At Last some REAL Data (Verus)

[Mega]

[shiny!]

Re: At Last some REAL Data (Verus)

Given the WHO's track record so far, why does he give credence to their numbers over Stanford's? What about Boston's testing in the homeless shelter and the US Navy's numbers that all supports Stanford's conclusion?

Could it be that different agencies are using different tests with different rates of false positives or false negatives? Are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?

[jk]

Re: At Last some REAL Data (Verus)

i don't know what stanford study he's criticizing. the one i know was a population study of santa clara county, showing 3% of the population with antibodies. same number as the holland study.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: At Last some REAL Data (Verus)

i don't know what stanford study he's criticizing. the one i know was a population study of santa clara county, showing 3% of the population with antibodies. same number as the holland study.

Chris Martenson did a thorough review of the Stanford study. It seems that the paper is riddled with problems and will not pass peer review. The lead author also has a conflict of interest.

[Woodsman]

Re: At Last some REAL Data (Verus)

Chris Martenson did a thorough review of the Stanford study. It seems that the paper is riddled with problems and will not pass peer review. The lead author also has a conflict of interest.

Say's him. Martenson is talking his book. He's using this for clicks and subscriptions, hawking his "Crash Course" at every opportunity and hooking up with his buddy "Turd Ferguson" to sell bullion and more subscriptions. Martenson is not qualified to make such a judgement. His doctorate is not in Epidemiology, has been sitting unused on a shelf for two decades, and he hasn't published since. When his Chicken Little doomer web site said the sky was falling one too many times, he switched the name to "Peak Grift" or something, and never missed a beat. From the looks of it, there are no shortage of credulous rubes to keep him warm and comfy in his awesome new house. Personally, I think he's full of shit, mostly.

Same as the Imperial College study on which this entire fiasco was based. It hasn't been peer reviewed either, the author hasn't subjected himself to any meaningful interrogation, and revised his conclusions downward once it was clear that its doom and gloom predictions turned out wrong. So your appeal to authority isn't all that convincing.

You want an authority to appeal, look at the video I posted interviewing Professor Johan Giesecke. He's one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, an advisor to the Swedish Government, hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing the Swedish strategy, served as the first Chief Scientist of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, and an is an advisor to the director general of the WHO.

Dr Giesecke isn't selling subscriptions, or classes, or gold, like Martenson. To me, that's counts for a lot.

I understand you're enthralled by Marteson for some reason. He's your hero, that's awesome. Follow him to the ends of the Earth, why don't you. If it doesn't matter to you that the guy is a grifter, has a vested interest in maintaining the panic, and his business depends on keeping the panic going, that's fine by me. You believe whomever you wish, pal. But his credibility is for shit.

[Mega]

Re: At Last some REAL Data (Verus)

[Mega]

Re: At Last some REAL Data (Verus)

..................& here some REAL Data
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/stat...402567/photo/1