Mutant variations and the danger of lockdowns
By Jemma Morris:
At the beginning of 2020 we embarked upon a nationwide epidemiological experiment in an attempt to reduce the mortality burden of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. The premise of the experiment, though never formally defined, was to trial the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions with respect to the infection rate and subsequent death toll of an airborne respiratory virus.
The hypothesis was treated as a foregone conclusion and presented with little doubt. A significant reduction in person-to-person interactions within a population will lead to a decreased infection rate and reduce the number of deaths associated with the virus. The scientific community were so confident in this hypothesis that they did not present it as a hypothesis at all. The experiment was not defined as an experiment. The resulting data was subsequently ignored.
No matter how certain we are of the outcome, good science is about asking questions
It’s easy to see why. Given our most basic understanding of how viruses spread from one person to another, any measures that suppress the transmission of viruses should inevitably lead to a reduction in associated mortality. But given that we have never actually investigated this correlation in a real-world setting, perhaps assumptions based on our “most basic understanding” are not sufficient. No matter how certain we are of the outcome, good science is about asking questions. If the answers contradict your assumptions then those answers should bring about a shift in your understanding.
One year into the great experiment, we have a wealth of global data to inform our conclusions. This data largely contradicts the confident hypothesis with which we embarked upon this journey and has therefore been ignored. Scientists and politicians have clutched at straws, manipulated data or simply ignored the evidence in an attempt to safeguard the integrity of the original idea.
The hypothesis was treated as a foregone conclusion and presented with little doubt. A significant reduction in person-to-person interactions within a population will lead to a decreased infection rate and reduce the number of deaths associated with the virus. The scientific community were so confident in this hypothesis that they did not present it as a hypothesis at all. The experiment was not defined as an experiment. The resulting data was subsequently ignored.
No matter how certain we are of the outcome, good science is about asking questions
It’s easy to see why. Given our most basic understanding of how viruses spread from one person to another, any measures that suppress the transmission of viruses should inevitably lead to a reduction in associated mortality. But given that we have never actually investigated this correlation in a real-world setting, perhaps assumptions based on our “most basic understanding” are not sufficient. No matter how certain we are of the outcome, good science is about asking questions. If the answers contradict your assumptions then those answers should bring about a shift in your understanding.
One year into the great experiment, we have a wealth of global data to inform our conclusions. This data largely contradicts the confident hypothesis with which we embarked upon this journey and has therefore been ignored. Scientists and politicians have clutched at straws, manipulated data or simply ignored the evidence in an attempt to safeguard the integrity of the original idea.
Related:
Spacing COVID-19 vaccine doses has epidemiological benefits, but longer-term outcomes depend on immunity robustness
My critique of the data was part of what I couldn't get published earlier. There is still a part of the post which won't publish, but the specific "antigen" the immune system of the internet is rejecting I've not been able to pinpoint.
ReplyDeleteThe lives of individuals, the existence of societies, and history itself often hinge on the most seemingly trivial contingencies.
What we have right now is a situation where a handful of people (though these are largely the front men) strode forth and then confidently took command of the entire planet. I have the sense-- and I'm quite sure they share it- of their invulnerability. They've got it nailed.
Unless everything in the life of the human species really has undergone some extraordinary change, this is the condition of hubris.
Their confidence may have led them to not only inject millions and millions with their hastily cobbled together "vaccine", one of a type which has not been previously been successfully developed (not that to develop one is impossible, but not this way), they've injected themselves.
All along their mutilation of science and rigorous scientific thinking or procedure has alarmed anyone with a grounding in science, an understanding of what it is and is not, what it can and cannot do. None of them understand it or heed it. (It's so damned silly. There's no good reason to believe Bill Gates is either educated or versed in science, though the masses clearly think he's a scientific genius.) These fellers, however, have fooled the multitudes and it now seems clear they've likely fooled themselves.
I will not be terribly surprised if this is the beginning of the end, this "vaccine". I can almost foresee a hideously aged, sickly, wrinkled, bald Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci, kept alive only by the most advanced medical treatments, but nevertheless barely hanging on. While the multitudes, lacking this, drop dead where they stand.
I wouldn't take that vaccine if they gave me a billion dollars. Sure, if what I foresee happens, many will escape without grave sickness. No one with wits about them rolls the dice with their life on the line to lose-- and so little, if anything, to gain.
Certainly, I see no good reason to buy a virus from the guy who sold us MS Windows 3.0. He'll only come up with half a dozen more shots before the desired effect is achieved, if ever.
DeleteAnyhow, I've already had Covid, went through our household in January 2000, so I pretty sure I've got better immunity than any of the vaccines currently on offer will produce.
I'm pretty sure the "front men" are not being injected with the vaccine. There are already convincing videos circulating showing that the celebrity vaccinations are faked.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Here's one video on fake vaccination.
DeleteIt is reported that Boris Johnson has taken the dodgy AstraZeneca vaccine.
DeleteBut why?
He's supposed to have had Covid and survived, if only by a miracle.
But that should have induced broad-spectrum immunity -- much more effective than the wimpy mRNA "vaccine."
Johnson is mainly an actor, his father was MI6, so I suspect fraud here.