There are those who are on the right path headed toward a noble destination. Some are further along than others. Some of those further back have the capacity and stamina to stay the course, but may occasionally need a little light to help continue on when the trail becomes dark, rough and twisted. Then there are those on the wrong path headed willingly, determinedly, perhaps irretrievably, toward a dark destination. They too are at different points along their pathway, but are directed toward an irredeemable place. While some may be able to be diverted, most will not change course no matter how much light is cast on their dark road. My sense is Dr Atlas is one of those well along the right path and, given the proper spark of light, has the capacity, stamina and will to move forward. Keep being the light.
Atlas is my pick for "Person at the Stanford Conference Most Likely to Be Able to Handle Critique and Eventually See the Events of Spring 2020 Differently Than He Does Now"
The Stanford conference was just a continuation of the massive psy-op and in some ways even more disturbing because many of them appear to be the “good people”. One of the Stanford folks, Dr Bhattacharya, despite you asking him directly, has refused to engage on whether a pandemic existed. I am a physician and was an early signer of the Great Barrington Declaration, which was clearly well-intentioned, but was revealed to be unnecessary and another example of the acceptance of the pandemic premise. Dr B refusing to discuss the issue is a disappointment to those who respected him and an embarrassment to himself.
How can one not draw the conclusion that by refusing to discuss the core issue that they are anything but grifters?
I'm not known for holding back and don't feel like anyone or anything keeps me from saying exactly what I want to say most of the time.
I don't like the word "grifter" because I think it suggests someone is making money in a dishonest or illegal fashion. (I'm fine w/you using the words you think best capture your sentiments, of course.)
As much as possible, I've tried to focus on what people's articulated positions are - versus whether the person is nice, did some good things, etc.
We are almost five years from when China announced unremarkable cases of pneumonia that turned into a Human Rights Heist, democidal events, and years of harms. I am not willing let "Next Pandemicism" assume the reigns and make unsubstantiated claims.
Well I think “grifter” is appropriate here bec those who refuse to acknowledge what you have so brilliantly documented over the past few years are being dishonest and are making money off that dishonesty by keeping their academic positions
Well stated. As we have seen, words do matter. Some additional comments. The PCR tests were useless at determining a diagnosis, as stated by the inventor, but perhaps useful at “spreading” the hoax of a pandemic. There is no need to study the effects of a virus for any long term effects, that was at most similar to a mild moderate cold and quite possibly non existent as a novel virus.
Yes, the content I linked in 3) re: 2003, 2009, and 2020 shows the same thing re: PCR tests.
Also, from my "Thinking About Lab Leak..." article:
"Testing & seroprevalence data from New York City (and other places) make abundantly obvious that whatever was being identified via tests was widely prevalent - and doing nothing consequential that required a 'response; - before the WHO, et al said there was a public health emergency." See sources in related footnote: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/thinking-about-lab-leak#footnote-anchor-6-149966173
I watched the video of Atlas delivering the remarks. He voiced the sentence quoted here very quickly.
He strikes me as being soured, if that's the right word, by what happened after he started advising Trump that summer. It's as though he's become very skeptical of the ability or willingness of politicians and experts to value evidence and data (a word Atlas uses often).
I have nothing nice to say about Dr. Atlas and, for example, his support of masking masking masking and testing testing testing, so I'll just hold my tongue and instead tell you about a little typo I saw, Ms. Jessica:
"and adds risk of severe illness or death to one of more groups of people."
There are those who are on the right path headed toward a noble destination. Some are further along than others. Some of those further back have the capacity and stamina to stay the course, but may occasionally need a little light to help continue on when the trail becomes dark, rough and twisted. Then there are those on the wrong path headed willingly, determinedly, perhaps irretrievably, toward a dark destination. They too are at different points along their pathway, but are directed toward an irredeemable place. While some may be able to be diverted, most will not change course no matter how much light is cast on their dark road. My sense is Dr Atlas is one of those well along the right path and, given the proper spark of light, has the capacity, stamina and will to move forward. Keep being the light.
Atlas is my pick for "Person at the Stanford Conference Most Likely to Be Able to Handle Critique and Eventually See the Events of Spring 2020 Differently Than He Does Now"
His being from Chicago helps. ;-)
The Stanford conference was just a continuation of the massive psy-op and in some ways even more disturbing because many of them appear to be the “good people”. One of the Stanford folks, Dr Bhattacharya, despite you asking him directly, has refused to engage on whether a pandemic existed. I am a physician and was an early signer of the Great Barrington Declaration, which was clearly well-intentioned, but was revealed to be unnecessary and another example of the acceptance of the pandemic premise. Dr B refusing to discuss the issue is a disappointment to those who respected him and an embarrassment to himself.
How can one not draw the conclusion that by refusing to discuss the core issue that they are anything but grifters?
You’re too respectful to say that
I’m not .
I'm not known for holding back and don't feel like anyone or anything keeps me from saying exactly what I want to say most of the time.
I don't like the word "grifter" because I think it suggests someone is making money in a dishonest or illegal fashion. (I'm fine w/you using the words you think best capture your sentiments, of course.)
As much as possible, I've tried to focus on what people's articulated positions are - versus whether the person is nice, did some good things, etc.
We are almost five years from when China announced unremarkable cases of pneumonia that turned into a Human Rights Heist, democidal events, and years of harms. I am not willing let "Next Pandemicism" assume the reigns and make unsubstantiated claims.
I encourage people to watch/listen to all of the Stanford conference sessions for themselves: https://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/events/pandemic-policy-planning-future-assessing-past
Well I think “grifter” is appropriate here bec those who refuse to acknowledge what you have so brilliantly documented over the past few years are being dishonest and are making money off that dishonesty by keeping their academic positions
Well stated. As we have seen, words do matter. Some additional comments. The PCR tests were useless at determining a diagnosis, as stated by the inventor, but perhaps useful at “spreading” the hoax of a pandemic. There is no need to study the effects of a virus for any long term effects, that was at most similar to a mild moderate cold and quite possibly non existent as a novel virus.
Yes, the content I linked in 3) re: 2003, 2009, and 2020 shows the same thing re: PCR tests.
Also, from my "Thinking About Lab Leak..." article:
"Testing & seroprevalence data from New York City (and other places) make abundantly obvious that whatever was being identified via tests was widely prevalent - and doing nothing consequential that required a 'response; - before the WHO, et al said there was a public health emergency." See sources in related footnote: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/thinking-about-lab-leak#footnote-anchor-6-149966173
I watched the video of Atlas delivering the remarks. He voiced the sentence quoted here very quickly.
He strikes me as being soured, if that's the right word, by what happened after he started advising Trump that summer. It's as though he's become very skeptical of the ability or willingness of politicians and experts to value evidence and data (a word Atlas uses often).
The speed with which he spoke it is irrelevant, especially because his remarks were published as an article
The sentence I quoted is the anchor for the rest of his remarks, as well as a core sentiment expressed by many of the speakers at the conference.
He is not so skeptical as to question whether there was a pandemic or whether spread of a novel coronavirus was occurring.
If he has revised his views on the New York City event since his writings in spring 2020, I have not seen where he expressed those revised views.
I have nothing nice to say about Dr. Atlas and, for example, his support of masking masking masking and testing testing testing, so I'll just hold my tongue and instead tell you about a little typo I saw, Ms. Jessica:
"and adds risk of severe illness or death to one of more groups of people."
Should be "one OR more."