Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...

... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again: https://t.co/bHYdxxmwp9)
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9
Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x
Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
Example #4 - "You need to look at all the varibles, but I don't"

Tweet: https://t.co/gQs2G0pFCF
Video: https://t.co/4mpZKXIgKQ
Final graph with all restrictions for Ireland @StuartDNeilson
Examples #5-#18 - https://t.co/G3MrMT7DMT

various goalpost shifting, ignorance of facts, logic, data, science

h/t @jocami_ca
Example #19 - "I'm going to include that study even though I don't know what it says" (see some of previous tweets examples)

https://t.co/JjvZfNAxgp
^ Ivor's theme of Lockdowns don't work, don't match the papers' findings.
https://t.co/CatJd5PV3H
https://t.co/7EcJnkfFXK ---
Example #20 - Spreading misinformation from a right-wing anti-vaccine group spokesperson

Ivor's widespread video debunked: https://t.co/7EcJnkfFXK
source video: https://t.co/Pq4u5RgMS7

Image source: https://t.co/ES3RwshHs5
Example #21 - "You're talking about selective lockdown. It doesn't work! / Let's do that thing that doesn't work! People dying never felt so good!"

Tweets: https://t.co/gNhNLOc5wB / https://t.co/m3o46KTH21

Great Barrington Declaration debunked: https://t.co/gP8fxSAvH2...
... #21 contd - https://t.co/a7HugHEqHN, https://t.co/dniFp8nMaS, https://t.co/ATrsr2ZBd2, https://t.co/EbwujUFmeg, https://t.co/B9joA2xUUz ---
Example #22 - "We are in a casedemic! / Uh oh! I was wrong... That was a creature of the Summer! / Uh oh! That still doesn't make any sense!"

Tweets: https://t.co/gNhNLOc5wB / https://t.co/DXJ3QzRj8G

h/t: @greg_travis: https://t.co/sfCKavwCbG ---
Example #23 - "I have never been debunked! Even when I was! I wasn't! Liar Liar Pants On Bloody Fire You Guys!"

Ivor really says that: https://t.co/SAQIrgD6t3

Tweet: https://t.co/cduViTcs3b

@DrDomPimenta debunking Ivor:
https://t.co/zohU0S4aFz,
https://t.co/Ate8UMOVqG ...
... #23 cont. - https://t.co/RzyyQCmx8Y,
https://t.co/HNlZ2o7VFR
https://t.co/GkDOY5PgX9
& as above.

More from Finance

The Dutch regulator and DNB as financial supervisor are a tough cookie to deal with. In essence they hyperregulate EU-rules into goldplated Dutch rules which go beyond what is prescribed in Europe.

All NL-customers at British banks may thus be kicked out on brexit.

Thread

/1

If we start with the capital requirements directive, it says attracting deposits is forbidden. In article 9.

https://t.co/RYl7SXligC


Now the translation of that rule into Dutch law is slightly expanded to not only prohibit attracting deposits, but to also prohibit, having those deposits under custody ('ter beschikking hebben').

That's not in EU law, but it is in our Dutch law.

https://t.co/PsbWfNY3PA


So if you wonder how this would work out for UK banks and Payment institutions servicing Dutch customers. Have a read at the technical explanation of DNB, the financial supervisor and their summarising table.

https://t.co/LL0fAnYkRJ

Passive servicing of Dutch is not allowed!


Any bank or PSP in the UK that continues to serve Dutch customers (as in retail customers, professional players are excepted) can thus be subject to fines and policing under Dutch law.

Meaning we not only have Accidental American issues in payments, but also Accidental Dutchies

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x