BC SOCIETY
Saved by @CodyyyGardner

Postcard From Luxembourg: normality is restored prior to vaccination.
I’ve repeatedly said that “test, test, test” is madness, if the tests are unregulated. Why?
‘Because pandemic’, NO PCR mass testing has a declared operational false positive rate.

So we don’t know the oFPR of PCR mass testing in U.K. This is conducted in a small number of private labs, set up at pace in summer, anticipating a ‘2nd wave’ (itself a dubious prediction from the Imperial team who’ve been wrong every time before). You’d assume these “Lighthouse
...Labs are surely regulated, inspected, accredited etc. They’re doing the most impactful medical diagnostic testing which has ever happened in history. But no. None of these are true. ‘Because pandemic’. Now, I don’t know the oFPR either. But we’re paying for it. It is NOT ZERO.
However, the authorities take every positive result as a “confirmed case” (though there’s nothing confirmed). There is no open protocol you can examine & debate. None of the results are available for understanding, thinking & interpretation. Wouldn’t it be important to learn...
...how the distribution of cycle threshold for positives varies through a run of tens of thousands of samples? Or through time? Or across geography? There is no routine evaluation of the characteristics of the test, even though we know the oFPR of complex systems is subject to...
...variability due to multiple intrinsic factors that have nothing to do with the PCR part of the chain of custody of the sample.
With very high numbers of tests per day, even low oFPR can make a major contribution to the apparent number of “cases”. It’s not correct to assume...
...that a value for oFPR obtained previously & elsewhere with a test conducted by others under completely different circumstances applies here. It’s easy, cheap & fast to measure it. That it’s never done tells me that the normal rules of good scientific practise have been put...
...to one side.
It’s worth stepping back & asking “if mass testing is untrustworthy & unregulated, why are we doing ever more of it?”
It’s a good question.
Why we ever started down this road is another. Recall what humans have done for millennia when trying to assess if a...
...person represents a potential respiratory illness threat? We look closely at one another, looking for symptoms that warn us “this person could make us ill”. In the absence of such symptoms, no special precautions are needed. But in 2020, for the first time in history, we...
...were told we could have respiratory disease without symptoms & that we could infect others despite having no symptoms. This so-called “asymptomatic transmission” actually isn’t important. The whole story was concocted from flimsy evidence: 6 individual ‘case reports’ & no...
...more than 7 individuals! In the entire world! This is ‘evidence’? When the most famous example turned out to be fraudulent yet the case report wasn’t withdrawn? (a person was said to have infected many others, yet had no symptom. It turned out they did have symptoms & had...
...taken medicines as best they could to suppress their symptoms so they could continue their work).
Armed now with the novel concept of “asymptomatic transmission” & funded mightily by the taxpayer, private labs went full steam ahead on mass testing. Remember, we’ve no idea...
...what the oFPR is. It matters hugely. Most people don’t appreciate that the importance of a FPR cannot be assessed just by knowing it. If I was to suggest it was, for example, 2%, you might think that means, approximately, that 98% of the results are OK. But it doesn’t mean...
...that at all, and it’s probably a weakness in the definitions. Because what we really want to know is “what is the false diagnosis rate? How often is a positive result incorrect?” and the oFPR does not tell you that, not on its own. We also need to know the prevalence of the...
...thing we’re trying to measure. And it’s rather chicken & egg, if we use the sample measuring instrument to do that! Imagine the prevalence was also 2%. Now with an oFPR of 2%, the number of ‘cases’ is right only half the time. Even this doesn’t sound too bad, does it?
There’s still a raging pandemic on, right? Well, hold on. What if the oFPR is a little higher? What if the real prevalence is a little lower? It really doesn’t take very much, once the oFPR is bigger than the prevalence for the false diagnosis rate to skyrocket.
Bluntly, I...
...that particular Euro cent has dropped with decision makers in Luxembourg & they’ve tapered the mass testing. That is all it takes, if an undeclared oFPR & prevalence part company enough, then mass testing becomes the illness, not the virus. You can & should still “test, test..
...test”. But focus efforts only on those with symptoms. Never test blindly in the general population. Blazing away with a mass testing system where it’s literally impossible to take a guess at the false diagnosis rate is highly irresponsible. Even the scientists in those labs...
...know this, because is “diagnostic testing for beginners”. It’s not controversial. It’s not ‘denialism’. I want to know true prevalence as much as anyone. I’m telling you as an experienced lab scientist that you cannot guess at FDR based on the information available. But it’s..
...not zero. It has a value & it will vary, so you also need to know its range. We don’t know that, either. Not only is the FDR not zero & is unknown, but it’s entirely possible that it’s high. Certainly possible that it’s high enough to change how you’d see the whole situation.
So today’s plea (again) is to demand from those running the labs & to anyone in authority: do these simple, low cost & quick experiments. If you won’t, it’s not possible to ascribe good motives to what you’re doing & profiting hugely from. Maybe there’s someone working in one...
...of those labs who has uncertainties about what they’re part of & the impact of untrustworthy data on society? If this is you, please do something.
Everyone else, please know that until proper validation is done on the PCR mass testing system, the daily number of “cases”...
...that you’re being told about & even the number of those dying a “Covid death” are both completely meaningless. They might be correct, though I very much doubt it. There’s extraordinarily clear evidence emerging of large scale misattribution of covid19 deaths in the public...
...record. Hold on: if that’s true (& it it is) doesn’t it mean that the false diagnosis rate could be very high? Doesn’t it mean that it MUST be high? Why, yes & yes. It means exactly that.
Once that penny drops, you surely appreciate what it means? That none of the data can...
...be trusted. Even officialdom cannot know you what extent the official record fairly reflects or hugely deviates from the reality.
If I’m right - and I believe I am by all logical means - then as the daily numbers aren’t reliable, they’re no longer measuring properly a...
...natural phenomenon but something to do with the characteristics of the testing system. And if that’s true...what is happening won’t fade away naturally, not even if the vaccines do what is hoped.
So be more Luxembourgish today. Think whether you’re content with our testing.

More from Yardley Yeadon

Yardley Yeadon
Yardley Yeadon
@MichaelYeadon3
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...
SOCIETY
Yardley Yeadon
Yardley Yeadon
@MichaelYeadon3
In a number of Sunday papers:
Scientific advisers said it was “hard to see” when the restrictions would end as new variants continued to emerge, delivering a potentially devastating blow to the travel industry. The prime minister said that after progress with vaccinations...

...”what we don’t want to see is all that work undone by the arrival of a new variant that is vaccine-busting”.
The idea is planted in people’s mind that this virus is mutating in such a way as to evade prior immunity. This is completely unfounded, certainly as regards immunity..

...gained naturally, after repelling the virus (which well around 99.9% of the population do, fewer, obviously in the very elderly & already ill, more in those younger & well). It’s important to appreciate that upon infection, the human immune system cuts up an infectious...

...agent into short pieces. Each of these short pieces of protein are presented to other cells in the immune system, like an identity parade. Our cells have a truly astonishing range of abilities to recognise different protein structures, and there will be some which recognise...

...each of the pieces of the invader. The cells which recognise a piece are instructed to multiply selectively so that, after a few days to a couple of weeks, our bodies contain large numbers of virus piece specific cells. These have a range of functions. Some make antibodies...
SCIENCE
Advertisement
Yardley Yeadon
Yardley Yeadon
@MichaelYeadon3
@ukiswitheu 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:


Can anyone explain why there is no ‘2nd wave’ of excess deaths in London, without invoking herd immunity?
It’s not lockdown. See NW England:
This is the largest #SecondaryRipple (which I predicted).


https://t.co/b0rT5Lq9HI
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?”


I’ve been saying since the Lighthouse Labs got up & running that I’m deeply sceptical about the trustworthiness of their ‘cases’ data. I showed how, at low virus prevalence, the PCR mass testing data was throwing out potentially 90% positives being

https://t.co/t4qQN4rH0u
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...
FOR LATER READ
Yardley Yeadon
Yardley Yeadon
@MichaelYeadon3
@scottorandojin What if the false diagnosis rate was 90%?
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m a thorough believer in the existence of this virus.

To exemplify: the NHS is under severe winter pressure. Many staff are unavailable, largely due to forced isolation from testing. Also, I’m told the adaptations to the conditions make normal work almost impossible. Trying to keep apart patients in different categories must be...

...incredibly stressful. I doubt I could ever have coped. Add to this the real stream of sick people & it’s a complete nightmare. My sympathies won’t be accepted but I offer them anyway. As to “the deaths”, do you mean the reported count of “covid19 deaths”? Everyone is doing...

...their very best. But as to that count: it’s nothing to do with clinical judgement. A covid19 death is a death from any cause within 28d of a positive test. So once a person is labelled by a positive test, if they then die, they’re a covid19 death. Back to my substantive...

...question: how reliable is that labelling? It’s not a clinical diagnosis. We’re not used to this idea. Never before in medical history has someone had a disease (let alone cause of death) been defined by the result of a single year alone. Yet that’s where we are. I think that..
HEALTH
Yardley Yeadon
Yardley Yeadon
@MichaelYeadon3
https://t.co/xvP6tVlIaE
Quite a surprise. Ferguson isn’t qualified to comment on such things. He lacks understanding of basic biological concepts, partly explaining why his predictions are often so extreme.


That said, I’ll take him as an ally. It’s clear we’re already at herd immunity. How can I be sure? London had a huge peak of excess deaths in spring. The timing of peak deaths showed clearly that the pandemic was self-limiting. Recall much debate about whether the interval...

...between lockdown & peak deaths was long enough for lockdown to have been the cause of reducing deaths? The answer was “no”. But it was close & I can understand people thinking “well, it’s close, so perhaps it was lockdown that did it?”, thereby establishing a foundational...

...myth favoured by those who genuinely believe lockdown saves lives (it clearly doesn’t).
I’ll get to London & here immunity. But those wavering about the evidence about lockdown in spring really will benefit from cogitating on this graph.


In blue are the 30 trusts with the earliest date of peak deaths in spring. In red, the 30 with the latest peak deaths. For me, this is proof that national lockdown, which began Mar 23, played no role whatsoever in turning the pandemic. You’ll see some areas had peak daily...
SCIENCE

More from Society

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
Internet Freedom Found...
@internetfreedom
THREAD: We filed RTIs on behalf of @no2uid asking the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare questions about how your personal data will be protected while you're using CO-WIN, the COVID-19 vaccination registration platform.

We got answers... kind of. Here's the new info.

1/n


Just like with Aarogya Setu, many Indians are worried that about the potential CO-WIN has to leak your data or threaten your privacy in the name of dealing with a pandemic. So, we asked the MOHFW some questions about data protection under the Right to Information Act.
2/n


In the responses we received, MOHFW said that it cannot provide us with a privacy policy on CO-WIN (?!).

Thankfully it was clarified that Aadhaar is not mandatory for registration on Aarogya Setu or CO-WIN, and that physical vaccine certificates will be provided to everyone.
3/n

The data it says it will collect will be your name, gender, date of birth, photo ID, and number.

National, State, and District level admins will have access to use the app, but there is not much further clarity on this point.

But most importantly...
4/n

The responses (or rather lack of them) related to your data privacy and protection are completely vague. We received no clear answers on which Ministries/Depts will have access to your personal data, the permissions provided, etc. This is a failure in terms of transparency.
5/n
SOCIETY
\uc2e0\ub150\uc758\uc0ac\ub098\uc774
신념의사나이...
@Belposto_korea
What does Gold- Backed mean?
The Chinese Elders have been accumulating gold for hundreds of years. They are gold-rich. Some of their gold was loaned to the Central Banking System so that it could fund the rebuilding of Europe after the many war-torn years from World Wars I and II

BTW they never returned it but used it to start their financial empire to enslave humanity. This is the Central Bank Banking System./2

Maybe this is why one of the conditions to use their gold for the QFS is the demise and full disclosure of the Central Bank banking system before the RV can take place./3

The Elders have caves of hidden gold and are now using it to gold-back the currencies in the QFS for every country in the world. It is important to understand that the QFS and the money it is about to release is all brand-new currency./4

It was designed by the Alliance to fund the new financial system that will reset all Currencies of the world to Gold-Backed currency./5
SOCIETY
Advertisement
The Sharing Scientist
The Sharing Scientist
@ScienceShared
Unless we pass laws which support people to enable them to self-isolate properly, any improvements to test & trace will have marginal impact and cases will simply spiral out of control once again as we ease lockdown in December.

A short thread on what we can do and why 👇
1/


Improving the currently poor rates of self-isolation is actually the key point, which many scientists, politicians, & commentators do still seem to be missing.

This requires good public health communication, proper support for those who need to self-isolate, & trust.
2/

Massive testing and tracing will only significantly reduce
transmission if positive cases isolate effectively. Yet
currently fewer than 20% of those who should isolate are fully adherent.

I don't think I need to explain why it's so critical to improve these rates.

3/

Survey data shows intention to adhere to test/trace/isolate behaviours is higher than self-reported adherence: whilst 76% of people intend to share contacts, only 50% of people correctly recognise symptoms &
just 12% get a test, 18% isolate, & 11% of contacts isolate properly.
4

Self-reported ability to self-isolate
is three times lower in those who earn less than £20,000 per year or have less than £100 saved.

5/
SOCIETY
Jerusalem
Jerusalem
@JerusalemDemsas
For Black History Month, Vox is publishing a big series on rethinking policy for Black America.

I wrote 3,200 words on eradicating exclusionary zoning.

It's a 3 step formula: Persuade, incentivize, and if all else fails, SUE THE SUBURBS.

Thread

We know that exclusionary zoning is locking millions out of opportunity.

Work by @OppInsights, Richard Rothstein, Ta-Nehisi Coates, @nhannahjones, @RickKahlenberg, Chang-Tai Hsieh, Enrico Moretti and @ProfSchleich details the economic impact of these discriminatory policies.


51 years after the Fair Housing Act, it's never been seriously enforced. It's time to change that.

First things first, Biden has work to do to convince whoever can be convinced that there is a racial, environmental, and economic imperative to undo residential segregation.


Use whatever explanation works!

For sympathetic progressives Biden should link racial and environmental justice to ending exclusionary zoning.

For everyone else, he can simply make an economic

Second, there are many tools to incentivize localities that rely on federal dollars to reform their zoning codes.

There is a ton of federal money that can be conditioned on reforming exclusionary zoning laws. @ebwhamilton has some good ideas on this front.
SOCIETY
NOT A DISCO DANCER || \u09b0\u09be\u099c \u09b6\u09c7\u0996\u09b0
NOT A DISCO DANCER || ...
@DiscourseDancer
Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+


Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+

It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+

My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.

But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+

Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
SOCIETY

You May Also Like

christmas cheer liz bruenig
christmas cheer liz br...
@ebruenig
one of the things i like about Batman is that it's fundamentally about being orphaned, and being an orphan — how this guy stays tethered to the world in his own weird, abstract, extrajudicial way when he feels that his link to it has been violently severed

Batman does this by permanently recapitulating his own trauma: solving crimes for other people, protecting them. But that's actually just the beginning; he also recapitulates his own experience of orphanness by essentially raising several orphans

Dick is an orphan in the traditional sense: dead parents. Batman sees it happen. Jason, less so: missing dad, known mom who eventually dies. Tim, even less so: parents are around a while, and involved, before both dying. Carrie, even less than that: negligent parents.

Steph: evil father, who openly works against her. And then there's Damian, whose parents are both alive and yet both have identities that totally obliterate their role as his parents. He doesn't relate to them as a mother and father; he can't, and neither can they.

In all these different cases, Batman tries all these different ways of making orphanness for them not what it was for him: Either by trying to teach them the (arguably poor) coping skills early that he learned over a very long time, or by literally legally adopting them, etc.
CULTURE
Zach Weinersmith
Zach Weinersmith
@ZachWeiner
Hey, for people interested in this stuff, here's a thread about a change we made to running our facebook account:

So, about 5 years ago, we got on facebook. Why? Well, facebook has a big audience and they like to consume on facebook. So, we started posting comics there, even though we got paid nothing and facebook made money off the free content.

Why? Because back then, once in a while, you would say "also hey, I sell books" or "hey, I'm going to be signing at this event" and your facebook followers would actually see it.

Effectively, the implicit old arrangement was "facebook lets me reach readers efficiently, and I supply facebook with free content they run ads on."

Over time, like a bad business partner, facebook basically made it impossible to reach your audience without *paying them*. Thus, you supply them free content on which they run ads, and you get nothing in exchange.
MARKETING
Advertisement
Sumit Grrg
Sumit Grrg
@sumitgrrg
These 10 threads will teach you more than reading 100 books

Five billionaires share their top lessons on startups, life and entrepreneurship (1/10)


10 competitive advantages that will trump talent (2/10)


Some harsh truths you probably don’t want to hear (3/10)


10 significant lies you’re told about the world (4/10)
ALL , MOTIVATION , BOOKS
Stephen Fasenfeld \U0001f600
Stephen Fasenfeld 😀...
@fasenfeld
1. “Who Are Ireland’s Members Of The World Economic Forum Implementing The Great Reset In 2021 ? 🧵1/28

🕵️🔎 Politicians, Musicians, Clergy, Bankers, Journalists, Human Rights, Artificial Intelligence, Sustainability, Corporations & Agriculture


2. In previous threads I have looked at 🇮🇪 key players in the Trilateral Commission as well as 🇮🇪 people who have attended the Bilderberger meetings. I also looked at the 🇮🇪 in the Young Global Leaders which is a site run by the WEF. You will see a lot of crossover between them.

3. The purpose of this thread is to compile all the Irish members into one thread for ease of access and reading rather than having to dive through the WEF site. This is by no means definitive and I will be adding more over time when they pop out of the woodwork.

4. Ireland’s WEF members are drawn from all walks of life but can be split into 2 separate areas. The WEF calls the first category “people” and the 2nd one “agenda contributors”. In total Ireland has a minimum of 61 members. Some of the names will be familiar and others will not

5. In this thread I’m just going to concentrate on the 21 people (there are probably a lot more). There are also 40 “agenda contributors” which I will cover in a separate thread. The agenda contributors are those who write articles or do research for the WEF site.
ECONOMY
Vibhu Vashisth
Vibhu Vashisth
@VIBHU_Tweet
IT WAS RISHI KANADA WHO GAVE THE ATOMIC THEORY & TALKED ABOUT THE GRAVITY OF EARTH, 2600 YEARS BEFORE AN APPLE FELL IN FRONT OF NEWTON'S EYES:

Scientists of the modern world credit an English scientist John Dalton (1766 CE -1844 CE) for the Atomic Theory.


And this is because, most of us are not even aware of an ancient Indian Sage named Kanada, who was the first to formulate the theory of atoms, almost 2600 yrs before Dalton and talk about earth's gravity.


Rishi Kanada was born around 600 BCE in Dwarka, Gujarat and he was the son of a philosopher named Ulka. He was fascinated with the minute detailing of the things right from his childhood. Once, when he was very young, he accompanied his father on a journey to Prayaga.


He saw plentiful grains scattered along the path leading to the shore of river Ganga. It's a tradition in Hindu families to scatter the grains for the ants and birds to feed on them. Suddenly, an ant caught his attention, who was feeding on a rice grain.


He was mesmerised by this very fact that how a small grain of rice becomes food for the ant but to satisfy the hunger of a person so many grains are needed together. This incidence made him realize the importance of a single grain of rice.
ALL