Replies

Not all the experts were wrong. The bureaucrats were wrong. I listened to an interview of a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public health explain why keeping those people on the cruise ship was the wrong action. His conclusion was that any quarantine would be a failure (by that point the virus had been in the wild too long). The only course of action was to treat cases as they came up in the general public. This was back in February.

Everyone now knows that the data-less mathematical models built by the pretend “mathematicians” at the CDC proved to be worse than useless, predicting millions of deaths, then hundreds of thousands, then . . . who knows. Nevertheless, D.C. always worships “models” and numbers regardless of how truthful they are — as long as they can be used to “justify” more power, money, and control over our lives by D.C.

Even the surgeon general, a careerist “public” health bureaucrat, has condemned the CDC models as essentially useless. He now boats that his decisions are now based on real data, not contrived mathematical models constructed by the same kinds of ideological leftist fanatics who create all those bogus “climate change models.” But his “data” are every bit as useless as the CDC models, as anyone who has been paying any attention knows. It is now widely known that the CDC has explicitly instructed all doctors to falsify death certificates by labeling the cause of death COVID-19 even if the deceased suffered from numerous other diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, kidney disease, tuberculosis, etc., as long as it is “surmised” (not even proven with a blood test) that he or she also had coronavirus in his or her system. My guess is that the real number of deaths from COVID-19 is probably less than one third of the reported number, if that. Even the reported number is still less than deaths from the seasonal flu this year as reported by the CDC itself.

these shutdowns may well have destroyed the strongest economy in history...

It was the only way to beat Trump in 2020.

Very interesting read.

I think many people assume that “experts in government” are cream of the crop. They most certainly are not. The actual top dog experts do NOT work in government. The best-of-the-best work exclusively in private industry, for lots more money.

I’ve worked with “experts” at the NIH. Top dogs there. They were just average at best. One project, doing cutting edge research on MRI’s at Hopkins, privately funded, had several REAL top dogs on it. They all, without exception, laughed at the guys at the NIH, who were a short drive away. They were, and are, a joke, to real scientists. We had to deal with the NIH guys, as regulations required their signoff on certain aspects. Arrogant, little Kings, kiss the ring crap. Little big shots making 1/10th what the actual science guys pulled in.

Fauci and Brix may be experts in the government, but they wouldn’t last a month in private industry, even working in their field on projects targeted at their expertise. They may get accolades, and high praise from other government people and the media, but that closed world isn’t where the real science guys hang out.

There are at least 100 actual experts, brilliant people, in private industry or high academic positions (who get $ from private industry, on their boards) that are so much better in their field than Fauci and Brix. Those two clowns are mediocre, at best.

This article is so full of misinformation that I don't even know where to begin. It would take hours to go through point by point and post correct information.

I will address just a couple of points that jumped out at me:

Denmark, Scotland and Germany have done thorough antibody testing in specific locals and found infection rates between 12 and 27 times higher than they thought and models had projected.

Antibody tests are still going through regulatory approval. That means that their manufacturers have to show a certain level of both specificity (is the antibody test picking up Covid-19 and not other related virus antibodies) and sensitivity (how much antibody can it pick up). The thing is, this is cold season and a lot of people tend to get colds in the winter. Since coronaviruses are responsible for many colds, how do we know that those researchers are not just detecting the number of people who have had common colds this winter?

western-blot Antibody test.
This picture is a typical antibody test that I performed in graduate school. On this test, I separated each of the proteins that the antibody grabbed. I had to put arrows to specify which proteins I was actually looking for, versus the ones the antibodies grabbed that I have no idea what they are. In an antibody test of the type used in disease diagnostics, the proteins are not separated out. So all of those black lines would be condensed into a single spot. How can you tell that the spot is specifically Covid-19 or something else, like a common cold virus?

Now, as for the infection rate. Modeling for a 12-27 fold higher rate of infection would mean that its R nought would be from 30 to 67.5--which is just not biologically plausible. As far as I know, measles is the most contagious disease known, and its R nought is between 12 and 18 (Covid-19 is somewhere from 2 to 7; I use 2.5 for my calculations). Measles is so contagious because it spreads through aerosols that remain in the air up to 2 hours; Covid-19 spreads through droplets, meaning that you have to be directly in the path of a cough or sneeze, or touch a surface contaminated with fresh droplets and touch your face to catch it.

Anyway, it is very time consuming to go through each non-fact in this article. The fact that these two items are so wrong is a pretty good indication of the validity of the entire article.

"The Evidence Is Coming In: Virus Experts May Have Been Badly Wrong"

It's been an accelerated version of the global warming fraud.