So, allow me to surface. RRs are like a whirlpool: I tend to drown rather than keep up w the flow of information. But I gather their purpose is to inform us of hypothetical risk of suffering ill health following infection by the hypothetical germ called Covid-19 if ‘vaccinated’ with the concoction under scrutiny ie Comirnaty versus the same risk if not so ‘vaccinated’. And at a point in time vaccine ‘efficacy’ can look stronger than it does if you take into account the cumulative effects of the course of infection in the population over time, and logic demonstrates the ‘vaccine’ effectiveness is likely overstated by the efficacy figures from the trials.
Then there is the small but sticky consideration of how we know someone has a case of Covid or not. And there is a bit of tail-chasing here in that your study review illustrates that there are a range of symptoms and signs of Covid infection, but no one sign or symptom is unique to Covid, all being found a multitude of common respiratory illnesses.
Furthermore the symptoms are not uniformly found in all cases identified as Covid via the rt-PCR test.
And the rt-PCR itself is incapable of differentiating between whether DNA scraps are currently infecting and producing the illness felt by a sick person, or are leftovers from a historic covid infection no longer affecting the person, or are present without a person having ever had any symptoms.
Then to top it off, it didn’t spread like a highly contagious virus is expected to.
So all in all, this suggests the virological evidence relating to the so-called pandemic, Covid-19, is dodgy in the extreme. Have I got all that right?
"So all in all, this suggests the virological evidence relating to the so-called pandemic, "Covid-19, is dodgy in the extreme. Have I got all that right?"
Sir Francis Urquhart .." you might say that; I couldn't possibly comment"
"Careful reading of the book reveals that what has happened is much more frightening than anything an alleged novel pathogen might have done to the way we live our lives.”
So, allow me to surface. RRs are like a whirlpool: I tend to drown rather than keep up w the flow of information. But I gather their purpose is to inform us of hypothetical risk of suffering ill health following infection by the hypothetical germ called Covid-19 if ‘vaccinated’ with the concoction under scrutiny ie Comirnaty versus the same risk if not so ‘vaccinated’. And at a point in time vaccine ‘efficacy’ can look stronger than it does if you take into account the cumulative effects of the course of infection in the population over time, and logic demonstrates the ‘vaccine’ effectiveness is likely overstated by the efficacy figures from the trials.
Then there is the small but sticky consideration of how we know someone has a case of Covid or not. And there is a bit of tail-chasing here in that your study review illustrates that there are a range of symptoms and signs of Covid infection, but no one sign or symptom is unique to Covid, all being found in a multitude of common respiratory illnesses.
Furthermore the symptoms are not uniformly found in all cases identified as Covid via the rt-PCR test.
And the rt-PCR itself is incapable of differentiating between whether DNA scraps are currently infecting and producing the illness felt by a sick person, or are leftovers from a historic covid infection no longer affecting the person, or are present without a person having ever had any symptoms.
Then to top it off, it didn’t spread like a highly contagious virus is expected to.
So all in all, this suggests the virological evidence relating to the so-called pandemic, Covid-19, is dodgy in the extreme. Have I got all that right?
The lottery ticket analogy helped me to understand RRR & ARR better.
Take a lottery with 10 million players. If I buy a 2nd lottery ticket I improve my ARR of winning by 1 in 5m, - terrible odds, why bother.
However, my RRR has doubled, - good odds, I'll have some of that!
Secondly.There was a lot of speculation about the false positive rate of lateral flow tests. It was often cited at 0.8%. Clearly, with a positive rate of 0.9% in the trial period, quoted above, the influence of false positives was significant in the population in general. With PCR tests the cycle threshold potentially achieved the same effect by inflating 'case' numbers.
Thank you for mentioning the CMA, the Conditional Marketing Authorisation. I'd completely forgotten that legislation. The silvering is peeling off the back of my brain.
So, allow me to surface. RRs are like a whirlpool: I tend to drown rather than keep up w the flow of information. But I gather their purpose is to inform us of hypothetical risk of suffering ill health following infection by the hypothetical germ called Covid-19 if ‘vaccinated’ with the concoction under scrutiny ie Comirnaty versus the same risk if not so ‘vaccinated’. And at a point in time vaccine ‘efficacy’ can look stronger than it does if you take into account the cumulative effects of the course of infection in the population over time, and logic demonstrates the ‘vaccine’ effectiveness is likely overstated by the efficacy figures from the trials.
Then there is the small but sticky consideration of how we know someone has a case of Covid or not. And there is a bit of tail-chasing here in that your study review illustrates that there are a range of symptoms and signs of Covid infection, but no one sign or symptom is unique to Covid, all being found a multitude of common respiratory illnesses.
Furthermore the symptoms are not uniformly found in all cases identified as Covid via the rt-PCR test.
And the rt-PCR itself is incapable of differentiating between whether DNA scraps are currently infecting and producing the illness felt by a sick person, or are leftovers from a historic covid infection no longer affecting the person, or are present without a person having ever had any symptoms.
Then to top it off, it didn’t spread like a highly contagious virus is expected to.
So all in all, this suggests the virological evidence relating to the so-called pandemic, Covid-19, is dodgy in the extreme. Have I got all that right?
"So all in all, this suggests the virological evidence relating to the so-called pandemic, "Covid-19, is dodgy in the extreme. Have I got all that right?"
Sir Francis Urquhart .." you might say that; I couldn't possibly comment"
but Fenton/Neil seem to say what happened did not match a 'viral pandemic' https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/ and their book https://www.normanfenton.com/post/our-book-out-now-fighting-goliath-by-norman-fenton-and-martin-neil
the summary of the book says "This book is about how the official Covid-19 narrative was based on flawed and manipulated data and science."
and add "We expose the flawed and manipulative thinking that underlies modern virology, epidemiology and respiratory medicine and how these latent scientific vulnerabilities were exploited to spin a narrative used to manipulate medical decision making, public health and personal behaviour." https://www.normanfenton.com/post/our-book-out-now-fighting-goliath-by-norman-fenton-and-martin-neil
another comment
"Careful reading of the book reveals that what has happened is much more frightening than anything an alleged novel pathogen might have done to the way we live our lives.”
— Mike Yeadon, PhD,"
and of course all the PANDA work. their defining summary is here https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/every-single-aspect-of-the-covid
naturally I too couldn't possibly comment.
So, allow me to surface. RRs are like a whirlpool: I tend to drown rather than keep up w the flow of information. But I gather their purpose is to inform us of hypothetical risk of suffering ill health following infection by the hypothetical germ called Covid-19 if ‘vaccinated’ with the concoction under scrutiny ie Comirnaty versus the same risk if not so ‘vaccinated’. And at a point in time vaccine ‘efficacy’ can look stronger than it does if you take into account the cumulative effects of the course of infection in the population over time, and logic demonstrates the ‘vaccine’ effectiveness is likely overstated by the efficacy figures from the trials.
Then there is the small but sticky consideration of how we know someone has a case of Covid or not. And there is a bit of tail-chasing here in that your study review illustrates that there are a range of symptoms and signs of Covid infection, but no one sign or symptom is unique to Covid, all being found in a multitude of common respiratory illnesses.
Furthermore the symptoms are not uniformly found in all cases identified as Covid via the rt-PCR test.
And the rt-PCR itself is incapable of differentiating between whether DNA scraps are currently infecting and producing the illness felt by a sick person, or are leftovers from a historic covid infection no longer affecting the person, or are present without a person having ever had any symptoms.
Then to top it off, it didn’t spread like a highly contagious virus is expected to.
So all in all, this suggests the virological evidence relating to the so-called pandemic, Covid-19, is dodgy in the extreme. Have I got all that right?
2 points.
The lottery ticket analogy helped me to understand RRR & ARR better.
Take a lottery with 10 million players. If I buy a 2nd lottery ticket I improve my ARR of winning by 1 in 5m, - terrible odds, why bother.
However, my RRR has doubled, - good odds, I'll have some of that!
Secondly.There was a lot of speculation about the false positive rate of lateral flow tests. It was often cited at 0.8%. Clearly, with a positive rate of 0.9% in the trial period, quoted above, the influence of false positives was significant in the population in general. With PCR tests the cycle threshold potentially achieved the same effect by inflating 'case' numbers.
Thank you for mentioning the CMA, the Conditional Marketing Authorisation. I'd completely forgotten that legislation. The silvering is peeling off the back of my brain.