Posts by Navid

Quote from THHuxleynew

The truth is that you have given us nothing but unsubstantiated lies, slurs, and conspiracies e.g. many people are bought and paid for. I reckon usually when people argue like that it is because they attribute to their targets the same human venal principles they have. (I don't by this men to attack your integrity - but suspect many of the eccentric online sources you seem to believe).

• politicians - want to win power. Some (most in the UK, but not alas our beloved PM) genuinely want to do good as primary motivation, and want power mainly for that reason - though the ones who are good at it must also like power. The way politics works in 2 party countries a lot of politicians (again, not our PM) are motivated by tribal loyalty to their party, which is all mixed up with an idealistic and inevitably prejudiced view that it will be better for the country than "the other side".
• scientists however are genuinely motivated by inquiry, they tend to want to get to the truth and say it as it is. They don't all do this, and they make as many mistakes as anyone else. But they are much more likely to be on the side of the truth than others.

I've never seen a more disgraceful and depraved response. Why- because you are the one who claims hurt feelings and you don't read or review anything and just put "lies, slurs, and conspiracy" stickers on the "produce" without even trying it.

I work in data. The conclusions that come from that data are short-puts. The latest was the French Health Minister. Perhaps you are an old guy, in which case you are more concerned with psychological stability and I suggest none of what is happening is for you - better to read fiction from yesteryear.

Otherwise, only a true professional could spend so much time stirring the pot -- as seen by this latest response. Again, the administrators are going to get a THH and friends forum soon.

Quote

Science is not something you'd do to make lots of money or get famous, so you can see why it needs other motivations.

The people who are at the top of Pharma indeed have a multibillions - and trillions in the long term. The top can fund many other scientists, indeed that is why scientists will take money from people with Epstein. The mechanism of getting results you want is cash control + blackmail control.

Quote from Shane D.

https://forecasters.org/blog/2…-for-covid-19-has-failed/

New report out by Ionnadis and team; this time to critique the performance of his colleagues...Epidemiologist modelers. Very hard hitting commentary...probably to get even with those same colleagues who have made him a pariah for bucking their early pandemic, "sky-is-falling" narrative. After that, he settles down, and gets to the "what was said/what happened", and then on to how the various models, and modelers, erred. Then he suggests how not to make the same mistakes in the future.

He concludes with this, which I thought was very well said:

"Let’s be clear: even if millions of deaths did not happen this season, they may happen in the next wave, next season, or with some new virus in the future. A doomsday forecast may come handy to protect civilization, when and if calamity hits. However, even then, we have little evidence that aggressive measures which focus only on few dimensions of impact actually reduce death toll and do more good than harm. We need models which incorporate multicriteria objective functions. Isolating infectious impact, from all other health, economy and social impacts is dangerously narrow-minded. More importantly, with epidemics becoming easier to detect, opportunities for declaring global emergencies will escalate. Erroneous models can become powerful, recurrent disruptors of life on this planet. Civilization is threatened from epidemic incidentaloma"

Display More

Lonnadis, is one of the good ones but he doesn't understand the game he is in. The truth is many people are bought and paid for, there are epidemiologists who produce the models that fit the circumstance we wanted. Imperial College just needs a stupid 5.6% case fatality rate, and then politicians/govt insiders at all levels, special forces, WHO, CDC, pharma turned the crank to get us where they want us.

The world-makers don't care about the models they can always hire "their man". This guy is pretty honest - go to timepoint 2800 and you will see that "they consider the public a flock of sheep and you use border collies to drive them where you want them."

Part of the issue is that these tactics have been going on internationally for decades and the local western population can't seem to understand they are now having the screws turned on them.

The control class looks to be have misjudged their ability to pull this off. Aluminum cannot penetrate through thick steel columns. But the inherent fear of "the other" and the clash of civilization narrative was effective. It was a Hollywood film and we paid trillions in tickets willingly. And this film is bold, but I think it will be harder to suppress the science and I don't think we want to pay anymore.

"They" must be paying heavily to pull in favors from all angles. Now the top journals in the field are compromised and in a wretched position, like Science and NEJM.

In a stunning moment the former French Health Minister has given us the goods. We knew the science, but now we know they know that we know they are criminals against humanity. If you don't speak French turn on the text CC.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why should I feed a troll identity ? A person that does just believe LENR is not real a person that strictly follows the codex of the (F,R,J,B) mafia? Do you also just believe that the paper of A Norwegian company now is less believable because the mafia forced a general to retract from the authors list?

Such games are the best confirmation that the science is showing the truth. The cricket brains of the (F,R,J,B) mafia are obviously not aware that in the age of information science their book of strategy has become open because we exactly know which people at what position are members of the mafia.

I hear you W. This thread has become lame. Interest from good people is inversely correlated with lameness. Every time some legitimate data is posted, a pseudo-troll whips up some article from the fake-news media or attacks the other person.

The personal attacks are are the usual means of ending debate, both here and in the fake-news media. For example in this example, Montagnier is now painted as a controversial figure - because he supports discussions about vaccination, or electromagnetics applied to DNA.

How can any human being be involved in these sick topics! They should be attacked! It is sorcery, witchcraft! This is as old as time, and the people involved in this argumentation are no different than those who wanted Galileo imprisoned. Just because it is digital, just because you perceive yourself as "modern" does not make your actions anymore vile. There are some lemmings who take on the cause to charge others of heresy because they are indoctrinated and somewhat afraid of the unknown.  These are the intellectual middle managers. However, the top owners class wants to ridicule those involved in heresey not because of truth but because of their business model. The Catholic Church is also a business (it took them 1992-1616=376 years to pardon Galileo!). Vaccines, alternative health therapies and LENR are controversial (whatever you believe, about them which is another matter), because they challenge big business models. Hopefully, 376 years don't go by while we keep using heresy as a way to stop discussion and inquiry on things about LENR. That is why the forum owners need to be educated on bigger picture issues - and this forum is ripe to be driven into the ground by paid and unpaid intellectual middle managers.

In the real world, if someone started a discussion about electromagnetics and DNA - it would be a great conversation that would last days, without any name calling - we don't know everything about E&M - even an electron is up for grabs - how are we going to know everything about the how E&M applies to quantum chemistry? If that conversation happened in real life, it is hard for me to believe that NORMAL people would stop talking to a human being face to face midway through a conversation and say "let me check Google before we continue. " And then do a Google search to discredit the other person. Then say to the other person "this is not a valid line of thinking, Montagnier is a controversial figure as per Google, you believe in conspiracy theories, I must end this conversation.'

But online this is what people do. Paid or unpaid, these tactics by middle managers work - they manage the conversation and usually that means driving it into the ditch. It works. You will see the posts by good people become less and less. Unless there is a plausible serious intent for conversation and not management of the conversation, the value in posting will be less and less. Luckily, there are a few thought leaders here who I still come to listen to.

Quote from RobertBryant

50 different vision mechanisms.. by 50 different routes.. does not rule out a Creator

just as "50 different cameras "does not rule out human designers

It is the comedy of the modern scientific mind. Imagine an alien comes to the earth and sees 50 different brands of cars, and says they all use similar but not the same layouts and systems (genetics). I can see there is a physical similarity in layout and structure, these cars must not imply there are human designers. I also believe they evolved from one to another or nature favors the creation of car layouts inherently.

Quote from Shane D.

We have already talked about the Lancet/NEJM HCQ studies based on data supplied by Surgisphere. This article exposes even more embarrassing information about Surgisphere:

https://amp.theguardian.com/wo…zation-hydroxychloroquine

This is a developing major scientific fiasco.

This is telling on who controls what. They want to delay and delay because the vaccine is tied to IDs, which is tied to currency which is tied to the total control matrix.

They will literally do anything to ensure this goes through including putting garbage studies like this into "reputable journals."

Thinking you are undersiege or have to save the world can put stress on you. My best insight is that we are here to realize we are more than a bunch of atoms, that we are actually designed. That's an opinion, but everything is in fact, an opinion on the state of reality with various forms of evidence. Thus we are not the creator of this place - we are probably here to discover there is a creator we came from and go back to (that's what spirit is).

If anyone who is feeling stressed or troubled. Please watch this set of videos(oldest first). In human psychology is Richard Grannon is the genius of our times. From the UK nonetheless!

I just heard that a study showed that of 30k senior living center excess deaths in the UK (not sure in what timeframe) --

10k died of Covid.

20k died of isolation (couldn't get medical care, medicine etc) the quarantine killed them.

We should be ashamed of ourselves, and I include myself for not speaking up louder and educating more people.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, I agree, but the authors point is that many of those whom died in that .26% IFR figure, died from something else. That is something that has been mentioned here before, and brushed off. Yes, that may be offset with people dying outside of the hospital, and not included.

In a few more months, we should have a fairly accurate IFR. It could go either way IMO, but fact is that many near death from other illnesses, were counted as dying from COVID. Colorado alone readjusted ~28% downwards, after they factored that in.

It is intentional obfuscation of death statistics. Pointed out by Project Veritas, Senator Jensen of Minneapolis, and many other physicians.

Looks like they took the same assumptions I did to get a 0.26% number.

I think this really is 0.1% w/ proper treatment. As stated many times - a bad flu. Be careful.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

How Turkey Took Control of Covid19 Emergency

"Chief doctor Nurettin Yiyit - whose art work is on the hospital walls - says it's key to use hydroxychloroquine early. "Other countries are using this drug too late," he says, "especially the United States. We only use it at the beginning. We have no hesitation about this drug. We believe it's effective because we get the results."

On a tour of the hospital, adding and subtracting protective layers as we go, he explains that Turkey's approach is to "get ahead of the virus", by treating early and treating aggressively. They use hydroxychloroquine and other drugs, along with blood plasma and oxygen in high concentrations."

Good for them for doing the right thing. When entire nation's top medical people are using the drug and say it is working people don't think "hmmm...wtf?"

The best control is not tanks and guns and physical threats (eg. "Don't take HCQ or we kill you!"), it is thought control. Fake science.

Here in North America the control system has people scared out of their mind that they are going to die because of the very drug that is going to save them. When Trump says "invisible enemy" just think, he's actually talking about two things....

BTW, when you pay attention to the source of this mess they provoke some new destraction to divide the people and squabble and fight each other. As old as time tactics.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The EU will distribute a welcome package of 750 Billions to some wealthy people mostly. The USA will do the same. Just feeding the usual friends. Of course the will do it as usual (according the Rotary/FM/J handbook). Rescue/helping some highly visible companies and very poor individuals. Highly/feed the press with these generous presents and behind the Scene cash in at least 90% of money. (Greeting from Putin! & Xi ) The same has been done with east Germany.

The Covid bailouts in the US included $1.3m avg for 43 millionaires in the US. On top of that most of the top companies got bailed out (after they pillaged their companies with debt -- it was the end of the scam). And now the Pharma is going to get into the gig w/ a huge new business model. The tech guys are hoping more surveillance will mean more gov money to spy.

The plebs don't care about this, are scared to literal death, and just want to be injected by vaccine witchdoctors, like yesterday.

A more pathetic state of the man, and I really mean pathetic has never been seen in history.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Navid. please provide complete rational argument, not rhetoric.

The average of those figures is 0.52% which is not 0.4%

True, they do not provide all the raw data, so no-one can be sure they have done what would be correct, which is to weight the age cohort figures by case numbers. However, your hypoythesis above that they are incompetent and have averages those figures is provably wrong. If you persist in not understanding this would it help to consider the other columns in the same table, where you will find that they have not taken a straight average?

So let me correct you. you do not know what they have done, and appear not to understand what would be correct, because you question their figures for no reason.

I do understand what would be correct here, and have no reason not to think their figures are correct.

In any case, these figures do not show 0.1% IFR as you have repeatedly claimed. They show 0.4% SCFR or 0.3% including an estimated (unusually large) 35% asymptomatic cases. Neither figure is exactly IFR, the 0.3% is closest.

Display More

I said they summed the data (not averaged) and that is 0.38% so 0.4%.

Quote from THHuxleynew

... their number is plausible given what we know about demographics of cases.

You are staking your argument on something you don't even understand. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, my mistake!

AFAIK they summed the data which gets to 0.004. Makes no sense. Scaling by #cases makes no sense either.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Because it is the best figure for estimating likely future use of health resources and propagation of the epidemic.

How did they come up with the 0.4% number and what value is there in it? (I know you said the # of cases was involved - where is that data?)

Good humor!

Quote from sam12

Overall our Canadian Politicians have been

doing a good job leading the

Country fighting CV.

But this report does not look good

for Toronto and surrounding area.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada…o-update-may-26-1.5584665

Display More

How about we stop putting an army of patrol officers out - and suit them up to go help these people in the nursing homes. 77% of deaths are from nursing homes.

All you need to know is that this is not about helping the old people, they are collateral damage. Hope someone is held accountable, I highly doubt it.

Quote from JedRothwell

You can see that data anywhere!....and millions worldwide.

They don't need to look. Any doctor has seen serious influenza cases. Doctors know damn well that vaccines work, and they are very safe. That's common knowledge.

You need to stop spreading dangerous, pernicious lies. This is not the place for them. If I were in charge here, I would insist you stop.

Your screeds are full of emotion but lack data. Eugenics was a science - and it was common knowledge "what was good for society" based on science that was "damn well proven."

What is dangerous is people who tell you what to believe - like you - and want to silence the debate. A month ago it was all but settled for you, that we have to close down civilization for vaccines. The overblown fear tactics guised as "our best models and science."

This has locked down millions - and will lead to much more death, suffering, and damage than you know about - with millions internationally affected. People who try to stop the conversation are the threat - that is the real threat. Anyone who says "trade your freedom for our safety" is a far more dangerous threat. People have died for freedom; but dying for someone's call to your safety history has shown over and over is from the worst kinds of evil. I'm not going to threaten you - as you have - but I would say as people wake up they too will call you out.

You don't know what the true risk profile of getting more and more vaccines. You don't. We have good evidence they are far less safe than advertised.

We haven't even begun to discuss what goes on in a Moderna vaccine. It is a living experiment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Sure you weight the 3 SCFR numbers by the number of cases in each age category to get the overall SCFR. I said it above in my post.

I don't understand this logic. What is the point of doing this other than to goose numbers higher? Are you saying that if there was a 10% fatality rate in the group aged 80+ (w/ 100 cases) and 1% fatality rate in group 0-60 (w/ 10 cases) -- you would weight the 80+ group higher? Thus this would mean a (.1 * 100/110 + 0.01 * 10/110) weighting = 0.0918 = 9.18% aggregate fatality rate?

What I do believe is that these numbers are goosed. I went back over the math and it actually was 0.27% fatality rate if you take their numbers and apply to the population.

However, the 35% Percent of infections that are asymptomatic seems to be a gross under-statement given population data we have already.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Navid - I am so sorry. I posted earlier detailing why you are very wrong about the CDC planning document. It was quite long. I think I never submitted it!

OK - so your errors are as follows:

(1) You say CDC take an average of stratified age-group figures. WRONG. The Scenario 5 figures would average to 0.66% were that true, they give 0.4% - there are quantisation errors but they cannot be that big. You accuse CDC of incompetence, I'd say not checking what they actually did, and assuming it is something (wrong) that the figure show it could not be, is wrong. See (2) below to see what CDC acttually did and why it is correct.

(2) You say that correct average is a population-weighted average. WRONG. Look at the legend in the table. This is SCFR "Symptomatic case fatality ratio". That is not the same as IFR, and you need to weight the symptomatic cases by how many symptomatic cases in each stratified by age bin have occurred. Now, as we know, symptomatic cases are more likely for older bins, hence this explains why your population average is completely wrong. The CDC average is correct, it is a symptomatic case number weighted average

(3) You assume that SCFR is the same as IFR. It is not. It is higher (by an assumed 35% under scenario 5 due to asymptomatic cases). It is lower, because shielding of those most likely to die can make the SCFR lower than the whole population mortality rate (IFR). But even if you define IFR as SCFR adjusted for asymptomatic cases you get 0.3% from these figures, not the 0.1% you expect.

I'd like you to address these in detail: I will respond in case you do not understand the above. I've condensed a previously longer post so I'm aware you may need more detail: apologise just i can't bear to type it all again!

PS - accusing others of incompetence, lame math, etc means that your own competence and math needs to be impeccable. I'm sure it will be after you have looked again at the CDC work (and noted what SCFR means and why population average is not correct).

Display More

Let's start with one thing. How did CDC come up with their 0.4% number. You expressed confidence in their numbers, so you understand them. Explain it.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is an excellent analysis of the death rate in the U.S., based on stats from New York. This covers a variety of topics such as age, comorbidity, and herd immunity.

https://www.worldometers.info/…s/coronavirus-death-rate/

Conclusion:

Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover).

That is reasonably in line with numbers from Japan and Korea, where the epidemic effectively ended weeks ago. Just about everyone there who is likely to die has died. There are now only 148 critically ill patients in Japan. 5% of total cases died in Japan, but their definition of a case was narrow at first. I think there were many "probable" cases. That is, people who were probably infected but not included in the totals. That does not mean those people were ignored. I believe nearly all were quarantined, and the case trackers looked for people they might have infected. No case brought to the attention of doctors has been ignored, as far as I know.

There are now very few undetected cases. We know that because there are so few detected cases: 20 to 40 per day. If there were many undetected ones, and asymptomatic people inadvertently spreading the disease, you would see many more untraceable cases appearing.

https://covid19japan.com/

Display More

Welcome to the Jed and THH forum where they ignore data posted, and thrash around.

THHuxley why don't you and Jed figure out what you think the IFR is and then post it to this forum - looks like you disagree again.