It’s not lockdown. See NW England:
This is the largest #SecondaryRipple (which I predicted).
I invite people to run the thought experiment: “what if the ‘cases’ data is inaccurate?”
Ignore ‘cases’, look instead only at excess deaths (per M Levitt’s tweet). Does that look characteristic of an epidemic? It’s completely diff from spring or any winter flu outbreak.
London:
It’s not lockdown. See NW England:
This is the largest #SecondaryRipple (which I predicted).
Now check the 3 predictions I made months ago. They’ve all happened. Compare predictions from SAGE’s statements: they’re all wrong.
Even neutrals at this point might ask themselves “if he’s been right on all predictions, maybe he’s correct now?”
https://t.co/7tdvEaNSvN
I got ‘fact checked’ a LOT over that statement. This paper just published, about precisely that time period I speculated about. Turns out that high-80s% of Dr Healy’s positives by PCR were FALSE. This alone is sufficient in my view to throw severe doubt...
I say “Yes, it can”. We need to know what is the false diagnosis rate of the PCR mass testing system, because it’s the DOMINANT dataset driving national policy in every way. And there have been examples in the past, notably when using PCR,
Do the checks now, while there is still a country to salvage.
Why is Govt so...
Why are...
Why are we reduced to writing legal...
https://t.co/i1QhuYZ3M8
Do you think he’ll reply?
Don’t YOU want the truth, too?
More from Yardley Yeadon
I urge all followers who have read my criticisms of PCR mass testing in U.K. to carefully read Mr Fordham’s carefully worded letter. Note that the innovation minister in the Lords, Lord Bethel, already admitted that the PCR system doesn’t have the equivalent of an MOT. https://t.co/zXzeDMKCBb
Without this information it’s impossible to interpret any result. If the oFPR is 4%, for example, and if the true prevalence is 0.3% (it’s probably less), then for every 10,000 tests, 400 positives would be false & 30 positives would be genuine. So 93% of positives are false.
As Mr Fordham points out, almost all policies pivot on PCR mass testing. Hancock previously admitted on talkRADIO to Julia Hartley-Brewer in late summer that the FPR was “just under 1%”. That was a flat lie (possibly inadvertent but he’s never corrected the record). The reason...
...we are sure Hancock told a lie is that they have never known the FPR. Those including Hancock who believe that the oFPR can be estimated by inspection of the lowest positivity ever recorded, while logical, is completely wrong. Changes in personnel, throughout, testing...
...architecture & the like can radically alter the oFPR. Since Hancock’s remark in late summer, PCR mass testing has moved into the Lighthouse Labs & this creates a new & urgent need to continually assess oFPR. I’ve good reason to believe it’s now VERY much higher now that the...
So I wrote back to @lucyfrazermp for another go. Here\u2019s my letter.
— Edmund Fordham (@EdmundFordham) November 28, 2020
They don\u2019t understand how serious this is.
If they can\u2019t tell us the oFPR, our PCR testing is worthless. (thread) pic.twitter.com/zHJ8SJCzf1
Without this information it’s impossible to interpret any result. If the oFPR is 4%, for example, and if the true prevalence is 0.3% (it’s probably less), then for every 10,000 tests, 400 positives would be false & 30 positives would be genuine. So 93% of positives are false.
As Mr Fordham points out, almost all policies pivot on PCR mass testing. Hancock previously admitted on talkRADIO to Julia Hartley-Brewer in late summer that the FPR was “just under 1%”. That was a flat lie (possibly inadvertent but he’s never corrected the record). The reason...
...we are sure Hancock told a lie is that they have never known the FPR. Those including Hancock who believe that the oFPR can be estimated by inspection of the lowest positivity ever recorded, while logical, is completely wrong. Changes in personnel, throughout, testing...
...architecture & the like can radically alter the oFPR. Since Hancock’s remark in late summer, PCR mass testing has moved into the Lighthouse Labs & this creates a new & urgent need to continually assess oFPR. I’ve good reason to believe it’s now VERY much higher now that the...
More from For later read
1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread
How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.
Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were
2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work
3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics
4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things
5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.
Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were
Where are good old days when techies were libertarians.
— Cranky (@rushingdima) January 9, 2021
2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work
3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics
4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things
5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
