representation of reality in the public domain.

[jameswills]

jshell said:

Are you saying he's wrong or cherry-picking? He seems to spend a lot of time recycling data, checking methodology, runnning multiple scenarios etc. I'd trust him over the quite obviously motivated ONS. Worth mentioning that I'm friends with a current and local NHS statistician who agrees with him.

The “John Dee” analysis has been very interesting throughout.

[isaldiri]

jshell said:

Are you saying he's wrong or cherry-picking? He seems to spend a lot of time recycling data, checking methodology, runnning multiple scenarios etc. I'd trust him over the quite obviously motivated ONS. Worth mentioning that I'm friends with a current and local NHS statistician who agrees with him.

I'm saying he set out to find what he wanted to in order to support whatever he believed in.

And you trust him because he says what you agree with - you might as well be honest about it.

[J210]

'US shared ‘gobsmacking’ Covid lab leak file with UK"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-shared-gobsmacking-l...

Wasn't Patrick Vallance among some of the scientists behind a paper that stifled a debate in to Lab leak... hmm

[Elysium]

jshell said:

Some interesting earlier discussions on Covid deaths in the UK, but with little discussion over deaths 'OF' and deaths 'WITH'.

Some helpful chap submitted a Freedom Of Information request to the ONS in a bid to find out how many people died OF Covid in 2020 and 2021, and the results were a bit surprising. The number of deaths where only Covid was mentioned on the Death Cert were: 6,183.

23 in the under 30 cohort.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgove...

This question does not determine the number of people dying of COVID. It asks for the numbers where no other causes of death are listed. This is low because death certificates normally state several conditions that were part of the chain of circumstances leading to a death, not just one,

It isn’t new information either.

The ‘with’ vs ‘of’ argument largely relates to the UKHSA figures published daily during the pandemic. These made no attempt to identify if deaths were actually caused by COVID and was simply a record of people who died after testing +ve.

Death certificate data used by the ONS never had this issue. They have always talked about “deaths involving COVID” where the disease was listed as one of the causes of the death.

[Elysium]

isaldiri said:

jshell said:

Are you saying he's wrong or cherry-picking? He seems to spend a lot of time recycling data, checking methodology, runnning multiple scenarios etc. I'd trust him over the quite obviously motivated ONS. Worth mentioning that I'm friends with a current and local NHS statistician who agrees with him.

I'm saying he set out to find what he wanted to in order to support whatever he believed in.

And you trust him because he says what you agree with - you might as well be honest about it.

Nothing this guy wrote is surprising though.

We know hospitals were emptied out at the start, with elderly people discharged to care homes. We know that significant deaths followed with the number dying at home much higher than usual. We know hospital numbers were lower than usual because of this triaging and the reduction in capacity caused by infection control methods.

This isn’t evidence that there was no pandemic. It is evidence that much of the first wave happened away from hospitals.

[jameswills]

isaldiri said:

I'm saying he set out to find what he wanted to in order to support whatever he believed in.

And you trust him because he says what you agree with - you might as well be honest about it.

But when it comes to the vaccine trials, that rhetoric is inverted?

[jameswills]

Elysium said:

Nothing this guy wrote is surprising though.

We know hospitals were emptied out at the start, with elderly people discharged to care homes. We know that significant deaths followed with the number dying at home much higher than usual. We know hospital numbers were lower than usual because of this triaging and the reduction in capacity caused by infection control methods.

This isn’t evidence that there was no pandemic. It is evidence that much of the first wave happened away from hospitals.

It’s clear evidence of death purely by policy, that’s it. There was no evidence at that time that there was any pathogen capable killing in those numbers. None.

[r3g]

jameswills said:

But when it comes to the vaccine trials, that rhetoric is inverted?

Yes indeed. The irony is quite chucklesome. When the 2 self-appointed thread "experts" declare that their interpretation of the "official" data is "undeniable" then we are all supposed to and accept it as being the truth, but if you dare to present an alternative viewpoint from other actual experts in the matter who have (also) spent considerable time analysing the questionable data and reached a different conclusion, then suddenly that is instantly dismissed as "find what he wanted to in order to support whatever he believed in" and clearly a CT loon who can't be trusted.

The bias shows through no matter how much they try to hide it and claim impartiality.

[jameswills]

Can’t disagree. You can’t have it both ways.

[isaldiri]

Elysium said:

Nothing this guy wrote is surprising though.

We know hospitals were emptied out at the start, with elderly people discharged to care homes. We know that significant deaths followed with the number dying at home much higher than usual. We know hospital numbers were lower than usual because of this triaging and the reduction in capacity caused by infection control methods.

This isn’t evidence that there was no pandemic. It is evidence that much of the first wave happened away from hospitals.

well it's less about what he wrote that may or may not be surprising. it's about how relevant what the data of a single hospital is with regards to the wider point he's claiming. One would for example typically immediately look to cross check whether similar numbers happened in other hospitals - and without that confirmation it might just very well that the hospital picked initially was not really representative (albeit useful to delibrately illustrate a point the author wanted to make). Also, a fairly simple cross reference would be that A&E number and the supposed 'huge spike' of late autumn 2019 - again it's showing as considearbly higher numbers than the period of winter 2017-2018 with far more significant excess deaths being recorded over the UK. That imo would be a fairly clear signal of not exactly representative data.

And I'd say that quite a lot of the first wave did happen in hospitals because there were very intensive use of ICU and initially at least, very high death numbers in hospitals until that then got shifted onto care homes and such later in April.

jameswills said:

isaldiri said:

I'm saying he set out to find what he wanted to in order to support whatever he believed in.

And you trust him because he says what you agree with - you might as well be honest about it.

But when it comes to the vaccine trials, that rhetoric is inverted?

what rhetoric? the vaccine trials certainly had a relatively low barrier to meet the targeted endpoints that had very little to do with what they were subsequently claimed to be able to be doing. However within the phase 3 parameters, whatever quibbles and nitpicking one might have with the trial data, subsequent UKHSA (and just about every other health authority) numbers do show that within that 90 or whatever day post vaccine period, infections were prevented to a considerable degree until omicron.

[andyA700]

Roderick Spode said:

andyA700 said:

He is spot on in that video, highlighting the way the vaccine injured are being ignored by the MSM. I presented all my symptom information to my GP at the beginning of April, I am due to see him again at the end of May. I tried to logon to the Yellow Card reporting system last week and it wouldn't let me. Through various groups of vaccine injured, I know that I am not the only one unable to logon or update my symptoms.

Several of my friends who suffered vaccine harms wanted to report their symptoms, and asked the opinions of their GPs but were discouraged from doing so, and elected not to. Even though the yellow card is notionally a self-reporting system, and they believed the vaccines did the damage, it seems medical professionals do not want these harms recorded.

Previously when recounting their stories in these hallowed pages I was asked "well where are the yellow card reports?" followed by a demand for their medical records. Sure, I'll just nip down the doctors and get them. Shall I pick up a tin of custard and a newspaper on the way?

I never realised that the ADR reporting system existed until a couple of months ago. When I happened upon the ADR statistics, I then realised that all of the information requests were dated April to June 2022, so are now at least two years old. There are plenty of people like myself who are asking why the system is no longer working. I have been in and out of hospital, having various tests done since New Years eve 2023 and I cannot get access to any of the full blood tests, chest X-rays, or biopsies taken during that time. Last week, my BP was around 135/70 and HR 56-60, which I think is pretty good for a 65 Y/O with health problems. Yesterday, it was 158/85 and HR 81 and I wasn't stressed and my diet hadn't changed.
My first AZ jab on 27th Feb 2021 was from batch PV46664.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641...

[Elysium]

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

Nothing this guy wrote is surprising though.

We know hospitals were emptied out at the start, with elderly people discharged to care homes. We know that significant deaths followed with the number dying at home much higher than usual. We know hospital numbers were lower than usual because of this triaging and the reduction in capacity caused by infection control methods.

This isn’t evidence that there was no pandemic. It is evidence that much of the first wave happened away from hospitals.

well it's less about what he wrote that may or may not be surprising. it's about how relevant what the data of a single hospital is with regards to the wider point he's claiming. One would for example typically immediately look to cross check whether similar numbers happened in other hospitals - and without that confirmation it might just very well that the hospital picked initially was not really representative (albeit useful to delibrately illustrate a point the author wanted to make). Also, a fairly simple cross reference would be that A&E number and the supposed 'huge spike' of late autumn 2019 - again it's showing as considearbly higher numbers than the period of winter 2017-2018 with far more significant excess deaths being recorded over the UK. That imo would be a fairly clear signal of not exactly representative data.

And I'd say that quite a lot of the first wave did happen in hospitals because there were very intensive use of ICU and initially at least, very high death numbers in hospitals until that then got shifted onto care homes and such later in April.

Well the wider data is already available.

In the first wave pressure on hospitals varied quite significantly across regions. So under this policy some appeared to be quite empty but others were at surge levels.

I am not sure where you are going with your final point. My post was clearly talking about the wave of deaths in the elderly which took place away from hospitals. These people never made it to intensive care units because at that point we were mostly intubating patients, which they would have been unlikely to survive.

The care home deaths happened very early and I think were a significant part of the initial spike. Pneumothorax posted about the situation on the ground at the time.

Whether hospitals were full or not, these people were dying because of a real pathogen that was dangerous to the elderly and vulnerable.