We were definitely fed lies from the very beginning, which unbelievably was over 5 years ago. Subjects of some of the obvious lies included:
1. Magnified case fatality rate, reported daily from Hopkins and others in "emergency red" on every MSM channel; this ignored what we have known for decades about respiratory illnesses, that there is always a spectrum of clinical illness, from asymptomatic (usually the majority) to mild, moderate, and severe (in vulnerable)
2. Nothing about a "novel" coronavirus or any other respiratory virus should have caused much concern; putting "novel" in the official name was marketing, not science
3. Immune systems of healthy people work well against virtually every type of infectious disease, including "novel" versions of similar classes of viruses; no, you don't have to be first exposed to a new antigen before your immune system works, it's much more effective and complex than that
4. Masks were then, and remain, a ludicrous solution to transmission of respiratory viruses; virtually no scientific support existed before 2020 (although many studies had been done), then a few severely flawed studies were hurried out to justify "doing something, even if partially protective"
5. The gene injections were deemed "safe and effective," for virtually everyone, even pregnant women(!) was perhaps the most egregious and unforgivable lie, along with the mandates; if you weren't skeptical about what you were told to do and believe before this, surely telling pregnant women "nothing to worry about" should have awakened you
There were many others. But now 5 years later, and illustrated by Professor Ioannidis among many others, it is interesting that intelligent people still hold so many vastly different and irreconcilable positions about what really happened. Keep asking the right questions Jessica.
"Clinical disease" refers to the stage of a disease where symptoms are present and the condition is apparent, allowing for diagnosis and treatment. This stage follows the incubation period, where the disease may be present but not yet showing symptoms.
Yeah I suppose that is generally true, but the broader idea of the "clinical course of a disease" or "clinical spectrum" can certainly include asymptomatic periods. For respiratory viruses it's probably better to use "subclinical" or "preclinical" for those with infection but no symptoms.
Well I wasn't expecting a quiz, but yes, there are thousands. Here are a few:
Hayward AC et al, 2014. Comparative Community Burden and Severity of Seasonal and Pandemic Influenza: Results of the Flu Watch Cohort Study. Lancet Respir Med 2014 March 17
Gluck T, 2014. Most Influenza Infections are Subclinical. NEJM Journal Watch. March 20, 2014
Yang J et al, 2009. Subclinical infections with the Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Virus. Clinical Infectious Disease 49(10):1622-23
PL Lin and JL Flynn, 2010. Understanding Latent Tuberculosis: A Moving Target. J Immunol 185(1):15-22
Re: masks, WHO in late 2019 published a report that (my over simplified executive summary), "masks have - at best - little effect and cloth masks in particular definitely don't work". Few months later: "100% of people should mask always and the masks made the flu vanish."
Pretty shocking Ioannidis went from this 2005 landmark essay which contributed to the recognition of the "replication crisis" which led to the FDA changing criteria for clinical trials etc etc and now? Total conformity, trust the science, safe and effective, etc.
It seems to me that Ioannidis’ problem is a classic illustration of the problem of beginning with the answer and working backwards. He begins with the accepted answer - extreme excess mortality in Bergamo and NYC - an answer created and offered up to him and others, which he does not sufficiently question. He then proceeds to look for “facts” which support that answer. He may very well be acting in good faith, seeking out plausible explanations for the given answer, but his failure is not seriously considering that the “answer” he seeks to explain is itself implausible and incorrect. He seems to have forgotten the first rule of all good science, which is to question everything and give serious consideration to alternative, even seemingly unlikely answers. Good science always demands such questioning. As Feynman observed, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
If you begin with the facts apart from a predetermined conclusion, however compelling the presumed conclusion may initially seem, you become free to consider other, more compelling conclusions. Serious examination of the facts leads to better answers and often exposes the outright absurdity of previously presumed and accepted answers. In this case, serious examination of the facts points to the conclusion that the Bergamo and NYC excess mortality could not have happened. The facts dictate that such a conclusion must be nonsensical. Rather than working backward to search for explanations of impossible answers, he would be better served reexamining the facts to arrive at more the much more plausible conclusion that the pandemic and extreme excess mortality purported to have occurred in Bergamo and NYC could not have occurred. That path leads a much different, if uncomfortable, direction.
Almost all of us bought into the pandemic narrative to a greater or lesser extent, it just so happens that we’ve woken up to it, but at the time how the hell were we supposed to drink from the proverbial firehose of misinformation and lies. I think it goes without saying that many health professionals can’t and won’t believe that their field, from which they claim their credibility, success, fame and attention, is rotten to the core and the exact opposite of what they profess it to be … hence they are trapped in their own belief system.
perchè Bergamo? a Bergmo e provincia era appena stata conclusa la vaccinazione per l'influenza annuale. quai il 100% della popolazione si era vaccinata. quano poi è arrivata l'influenza "covid" è stato dato l'ordine di prescrivere SOLAMENTE "paracetamolo (tachipirina) e vigile attesa". questo ha contribuito ad aggravare le persone che si erano ammalate e sono state costrette poi ad andare in ospedale, dove sappiamo cos'è successo! niente antibiotici. divieto di somministrare antibiotici., però sedazione profonda e via con l'intubazione. LI HANNO MASSACRATI. sono italiana e me ne vergogno. ho iniziato ad odiare i medici. mia mamma è morta dopo 4 mesi e mezzo, dopo 2 jabs pfizzzz con un turbo camcro al IV stadio e un Ki67 90%. scusate lo sfogo. è stata una mattanza in tutto il mondo !!!! neanche Mengele avrebbe osato tanto! scusate ancora lo sfogo ma sono proprio arrabbiata con questa classe medica e polica che ci ha distrutto. continuate così che siete bravissimi.♥♥♥
Amazing how someone so smart and esteemed can be so accepting of such a flimsy version of events. My science education didn’t go beyond high school, but it is blatantly obvious that there are numerous and very large holes in all official versions of the Covid story. Simply too many anomalies. It just doesn’t stack up. And the lack of curiosity to even attempt to answer these anomalies is telling.
Very good, thank you both. Prof. Michael Levitt was equally unquestioning of the foundational aspects of the ‘health crisis’. He used ‘cases’ not deaths to determine spread but could not find the scary ‘exponential’ spread assumed by the epidemiologists but a ‘self limiting’ growth defined by the ‘Gompertz’ function. This seemed reassuring at the time but he would never question the foundation of his raw data - the PCR test. Two brilliant minds no doubt, but deeply flawed in their respective approaches. Levitt found a mathematical function which describes a process he thinks is naturally occurring but which in fact cannot be verified with death statistics (and even they must now be questioned)!
There is, when it gets down to facts, little or no evidence to substantiate mainstream epidemiological or virology based models of viral spread of disease. This is not complicated, one only has to look at and try to explain why every experiment for over a hundred years in what are called ‘controlled human infection studies’ with viruses has failed.
Yes, Michael Levitt is an interesting one. He observed in February 2020 during an interview that there did not seem to be anything spreading in China, but for reasons unknown, reversed course a few weeks later.
He is on the Wood House 76 article "to do" list. :)
Yes I remember him being a skeptic early on, and with his Nobel Prize credentials, I thought he might be able to convince people to tone down the hysteria. But then he either went silent or did a 180. Much like Ioannidis.
In Spring 2020, at the beginning of C19 madness a voice of prof. Ioannidis was like light of order and reason in the darkness of chaos and stupidity. In particular his constant highlighting that we should rely on data. But now it seems he breaks this rule, e.g.: asking the question: "Why the flu disappeared?". If there are no data confirming this (senseless) thesis, why does he promote it?
Moreover prof. Ioannidis tries to be polite and conciliatiory towards physicians and the other experts, repeating he does not want to accuse anybody. Unfortunately such a posture blocks possibility of full analysis and- as a consequence- releases from responsibility those who were architects of (senseless and harmful) C19 policies.
I would say "yes" except that we have been using social/behavioral science and psychology to interrogate the data and operations around this farce so I hate to disparage the methods that are working pretty well!!
Didn't know much of this--wow! Again and again, they can't substantiate key claims.
New substack announcement--more political, more information-flow analysis, particulary hard on my "fellow" "conservatives" and their Suppression of key Covid/Vax-Disaster stories: Dissident Conservative. https://dissidentcon.substack.com/
There has been winter-time colds in temperate climates as long as I have walked the Earth. They are normal medical conditions. I grew up near New York and suffered colds.
In the USA as a whole, a typical flu season would end the lives of 40,000 to 60,000 persons.
There are winter-time colds near New York, whereas Los Angeles or Florida are relatively sunny, locals obtain more vitamin D from sunlight. Northern Italians are going to incur more flus than those who live in southern Italy. Every winter!
During any given winter, are there some locales that incur a greater death rate than others, that are "above average"? Yes. Averages are made up of above averages and below averages. Northern Italians are more vulnerable to winter flu than southern ones. New Yorkers are more vulnerable than Floridians. This is a reason why many retired people move to Florida.
I am accepting of the premise that Covid 19 was just another corona virus in terms of intrinsic lethality. It may have been modified from a natural predecessor, but this would not have meaningfully changed the lethality.
The diagnosis of any strain of flu with a PCR is problematic, so its unclear to me that the winter flu of 2020 was covid 19 or many other contributing strains.
Bergamo has more problems than a lack of sun. It is I believe the area of Europe with the worst air pollution and has a particularly old and decrepit population. As a result their hospitals are always overflowing at that time of year. The apocalyptic scenes broadcast to TVs all over the world to precipitate panic and belief, were scenes that have verifiably occurred in Bergamo year after year and long before Covid. It's almost as if it were researched and selected to be Ground Zero in Europe.
Bingo. Inland Wuhan also likely has poor winter air quality. A metropolitan area circa 10 million folks, cold and dry air. Lots of cigarette smokers. Smokestack pollution.
In contrast, respiratory flues are virtually unknown near the Equator, where the air is warm, humid, and moist, year around. I feared something was iffy, when the UN-WHO wanted to declare even equatorial areas to be afflicted by Covid and everyone still merited an injection.
"I am not sure what happened and we need to find out." J. Ioannidis
It is that simple.
Even with all his intelligence, wisdom, and experience:
his connections to a network of brainwashed peers totally override his ability to grasp the reality. (This, I believe, is the same thing that happened with Dr. Scott Atlas.)
My own little myopic reality /truth:
-- This truly was a bioweapon(SARS-COV2: not a virus but an engineered protein that mimics a virus; is absorbed by cytoplasm and replicated). But then, I am a mechanical engineer! Ha!
-- The bioweapon was instigated by USA bioweapon labs in Ft. Dietrich, enabled by P. Daszek, digitally conveyed to China Wuhan Lab.
-- The whole plan included placing a bioweapon around the world, creating FEAR with MSM, WHO, USA & the five eyes in order to implement the jab. THAT being the real killer. The original bioweapon was the primer; the jab was the bullet.
-- Wuhan added in other unique receptor regions, strips of RNA to make most highly infectious and deadly.
-- I can't figure the rationale for working with China but believe they released it locally and figured they could restrict its spread in China(wrong!) but they also conveyed it around the world to strategic places.
Just a best guess at the REAL truth, but this is where I am at now.
We were definitely fed lies from the very beginning, which unbelievably was over 5 years ago. Subjects of some of the obvious lies included:
1. Magnified case fatality rate, reported daily from Hopkins and others in "emergency red" on every MSM channel; this ignored what we have known for decades about respiratory illnesses, that there is always a spectrum of clinical illness, from asymptomatic (usually the majority) to mild, moderate, and severe (in vulnerable)
2. Nothing about a "novel" coronavirus or any other respiratory virus should have caused much concern; putting "novel" in the official name was marketing, not science
3. Immune systems of healthy people work well against virtually every type of infectious disease, including "novel" versions of similar classes of viruses; no, you don't have to be first exposed to a new antigen before your immune system works, it's much more effective and complex than that
4. Masks were then, and remain, a ludicrous solution to transmission of respiratory viruses; virtually no scientific support existed before 2020 (although many studies had been done), then a few severely flawed studies were hurried out to justify "doing something, even if partially protective"
5. The gene injections were deemed "safe and effective," for virtually everyone, even pregnant women(!) was perhaps the most egregious and unforgivable lie, along with the mandates; if you weren't skeptical about what you were told to do and believe before this, surely telling pregnant women "nothing to worry about" should have awakened you
There were many others. But now 5 years later, and illustrated by Professor Ioannidis among many others, it is interesting that intelligent people still hold so many vastly different and irreconcilable positions about what really happened. Keep asking the right questions Jessica.
By defintion, there is no such thing as asymptomatic clinical illness :)
FWIW (per DuckDuckGo AI):
"Clinical disease" refers to the stage of a disease where symptoms are present and the condition is apparent, allowing for diagnosis and treatment. This stage follows the incubation period, where the disease may be present but not yet showing symptoms.
Yeah I suppose that is generally true, but the broader idea of the "clinical course of a disease" or "clinical spectrum" can certainly include asymptomatic periods. For respiratory viruses it's probably better to use "subclinical" or "preclinical" for those with infection but no symptoms.
Can you point me to pre-2020 scientific/medical studies that refer to subclinical and preclinical respiratory illness?
Well I wasn't expecting a quiz, but yes, there are thousands. Here are a few:
Hayward AC et al, 2014. Comparative Community Burden and Severity of Seasonal and Pandemic Influenza: Results of the Flu Watch Cohort Study. Lancet Respir Med 2014 March 17
Gluck T, 2014. Most Influenza Infections are Subclinical. NEJM Journal Watch. March 20, 2014
Yang J et al, 2009. Subclinical infections with the Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Virus. Clinical Infectious Disease 49(10):1622-23
PL Lin and JL Flynn, 2010. Understanding Latent Tuberculosis: A Moving Target. J Immunol 185(1):15-22
Thanks.
Pro tip! ALWAYS expect a quiz when speaking to a teacher! ;-)
https://www.woodhouse76.com/about
Whether the researchers know it or not, I would classify the flu studies in particular as part of a decades-long pandemic preparedness racket.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/yes-the-cdc-lies-about-flu-deaths
https://www.woodhouse76.com/s/flu-disappearance
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf
Re: masks, WHO in late 2019 published a report that (my over simplified executive summary), "masks have - at best - little effect and cloth masks in particular definitely don't work". Few months later: "100% of people should mask always and the masks made the flu vanish."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
Pretty shocking Ioannidis went from this 2005 landmark essay which contributed to the recognition of the "replication crisis" which led to the FDA changing criteria for clinical trials etc etc and now? Total conformity, trust the science, safe and effective, etc.
https://www.biospace.com/meet-the-professor-who-was-the-first-to-question-theranos-research
It seems to me that Ioannidis’ problem is a classic illustration of the problem of beginning with the answer and working backwards. He begins with the accepted answer - extreme excess mortality in Bergamo and NYC - an answer created and offered up to him and others, which he does not sufficiently question. He then proceeds to look for “facts” which support that answer. He may very well be acting in good faith, seeking out plausible explanations for the given answer, but his failure is not seriously considering that the “answer” he seeks to explain is itself implausible and incorrect. He seems to have forgotten the first rule of all good science, which is to question everything and give serious consideration to alternative, even seemingly unlikely answers. Good science always demands such questioning. As Feynman observed, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
If you begin with the facts apart from a predetermined conclusion, however compelling the presumed conclusion may initially seem, you become free to consider other, more compelling conclusions. Serious examination of the facts leads to better answers and often exposes the outright absurdity of previously presumed and accepted answers. In this case, serious examination of the facts points to the conclusion that the Bergamo and NYC excess mortality could not have happened. The facts dictate that such a conclusion must be nonsensical. Rather than working backward to search for explanations of impossible answers, he would be better served reexamining the facts to arrive at more the much more plausible conclusion that the pandemic and extreme excess mortality purported to have occurred in Bergamo and NYC could not have occurred. That path leads a much different, if uncomfortable, direction.
Almost all of us bought into the pandemic narrative to a greater or lesser extent, it just so happens that we’ve woken up to it, but at the time how the hell were we supposed to drink from the proverbial firehose of misinformation and lies. I think it goes without saying that many health professionals can’t and won’t believe that their field, from which they claim their credibility, success, fame and attention, is rotten to the core and the exact opposite of what they profess it to be … hence they are trapped in their own belief system.
I disagree. Myself and many, many 1000s of other Australians knew it was a hoax from day one. As did many, many 1000s around the world.
perchè Bergamo? a Bergmo e provincia era appena stata conclusa la vaccinazione per l'influenza annuale. quai il 100% della popolazione si era vaccinata. quano poi è arrivata l'influenza "covid" è stato dato l'ordine di prescrivere SOLAMENTE "paracetamolo (tachipirina) e vigile attesa". questo ha contribuito ad aggravare le persone che si erano ammalate e sono state costrette poi ad andare in ospedale, dove sappiamo cos'è successo! niente antibiotici. divieto di somministrare antibiotici., però sedazione profonda e via con l'intubazione. LI HANNO MASSACRATI. sono italiana e me ne vergogno. ho iniziato ad odiare i medici. mia mamma è morta dopo 4 mesi e mezzo, dopo 2 jabs pfizzzz con un turbo camcro al IV stadio e un Ki67 90%. scusate lo sfogo. è stata una mattanza in tutto il mondo !!!! neanche Mengele avrebbe osato tanto! scusate ancora lo sfogo ma sono proprio arrabbiata con questa classe medica e polica che ci ha distrutto. continuate così che siete bravissimi.♥♥♥
Amazing how someone so smart and esteemed can be so accepting of such a flimsy version of events. My science education didn’t go beyond high school, but it is blatantly obvious that there are numerous and very large holes in all official versions of the Covid story. Simply too many anomalies. It just doesn’t stack up. And the lack of curiosity to even attempt to answer these anomalies is telling.
There were no cases, because there was no thing.
Very good, thank you both. Prof. Michael Levitt was equally unquestioning of the foundational aspects of the ‘health crisis’. He used ‘cases’ not deaths to determine spread but could not find the scary ‘exponential’ spread assumed by the epidemiologists but a ‘self limiting’ growth defined by the ‘Gompertz’ function. This seemed reassuring at the time but he would never question the foundation of his raw data - the PCR test. Two brilliant minds no doubt, but deeply flawed in their respective approaches. Levitt found a mathematical function which describes a process he thinks is naturally occurring but which in fact cannot be verified with death statistics (and even they must now be questioned)!
There is, when it gets down to facts, little or no evidence to substantiate mainstream epidemiological or virology based models of viral spread of disease. This is not complicated, one only has to look at and try to explain why every experiment for over a hundred years in what are called ‘controlled human infection studies’ with viruses has failed.
You're welcome.
Yes, Michael Levitt is an interesting one. He observed in February 2020 during an interview that there did not seem to be anything spreading in China, but for reasons unknown, reversed course a few weeks later.
He is on the Wood House 76 article "to do" list. :)
Yes I remember him being a skeptic early on, and with his Nobel Prize credentials, I thought he might be able to convince people to tone down the hysteria. But then he either went silent or did a 180. Much like Ioannidis.
He believed the injections were the only answer!
Still does!!!!
Horrible!
In Spring 2020, at the beginning of C19 madness a voice of prof. Ioannidis was like light of order and reason in the darkness of chaos and stupidity. In particular his constant highlighting that we should rely on data. But now it seems he breaks this rule, e.g.: asking the question: "Why the flu disappeared?". If there are no data confirming this (senseless) thesis, why does he promote it?
Moreover prof. Ioannidis tries to be polite and conciliatiory towards physicians and the other experts, repeating he does not want to accuse anybody. Unfortunately such a posture blocks possibility of full analysis and- as a consequence- releases from responsibility those who were architects of (senseless and harmful) C19 policies.
Sad and disappointing.
Should epidemiology be reclassified as a social science ?
I would say "yes" except that we have been using social/behavioral science and psychology to interrogate the data and operations around this farce so I hate to disparage the methods that are working pretty well!!
Ha!
Didn't know much of this--wow! Again and again, they can't substantiate key claims.
New substack announcement--more political, more information-flow analysis, particulary hard on my "fellow" "conservatives" and their Suppression of key Covid/Vax-Disaster stories: Dissident Conservative. https://dissidentcon.substack.com/
Never mind what about Los Angeles...
What about New Jersey?
What about Philadelphia?
What about Connecticut?
Yes, some of the metro area counties saw big increases as well.
I've included those here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/weekly-deaths-all-causes-january
There has been winter-time colds in temperate climates as long as I have walked the Earth. They are normal medical conditions. I grew up near New York and suffered colds.
In the USA as a whole, a typical flu season would end the lives of 40,000 to 60,000 persons.
There are winter-time colds near New York, whereas Los Angeles or Florida are relatively sunny, locals obtain more vitamin D from sunlight. Northern Italians are going to incur more flus than those who live in southern Italy. Every winter!
During any given winter, are there some locales that incur a greater death rate than others, that are "above average"? Yes. Averages are made up of above averages and below averages. Northern Italians are more vulnerable to winter flu than southern ones. New Yorkers are more vulnerable than Floridians. This is a reason why many retired people move to Florida.
I am accepting of the premise that Covid 19 was just another corona virus in terms of intrinsic lethality. It may have been modified from a natural predecessor, but this would not have meaningfully changed the lethality.
The diagnosis of any strain of flu with a PCR is problematic, so its unclear to me that the winter flu of 2020 was covid 19 or many other contributing strains.
Bergamo has more problems than a lack of sun. It is I believe the area of Europe with the worst air pollution and has a particularly old and decrepit population. As a result their hospitals are always overflowing at that time of year. The apocalyptic scenes broadcast to TVs all over the world to precipitate panic and belief, were scenes that have verifiably occurred in Bergamo year after year and long before Covid. It's almost as if it were researched and selected to be Ground Zero in Europe.
Bingo. Inland Wuhan also likely has poor winter air quality. A metropolitan area circa 10 million folks, cold and dry air. Lots of cigarette smokers. Smokestack pollution.
In contrast, respiratory flues are virtually unknown near the Equator, where the air is warm, humid, and moist, year around. I feared something was iffy, when the UN-WHO wanted to declare even equatorial areas to be afflicted by Covid and everyone still merited an injection.
What a bunch of Rockefeller Flexner allopathic medical cartel bullshit propaganda.
He's an expert on Flying Virus Disease
"I am not sure what happened and we need to find out." J. Ioannidis
It is that simple.
Even with all his intelligence, wisdom, and experience:
his connections to a network of brainwashed peers totally override his ability to grasp the reality. (This, I believe, is the same thing that happened with Dr. Scott Atlas.)
My own little myopic reality /truth:
-- This truly was a bioweapon(SARS-COV2: not a virus but an engineered protein that mimics a virus; is absorbed by cytoplasm and replicated). But then, I am a mechanical engineer! Ha!
-- The bioweapon was instigated by USA bioweapon labs in Ft. Dietrich, enabled by P. Daszek, digitally conveyed to China Wuhan Lab.
-- The whole plan included placing a bioweapon around the world, creating FEAR with MSM, WHO, USA & the five eyes in order to implement the jab. THAT being the real killer. The original bioweapon was the primer; the jab was the bullet.
-- Wuhan added in other unique receptor regions, strips of RNA to make most highly infectious and deadly.
-- I can't figure the rationale for working with China but believe they released it locally and figured they could restrict its spread in China(wrong!) but they also conveyed it around the world to strategic places.
Just a best guess at the REAL truth, but this is where I am at now.