New Covid-19 Thread

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

He should be confined in a small room with a bunch of coughing, hacking covid-19 patients.

And they wonder how they got Brexit and Trump.

If you were to design a computer simulation, you know, a model, to demonstrate elite contempt for the unlettered masses, it might look exactly like this: sanctimonious egghead professor who tells everyone they have to stay at home or die gets caught breaking his own rule to have a fling with his married lover, who then denies she did anything wrong because she’s in an open marriage. Because shut up, rube. We make the rules, one rule for you people, another rule for us.

[shiny!]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

And they wonder how they got Brexit and Trump.

If you were to design a computer simulation, you know, a model, to demonstrate elite contempt for the unlettered masses, it might look exactly like this: sanctimonious egghead professor who tells everyone they have to stay at home or die gets caught breaking his own rule to have a fling with his married lover, who then denies she did anything wrong because she’s in an open marriage. Because shut up, rube. We make the rules, one rule for you people, another rule for us.

That rasping sound you hear is the sound of pitchforks being sharpened and matches being struck.

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Corona got you feelin' down

Call Professor Lockdown

My PhD, an OBE, some PPE, much OPP

I'm Neil

The deal

Tenure at Imperial

Givin' you the lowdown

'Bout to lay the pipe down

Don't want no social distance

Just humpn' wit much puissance

A Fellow, so mellow

Bangin' 'till the cockcrows

Baskin' in the afterglow

My FMedSci make me so fly

Got models that do misapply

My sex be so adulterous

My counts they are erroneous

Predictions, prescriptions, abstractions, deceptions

Beguiling politicians, confusing statisticians

'Bout to face a lynch mob

For gettin' me a blowjob

[Mega]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Ferguson.html

Elon agrees

[Mega]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

[Southernguy]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

For me it only proves one (already known) fact: flesh is fragile. Nothing else.
Furthermore: it was some really important development known yesterday.
It's probable that the virus was in France as soon as mid december. A patient whose sample was taken on Dec. 27 read positive for SARS 2.

[Mega]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Am wonder if this is a "Small operation".........he banging someones elses slut, sorry "Open Marriage" wife.......who is a mad dog Eco warrior rich bitch......he a smart guy, did he think about running a "small experiment" ?..........it sure as hell pleased her!
Mike

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

For me it only proves one (already known) fact: flesh is fragile. Nothing else...

If that is all you conclude after seeing the progenitor of the lockdown strategy - whose research asserted that some 2 million people would die in lieu of a mass shutdown of civil life - so wantonly disregard his own study just to get a quick piece of ass, and by virtue of his own work put his paramour and their respective families under mortal threat, while other individuals are arrested, fined, and confronted with armed SWAT teams for attempting to work or merely give a breath of fresh air to their children; well, all I can say is that you sir are a model subject of this new order descending upon us.

Perhaps that is how subjects of South American banana republics orient themselves to state power. Alas, there is a stubborn remnant of North Americans who have an increasingly anachronistic concept of the relationship between citizen and state. I refer you to John Adams' words and hope they give you comfort.

"Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

[Mega]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Leaders don't get it right....ever!

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Kinda puts it all into perspective, don't it? Dr. Judy Mikovits said she cooperated with the FBI during an investigation of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Health, alleging Fauci was a workplace tyrant who was under investigation for swiping scientific research, covering up tainted vaccines, doling out lucrative federal grants to feckless cronies and much more. Mikovits said eventually her widespread allegations of fraud and abuse by Fauci helped spark an investigation by the FBI. She cooperated with federal law enforcement up through 2014. What happened to the probe? Turns out the FBI and Justice Department of a massive cover up to protect Fauci and his associates. Another FBI scandal. Another Justice Department scandal. Oh, and by the way, that was James Comey’s FBI and Eric Holder’s Justice Department. During the White House administration of Barack Obama. Mikovits said Fauci helped imprison her after stealing her proprietary research not once, but twice and her allegations against the White House’s coronavirus top medical advisor and his government cronies paint a disturbing portrait of widespread institutional corruption. And greed. But hey, maybe Mikovits is just a crazy cat lady? And anyway, who the heck is she compared to the éminence grise Fauci? Why just a nobody. A little person to whom the rules and the presumption of truth does not apply. She's not rich. She has no power. That's only for the bigs, right?

Gilead Covid-19 Drug May Exceed $2 Billion Sales, Piper Says
By Cristin Flanagan, Bloomberg.com
May 4, 2020, 8:56 AM EDT Updated on May 4, 2020, 2:35 PM EDT

At $4,500 for a round of treatment for Covid-19, remdesivir, Gilead Sciences Inc.’s new medicine could be reasonably priced and still generate over $2 billion in revenue for the biotech, according to analysts at Piper Sandler.

That’s the maximum price that the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review recommended for a 10-day treatment of Gilead’s remdesivir, which received emergency approval from U.S. regulators on Friday. Gilead has so far been quiet on its pricing plans and didn’t immediately respond to e-mailed requests for comment.

When you are talking about saving a life, that $4,500 “seems really reasonable,” Piper Sandler’s Tyler Van Buren said in a phone call. Even after a promise to give away the first 1.5 million vials, the drug could generate more than $2 billion in sales by the end of the year based on that price tag, Van Buren said. He doesn’t expect Gilead to disclose pricing until after the donated supply has been used up. And “several billion in sales are easily achievable” with the number of hospitalized Covid-19 patients remaining high for the foreseeable future...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...y?srnd=premium

...Gilead gets what they want. No one will want to be in a control arm in further trials and they will argue all future trials must be noninferiority. Before we have the answer whether this drug actually changes anyone’s destiny, it’s going to become the gold standard therapy. We will likely now never know if (the unlikely possibility) it changes mortality.

Absolute genius. You have to salute them. On the day a negative trial of their drug is reported, based on a press release they took over the news cycle, and with some midstream edits to their endpoints their now “positive” trial wins them FDA approval and a halted trial..."

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...015063042.html

...And neither does the dismissal of Hydroxychloroquine by the medical/pharma cartels as a dangerous and untested drug (despite its decades of safe use) versus their seemingly unanimous consent on the Remdesivir's safety and efficacy despite it being brand new and its fast-tracked approval. We're not supposed to notice that HCQ seems to work well in every country that's tried it, except the United States. That HCQ sells for about a buck a dose versus an expected $1000 a dose for Remdesivir isn't something we proles should concern ourselves with, either. Neither does the financial relationships between Remdesivir manufacturer Gilead Sciences and the NIH panel charged with setting its treatment guidelines. Because conspiracy theory.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Kind of ironic, isn't it? First Neil f*cks the entire world with his silly models, only to wind up f*cking himself by f*cking a married woman and getting caught.

His Red Army Frau’s background reads like a Generation 1 Baader Meinhoff co-founder, back when they were beloved student protestors.

Why go kinetical/violent when non kinetic means can achieve far more while also maintaining the Robin Hood persona in the eyes of the public.

[Mega]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

"persona in the eyes of the public"
Let me assure you that is changing RAPIDLY

[Mega]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

[bpr]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Kinda puts it all into perspective, don't it? Dr. Judy Mikovits said she cooperated with the FBI during an investigation of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Health, alleging Fauci was a workplace tyrant who was under investigation for swiping scientific research, covering up tainted vaccines, doling out lucrative federal grants to feckless cronies and much more. Mikovits said eventually her widespread allegations of fraud and abuse by Fauci helped spark an investigation by the FBI. She cooperated with federal law enforcement up through 2014. What happened to the probe? Turns out the FBI and Justice Department of a massive cover up to protect Fauci and his associates. Another FBI scandal. Another Justice Department scandal. Oh, and by the way, that was James Comey’s FBI and Eric Holder’s Justice Department. During the White House administration of Barack Obama. Mikovits said Fauci helped imprison her after stealing her proprietary research not once, but twice and her allegations against the White House’s coronavirus top medical advisor and his government cronies paint a disturbing portrait of widespread institutional corruption. And greed. But hey, maybe Mikovits is just a crazy cat lady? And anyway, who the heck is she compared to the éminence grise Fauci? Why just a nobody. A little person to whom the rules and the presumption of truth does not apply. She's not rich. She has no power. That's only for the bigs, right?

I have to interject here, though I can't adequately argue with her, she's way smarter than I, but from what I've seen her work has been retracted by both Science and Nature and it appears that her work was not repeatable in numerous trials. It's rare enough that they even tried to replicate, but the fact that they couldn't calls into question her credentials off the bat.

If you believe the conspiracy websites and poorly produced and sourced Youtube clips more than peer-reviewed retractions and mea culpas of Science and Nature, then you're at a level of fringe where I don't doubt you can be convinced of anything, frankly.

Your mind is made up, and it's made up of garbage.

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

I have to interject here, though I can't adequately argue with her, she's way smarter than I, but from what I've seen her work has been retracted by both Science and Nature and it appears that her work was not repeatable in numerous trials. It's rare enough that they even tried to replicate, but the fact that they couldn't calls into question her credentials off the bat.

If you believe the conspiracy websites and poorly produced and sourced Youtube clips more than peer-reviewed retractions and mea culpas of Science and Nature, then you're at a level of fringe where I don't doubt you can be convinced of anything, frankly.

Your mind is made up, and it's made up of garbage.

You admit that you have no argument, making your case entirely on appeals to authority and ad-hominem attacks, and yet insist that I'm the one incapable of considering the available evidence and that my mind is filled with garbage.

That's an interesting perspective, bpr. Almost charming in its child-like attachment to authority figures and lacking a scintilla of self-awareness, but interesting.

Update: Did anyone notice the censors deleted the video in question? I have to wonder, if its mere fringe, why bother censoring it? Why not let the truth or falsehood of it stand on its own?

I'm old enough to remember a time when those of us of a liberal mindset who considered themselves committed to free inquiry held the view that the best way to expose spurious argumentation was to air the information openly, understanding that the truth would out and required nothing more than a fair hearing. Now it seems that's not the case. Someone in authority has decided which ideas we get to contemplate and which ones we won't, which institutions and figures are open to criticism and which ones are to be protected from it. All in the name of science and free speech, of course.

Now some seem entirely at ease with this consistent and accelerating pattern of powerful plutocratic institutions collaborating with the centralized government to control what ideas people around the world are permitted to share with each other. These people seem to believe that authoritarian control over the ideas people are allowed to discuss is somehow less dangerous than the ideas themselves. Instead of asking calmly if something works, or if a response has merit, or questioning certain assumptions about institutions and its leaders, or that they might be off track or oriented toward a particularly sub-optimal outcome, we denounce the questions and the questioner as infamous. Now questions of reliability and authoritativeness are important, certainly. And if one examines which content is always considered “authoritative”, you’ll find a bunch of elite media, corporate, and government outlets who have consistently lied to the world about such items of import as war, peace, wealth, health, and liberty.

It seems that this has become the dividing line between free men and mere subjects, the smart and the dull. But does a free being in possession of a healthy intellect really need an alliance of plutocrats and government agencies to protect their mind from dangerous ideas? Should a person of intellect, committed to free inquiry, want an alliance of plutocrats and government agencies to exert control over what ideas they are permitted to share and what thoughts they are permitted to think? Is it smart to encourage a paradigm where human communication (and thereby thought) is controlled by vast unaccountable power structures which benefit from the absence of dissent? And is this widespread decline in respect for “experts” among the mass society a problem with the masses or with the experts themselves?

The vast majority of unlettered laypeople seem smart enough to understand that experts get things wrong for reasons that are innocent (they’ve all been taught the same incorrect thing in school) and less innocent (they have a financial or professional interest in denying the truth). Despite lacking credentials, they have studied the behavior and work products of "authorities” long enough to recognize some important patterns. The mass of people have come to appreciate the untrustworthy nature of authorities, that they have an interest in denying some truths, that insular communities of subject matter experts tend to coalesce around orthodoxies that make them blind, and that as such, they often try to define truth as being whatever they say it is. Maybe it was Vietnam or the WMD fiasco, where experts of military rank and titles presented us false argument and false evidence that led to decades of pointless war? Maybe it was Russiagate, a story fueled by intelligence experts with grand titles who are now proven to have been wrong to a spectacular degree, if not actually criminally liable in pushing a fraud? Maybe it was the Tuskegee Experiment, or Thalidomide, or Vioxx? And maybe the response to COVID-19 was the last straw?

But the functional impact of censorship enforced by social scolding and finger-wagging of the sort bpr exhibited is to stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed, like the capture of regulatory and scientific institutions by corporate and financial interests, or institutional figures with lingering questions over their ethics and financial/professional incentives, or when the damage to the economy becomes as significant a threat to the public as the pandemic. We do actually have to talk about this. We can’t not talk about it out of fear of being censored, or because we’re confusing real harm with political harm, or because we fear people who enforce orthodoxy by name calling, insults, and the threat of social isolation.