23 Comments

Tough position to be in for the likes of Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and the like.

"Gee we kinda knew some things OK maybe we were part of the machinery etc..."

"Um, we're sorry also for promoting masks, lockdowns, vaccines etcetera- we didn't know, did the best we could with the information at the time, focused protection, blah, blah, blah...."

So here we are again. Either they knew at least some aspects of the scam or they were incompetent.

Either way they should be removed from all considerations as worthwhile discussants, proving their lofty positions and all of their Pee-Aitch-Dees only makes them more arrogant and institutionally corrupt.

And that's the charitable explanation.

Expand full comment

John Ioannidis helped expose the Theranos fraud.

Expand full comment

You know what company sounds like Theranos?

Moderna.

"From the beginning, Bancel made clear that Moderna’s science simply had to work. And that anyone who couldn’t make it work didn’t belong.

The early Moderna was a chaotic, unpredictable workplace, according to former employees. One recalls finding himself out of a job when a quick-turnaround experiment failed to pan out. Another helped train a group of new hires only to realize they were his replacements."

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/

Also the lipids they still use, they found to be toxic years before con-vid. I still cannot find out how the "mRNA" gets to cells if the lipids that hold them are designed to be tough and not break down.... It seems like the lipids are the reason why the dod picked it for this Theranos like sham. mRNA is just the fake sci fi pseudoscience reason to use these lipids.

"For Moderna, that meant putting its Crigler-Najjar therapy in nanoparticles made of lipids. And for its chemists, those nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients."

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/

Expand full comment

He’s a chameleon. There were days in 2020-21 that I wanted to shake him until his teeth rattled, then he came around and I thought he’d “gotten it.” His behavior does not inspire trust.

Expand full comment

Thank you for relentlessly tracking this data down, Jessica!

Expand full comment

The data behind premeditated murder. Pax

Expand full comment

I'm struck by the chart that shows all-cause deaths (in NY hospitals) by day in the year 2020. On April 6, 2020, it looks like there were approximately 170 all-cause deaths (the highest daily figure). From the same chart, you can see that this figure was about 20 deaths three months earlier (Jan. 7, 2020). This data seems to suggest that the increase in deaths (of 150) must have been explained by "Covid."

However, per multiple studies, the time from Covid infection to Covid death is approximately 19 days. If we assume 150 people died from Covid on April 6, this would mean, on average, these deceased Covid patients had been infected on or around March 17.

The lockdowns in New York had already started by March 17 .... So we're supposed to believe even though unprecedented lockdowns were implemented to prevent cases (and then) deaths, 150 people still died 19 days later from Covid. Therefore, almost everyone who died in a New York hospital contracted this virus after the lockdowns.

Apparently, the lockdowns dramatically increased the number of deaths in NY City hospitals.

Expand full comment

Stay tuned for a follow-up post today or tomorrow!!

Just to clarify, the graph you're referring to is for public hospitals only (n=11).

One thing you're missing is that people were in hospitals when "15 Days to Slow the Spread" was called. (NYC's lockdown dates don't matter as much as people want to think. Same is true for when one state "locked down" versus another. The hinge point for pretty much every data point I've analyzed is March 16 - the day the Feds made a call.)

Another thing to think about is body management. Consider what those data are alleging occurred.

Expand full comment

Oh, I know many people were already in the hospital. But how did those people get Covid when all the staff was super masked up and nobody could visit them?

Expand full comment

You're missing the "PPT slide 5" graph. Do you see what it shows? :)

Expand full comment

Can you clarify for me what it shows? I see four different data sets, yet unsure of the reporting systems attached to each.

Expand full comment

Were there a data audit, I suspect there would be abject failure demonstrated. It sure seems like they didn’t think anyone would actually look hard at the data. Sketchy, sketchy.

Expand full comment

There is no excuse for the researcher to not respond to my query.

I trust he will.

Expand full comment

I hope so.

The ppt slide 5 is very concerning.

Expand full comment

Indeed. And if it doesn't concern John Ioannidis, I don't know what to say.

Expand full comment

A few glaring prospects if nothing more is forthcoming: there’s been intimidation, self-censorship, or complicity. None of them good.

Expand full comment

Agreed.

The important thing is to document, document, document.

I'm far from finished.

Expand full comment

Thank you. Keep going. Keep going.

Expand full comment

Is it the discrepancy of dates that is so strange, the numbers, etc? I can parse out all I’m seeing in ppt slide 5. Thanks in advance

Expand full comment

If the black line is true, then the red line is false

If the red line is true, then the black line is false

Expand full comment

Red-line is intubation deaths only, yes? Does this indicate ventilator deaths? And if they are not reporting from the same source, could data manipulators claim that there was a delay in one set of inputs?

Just spitballing here. Thanks

Expand full comment

Red line is column 5 in supplemental table 2 of the study, Number of Deaths, COVID-19 patients overall.

The study and the state file both report data given or submitted by HHC.

In his reply to me last year, Dr. Parish did not dispute what I showed about or how I graphed the data from his study.

Expand full comment