"That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by reference to that data.
Also, "That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by a collective "Wait! What?" from the public.
If they're lying to you in this case, what makes you think they were telling the truth in any of the previous cases?
I hope that chips away even more at the reputations of government agencies and public health.
The public’s wilfull ignorance is surprising to me. I honestly didn’t expect it, because a healthy sense of self-preservation is kind of a natural tendency, one would think.
Many things are overriding that natural tendency right now: tribalism, cognitive dissonance about the trustworthiness/accuracy of "the experts," sunk-cost fallacy, etc. And these obstacles all carry with them a sense of self-preservation, as well. Belonging to the tribe protects the individual, believing "the experts" is often necessary for self-preservation, and so on.
Me too, and I do not have a poker face when people have told me. I think it is they believe that somehow it gives them some sort of extra "protection" for piece of mind, but did not consider any side effects that may not be readily seen or felt.
NO shocker, this - but, there's now (MORE) irrefutable proof / corroborating patents that what has sickened SO many of us (literally AND figuratively) is NOT mostly organic, or even a 'virus' - again, WHATever that ACTUALLY is (which JLW does KNOW has been MY area of focus for a half-decade and leaves me assuming a MIDDLE philosophical ground BETWEEN you, Kirsch and Tom, Stefan, Andrew inquiring as I do about their WHOLE biological role - as I've suggested of late, POSSIBLY originating as dysregulated enzymes; medially-INHERENT piezoelectrically-disruptive considerations can be nothing BUT critical ones, especially when CERTAIN countries have advanced their offensive military options BY them through ASSOCIATED 'proteonics' and similarly-efficacious WIDEscale expansion of wireless infrastructure). Nope; RATHER, synthetically-fabricated transgenic nanotechnological PARASITES (then, WHY precisely both Ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine - among OTHER anti-parasitics, ARE so useful; Fauci DID broadcast the introduction OF as much 3 years ago come December 4th) such AS Charles River Analytics propagated at DoD's behest and with MIT/RE's, Harvard's convicted Lieber / Gates Foundation illicit aid, black-budget 'dark' money.....
That's certainly GRATIFYING, Jamie - but, I'd FURTHER argue that by UNCONDITIONALLY legitimizing (yes, I'm aware MANY virologists ARE cognizant of FULL-spectrum viromal interrelationships as known at any given moment) THEIR disingenuously-applied externalized threat for TOO long already, it's GIVEN them their power, ability to HARM, influence (or should I say, 'influenZA'? We may have VERY compelling evidence by among other undertakings, experiments done a century-plus ago of even THAT having been PRIMARILY predicated by effects of globally-propagating artificial EMFs through JUST such piezoelectric corruption.....)
Hi James, I am a fan of your stack, but i am also a close follower of the no virus debate, and generally fall on the side of Cowan/Kaufman et al. I am absolutley no expert so my judgement is an, admitidly, fuzzy one. I respect people on both sides of this debate. Do you know of any studies, under strict scientific conditions that have proven contagion and rule out any other possibility such as pheremones/bio resonance etc. This is not a facetious question, i'm asking as I'd like to know the answer to this one way or the other.
No, neither do I as it happens, the point isnt that these studies have been done or not, its whether contagion has actually been proven or everything just assigned contagion at the expense of a an actual scientific look at any other possibilities. Thanks for the response
Isn't it also correct that subjects with natural immunity were omitted from the trials? Thus, a credible randomized controlled trial would not have taken place?
Vinay Prasad and others are exposing some of the problems in medicine and giving an opportunity for debate and liberty. This is a very good thing and I think that Sensible Medicine would benefit from thoughtful comments by Lyons-Weiler and other commenters here.
I have commented about the need for education in the philosophical areas of liberty and ethics, which used to happen in high school, but now are only taught in a few colleges. Liberty and ethics weigh heavily in how science is done and against political mandates. We might want to play on Prasad's playground.
It was a bad day for the public when Pharmas made the commercial decision to outsource their Research to third parties, including animal studies. Inhouse studies and work were always under pressure to deliver as the facilities and staff were so expensive, but thorough. However having commercial and University third parties hungry for ever more business, and being arms length not under direct day-to-day management was not helptul. The FDA audits were also more difficult not having a one stop shop audit but a fragmented one.
This was my very first thought.
"That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by reference to that data.
Also, "That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by a collective "Wait! What?" from the public.
If they're lying to you in this case, what makes you think they were telling the truth in any of the previous cases?
I hope that chips away even more at the reputations of government agencies and public health.
The public’s wilfull ignorance is surprising to me. I honestly didn’t expect it, because a healthy sense of self-preservation is kind of a natural tendency, one would think.
Many things are overriding that natural tendency right now: tribalism, cognitive dissonance about the trustworthiness/accuracy of "the experts," sunk-cost fallacy, etc. And these obstacles all carry with them a sense of self-preservation, as well. Belonging to the tribe protects the individual, believing "the experts" is often necessary for self-preservation, and so on.
Me too, and I do not have a poker face when people have told me. I think it is they believe that somehow it gives them some sort of extra "protection" for piece of mind, but did not consider any side effects that may not be readily seen or felt.
NO shocker, this - but, there's now (MORE) irrefutable proof / corroborating patents that what has sickened SO many of us (literally AND figuratively) is NOT mostly organic, or even a 'virus' - again, WHATever that ACTUALLY is (which JLW does KNOW has been MY area of focus for a half-decade and leaves me assuming a MIDDLE philosophical ground BETWEEN you, Kirsch and Tom, Stefan, Andrew inquiring as I do about their WHOLE biological role - as I've suggested of late, POSSIBLY originating as dysregulated enzymes; medially-INHERENT piezoelectrically-disruptive considerations can be nothing BUT critical ones, especially when CERTAIN countries have advanced their offensive military options BY them through ASSOCIATED 'proteonics' and similarly-efficacious WIDEscale expansion of wireless infrastructure). Nope; RATHER, synthetically-fabricated transgenic nanotechnological PARASITES (then, WHY precisely both Ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine - among OTHER anti-parasitics, ARE so useful; Fauci DID broadcast the introduction OF as much 3 years ago come December 4th) such AS Charles River Analytics propagated at DoD's behest and with MIT/RE's, Harvard's convicted Lieber / Gates Foundation illicit aid, black-budget 'dark' money.....
Hamish,
I agree that viruses are obligate parasites.
Glad to see you accept natural viruses exist.
Yes on the dark money.
Yest on the using synthetic sequences for all types of things.
But not exclusively, nor originally.
So, I'm on the same ground as you.
That's certainly GRATIFYING, Jamie - but, I'd FURTHER argue that by UNCONDITIONALLY legitimizing (yes, I'm aware MANY virologists ARE cognizant of FULL-spectrum viromal interrelationships as known at any given moment) THEIR disingenuously-applied externalized threat for TOO long already, it's GIVEN them their power, ability to HARM, influence (or should I say, 'influenZA'? We may have VERY compelling evidence by among other undertakings, experiments done a century-plus ago of even THAT having been PRIMARILY predicated by effects of globally-propagating artificial EMFs through JUST such piezoelectric corruption.....)
Hi James, I am a fan of your stack, but i am also a close follower of the no virus debate, and generally fall on the side of Cowan/Kaufman et al. I am absolutley no expert so my judgement is an, admitidly, fuzzy one. I respect people on both sides of this debate. Do you know of any studies, under strict scientific conditions that have proven contagion and rule out any other possibility such as pheremones/bio resonance etc. This is not a facetious question, i'm asking as I'd like to know the answer to this one way or the other.
Rob,
I don't even know of any study that has studied the roles of phermones and bio-resonance on infectious disease symptoms!
No, neither do I as it happens, the point isnt that these studies have been done or not, its whether contagion has actually been proven or everything just assigned contagion at the expense of a an actual scientific look at any other possibilities. Thanks for the response
......to 'Cetera' - thanks for the 'Like' - and, am I to presume that username indicates your being a relative or fan of PETER's?
Isn't it also correct that subjects with natural immunity were omitted from the trials? Thus, a credible randomized controlled trial would not have taken place?
This comment is off-topic, but important.
If you are interested in reforming medicine, I recommend following Sensible Medicine https://sensiblemed.substack.com/ .
Vinay Prasad and others are exposing some of the problems in medicine and giving an opportunity for debate and liberty. This is a very good thing and I think that Sensible Medicine would benefit from thoughtful comments by Lyons-Weiler and other commenters here.
I have commented about the need for education in the philosophical areas of liberty and ethics, which used to happen in high school, but now are only taught in a few colleges. Liberty and ethics weigh heavily in how science is done and against political mandates. We might want to play on Prasad's playground.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#LibeFreeSpee
You may also find this link useful for open, free courses: https://dailyprogress.org/hillsdalecollege.html
It was a bad day for the public when Pharmas made the commercial decision to outsource their Research to third parties, including animal studies. Inhouse studies and work were always under pressure to deliver as the facilities and staff were so expensive, but thorough. However having commercial and University third parties hungry for ever more business, and being arms length not under direct day-to-day management was not helptul. The FDA audits were also more difficult not having a one stop shop audit but a fragmented one.