💥💥 Situation Update, Dec. 7th – DNI John Ratcliffe, the bogus science of PCR testing and China’s GMO super soldiers
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
Confirmed Insurrection Act is ready to be invoked. Confirmed US troops will be deployed as needed.
Trump Team Begins Forensic Examination of
https://t.co/eJQHGMZc9x
President Donald Trump’s legal team began a forensic analysis of Dominion voting machines in Michigan after a judge on Friday permitted the examination...
https://t.co/zp7DlLyLim
Law enforcement officials served a search warrant at the home of a Fountain Hills man (Elliott Kerwin) and seized computers, hard drives and other
👉 Lin Wood Plans Supreme Court Petition After Court Rejects Georgia Appeal – The Epoch Times
https://t.co/5kfy44EvxO
“The stakes are high as the case deals with a disputed
✅ John Ratcliffe, DNI
👉 A background in cybersecurity, infrastructure protection and cyber terrorism: from the official
✅ Ratcliffe’s bombshell article in the WSJ, calling out China as humanity’s worst enemy – https://t.co/7vX5VFFiRv
https://t.co/DmDemiwBu2
The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest
✅ DNI John Ratcliffe States He Has Produced Thousands of
“There was an abuse of power and of legal authorities, and it’s not a question about whether those things took place — they did. I mean, there’s an FBI lawyer who
✅ Ratcliffe names 5G and genetically modified super soldiers as growing threats against America, engineered by China
“I am hoping now that the election is over, now that people have voted, and if there
Ratcliffe told Fox News that China intends “to dominate economically,
“All of the threat streams that we have, from all aspects, militarily, economically, supply chain issues, foreign investment, technologically, cyber issues,
When asked whether the United States was in an offensive or defensive position
[M. Adams]
@threadreaderapp unroll please
More from Warren C.🇺🇸 45th POTUS = G.O.A.T. 🇺🇸 ✝️
More from Science
@mugecevik is an excellent scientist and a responsible professional. She likely read the paper more carefully than most. She grasped some of its strengths and weaknesses that are not apparent from a cursory glance. Below, I will mention a few points some may have missed.
1/
The paper does NOT evaluate the effect of school closures. Instead it conflates all ‘educational settings' into a single category, which includes universities.
2/
The paper primarily evaluates data from March and April 2020. The article is not particularly clear about this limitation, but the information can be found in the hefty supplementary material.
3/
The authors applied four different regression methods (some fancier than others) to the same data. The outcomes of the different regression models are correlated (enough to reach statistical significance), but they vary a lot. (heat map on the right below).
4/
The effect of individual interventions is extremely difficult to disentangle as the authors stress themselves. There is a very large number of interventions considered and the model was run on 49 countries and 26 US States (and not >200 countries).
5/
1/
I've recently come across a disinformation around evidence relating to school closures and community transmission that's been platformed prominently. This arises from flawed understanding of the data that underlies this evidence, and the methodologies used in these studies. pic.twitter.com/VM7cVKghgj
— Deepti Gurdasani (@dgurdasani1) February 1, 2021
The paper does NOT evaluate the effect of school closures. Instead it conflates all ‘educational settings' into a single category, which includes universities.
2/
The paper primarily evaluates data from March and April 2020. The article is not particularly clear about this limitation, but the information can be found in the hefty supplementary material.
3/
The authors applied four different regression methods (some fancier than others) to the same data. The outcomes of the different regression models are correlated (enough to reach statistical significance), but they vary a lot. (heat map on the right below).
4/
The effect of individual interventions is extremely difficult to disentangle as the authors stress themselves. There is a very large number of interventions considered and the model was run on 49 countries and 26 US States (and not >200 countries).
5/
