the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.
when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?
yikes.
google censorship of great barrington declaration: update.
this morning, there was no link to it in a direct google search.
now, there is.
could this be because certain internet felines noticed this and @chiproytx and @tedcruz helped call them out on this?
we may never know.
the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.
when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?
yikes.
they are not being censored for being wrong. they're being censored for being right and being credible
they're censored because the other side cannot rebut them
so remember this. look for it in the future. demand primary sources.
use other search engines.
bing seems to be seeking to inform, not to inflame and mislead.
(and yes, lots of people duplicated my finding this morning)
i'd be curious to see what they are all seeing now.
https://t.co/pvbWfJ4MkE
from the "make orwell fiction again" files:
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) October 10, 2020
google has memory holed the great barrington declaration
not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"
it's pure, simple propaganda
here's bing (who plays it straight) pic.twitter.com/kTdhH8zXia
it's not a full win, but it's a step in the right direction.
perhaps we all played some role.
i hope so.
let's keep watching and keep calling fouls when we see them
it's vital to a high functioning internet and informational ecosystem
consumer choice is what keeps businesses in line
but i also support transparency. if they ARE going to do this then people should know
no memory holes
let's circle the censorship in red pen and route around it
More from el gato malo
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
It took a Freedom of Information request but @Covid19DataUK acquired 2017-2019 averages for England hospitalizations.
— Yinon Weiss (@yinonw) December 31, 2020
2020 had 18% fewer hospitalizations than prior years.
All around the world, using hospital data without context of prior years is just a fear generating lie. pic.twitter.com/DJDpqhIQuw
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures
these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.
this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.
let's look.
above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.
we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.
this is devastating to the case for NPI.
clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.
barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.
this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.
there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.
this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.
everyone got the same R
these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.
this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.
let's look.
above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.
we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.
this is devastating to the case for NPI.
clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.
barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.
this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.
there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.
this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.
everyone got the same R
this methodology is a little complex, so let me explain what i did.
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) May 30, 2020
a few EU countries provide real day of death data. this lets us plot meaningful curves to show rate of disease change.
what struck me is how similar all the curves were.
everyone got the same shape. pic.twitter.com/bN0hILzoSl
for those looking for a compendium of mask studies this set from swiss policy research looks useful and has some good links and discussion.
also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to
first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.
it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.
the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was
also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.
ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same
the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks
the good studies do not support use
and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.
it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply
also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to
first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.
it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.
the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was
CDC claims that masks stopped the spread of covid in kansas by comparing masked and non-masked counties.
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) November 23, 2020
counterpoint: this was a cherry pick in terms of date and seasonality.
they ended the "study" aug 23.
then, covid season hit and the masks look to have made no difference. https://t.co/LgyjqPodOC pic.twitter.com/P2cfuZRtDs
also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.
ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same
this is from the study that CDC head robert redfield showcased the other night to "prove masks work"
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) July 28, 2020
it it the epidemiological equivalent of doing a sun dance at 5.30 AM and claiming you made that ball of fire in the sky appear
it's assumptive, lacks a control, & proves nothing pic.twitter.com/yTdBa7UFit
the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks
the good studies do not support use
back in the halcyon days of 2019, before the great politicization of epidemiology turned up into down and down into sideways, the WHO performed a survey of randomized, controlled trials on masks
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) September 28, 2020
1100 citations were winnowed to the 10 best for review.
masks looked ineffective. pic.twitter.com/A04MVVmXhu
and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.
it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply
this is a fascinating thread on possible physical properties of masks, viral spread, & infectivity
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) October 24, 2020
in essence, even if a mask stops large droplets, the force of expulsion may nebulize them into aerosols
so, it's possible that aerosol spread of cov is caused/accentuated by masks https://t.co/FiHfMU3NKD
the US runs its covid testing at 40Ct.
this is 1024X the amplification level of this cutoff for finding live virus that is in any way clinically relevant.
but please, tell me again how demanding more such testing is "science" and not "flooding the data w/ meaningless positives"
this is 1024X the amplification level of this cutoff for finding live virus that is in any way clinically relevant.
but please, tell me again how demanding more such testing is "science" and not "flooding the data w/ meaningless positives"
A systematic review published 12/3/20 by the Oxford U Ctr for Evidence-Based Med has confirmed that C19 rtPCR testing patient sample cycle thresholds (Cts) >30 (mean from 6-studies) are associated with NEGATIVE viral cultures, i.e., are non-infectious https://t.co/t79dSHnHgn
— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) December 6, 2020
More from Society
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
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
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
