- School statistics lessons 23/07/2021
- Vaccine Passports -Incompetence, Groupthink, Psyops or Conspiracy? 19/07/2021
- The scale of the PCR problem 17/07/2021
- An appeal to Better Builders everywhere 16/07/2021
- OK, where’s my Aston? 15/07/2021
Category Archives: Medicine
During the Black Death [t]he people of the Mediaeval Ages were uneducated about diseases and cleanliness. Many thought it was caught through the air, so they would burn incense like juniper and rosemary to try to prevent infected air. People would dunk their handkerchiefs in aromatic oils to cover their nose and mouth from the air. But now there is Test and Trace.
At the level of public discussion, the question of vaccine passports for internal use has been a roller-coaster of rumours and about-turns, not only in the UK but across the world. Their necessity was trumpeted almost as early as the first COVID cases, and their similarity to (and potential evolution into) Internal Passports in the Soviet tradition was soon noted by opponents.
I, and others, have long been pointing out that, quite apart from the intrinsic specificity (false positive) rate of the PCR tests it has been very difficult to get hold of details on how many amplification cycles are being used in real life. The original British standard was 45 cycles (to be “on the safe side” over the WHO’s recommended 40 back last year).
We still hear optimistic souls saying that, out of the wreckage of the totally unexpected (but extensively patented) COVID, a brighter future will emerge. And some of them, and most of the politicians, are still using the slogan “Build Back Better,” the notable recent example being Boris Johnson’s gobbledegook statement at the G7, where (perhaps rightly) most of the attention was focused instead on how he thought the improved society could be more feminine and more gender-neutral at the same time.
OK, I refer you to another excellent post by John Dee entitled False Positive Refresher. In it he talks about the PCR test’s sensitivity (which is the nominal percentage of true cases it spots). A sensitivity of 80% means that if you test 100 sick people, it will miss 20 of them. More importantly, in this context, is the specificity (which is the nominal percentage of genuine negatives it spots). So a specificity of 99% means that if you do the test in 100 well people, it labels one as sick, ie as a false positive.
This is an update of things I wrote last summer to remind folks of how a high rate of false positive COVID tests falsifies all the statistics, and not just the case numbers. It’s relevant because SAGE and others are making dire forecasts about the dire effects of repealing our now sketchily-observed restrictions.
SIR NHS ABUSE SCANDAL DEEPENS Daily Mail, September 13, 2022 The scandal surrounding the discredited celebrity health provider, Sir NHS G.C., deepened today when another 50,000 whistle blowers made allegations of abuse and neglect. These included claims from patients that he failed to give treatment, and reports of bullying and censorship from former staff-members.
The ongoing public manipulation over COVID-19->∞ goes on unabated. Depending what news article you happen to click on, you can find a different minister or SAGE member assuring us that all restrictions will go on the delayed Freedom Day in a fortnight’s time, or else that “freedom” will mean more or less the same as now only without the Furlough Scheme. And all points in between. Reports of lucrative new Test and Trace contracts for 2022 rather contradict the “free at last” narrative, as does today’s BMA announcement that: “…keeping some protective measures in place is ‘crucial’ to stop spiralling case numbers having a ‘devastating impact’ on people’s health.”
Here’s an interesting graph, which is discussed in this article.
The Hart Group briefing paper on asymptomatic spread of COVID, by pathologist Dr John Lee, shows how the whole edifice of COVID restrictions is predicated on asymptomatic spread, yet how the scientific foundation for its very existence is shaky, or frankly spurious. But there is one potential fly in the ointment.