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
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens goes on in his column (which never saw light of day) to cite famous Lee Atwater quote that uses racial slur, and which NYT has cited \u201cat least seven times.\u201d
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal?\u201d he asks.
...
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
That is correct. In his draft he quotes Atwater using the word (4 times) and he does not redact it.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
