What if the false diagnosis rate was 90%?
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m a thorough believer in the existence of this virus.

@scottorandojin To exemplify: the NHS is under severe winter pressure. Many staff are unavailable, largely due to forced isolation from testing. Also, I’m told the adaptations to the conditions make normal work almost impossible. Trying to keep apart patients in different categories must be...
@scottorandojin ...incredibly stressful. I doubt I could ever have coped. Add to this the real stream of sick people & it’s a complete nightmare. My sympathies won’t be accepted but I offer them anyway. As to “the deaths”, do you mean the reported count of “covid19 deaths”? Everyone is doing...
@scottorandojin ...their very best. But as to that count: it’s nothing to do with clinical judgement. A covid19 death is a death from any cause within 28d of a positive test. So once a person is labelled by a positive test, if they then die, they’re a covid19 death. Back to my substantive...
@scottorandojin ...question: how reliable is that labelling? It’s not a clinical diagnosis. We’re not used to this idea. Never before in medical history has someone had a disease (let alone cause of death) been defined by the result of a single year alone. Yet that’s where we are. I think that..
@scottorandojin ...is absurd & kafkaesque. I recall Whitty saying many months ago that the true way to evaluate when a pandemic (epidemic, etc) comes to an end is when excess deaths reduce. I would add the caveat that we’ve chosen to restrict access to medical services for almost nine months...
@scottorandojin ...now. We’ve seen large falls in all sorts of referrals for cancer, heart disease and the like. I don’t think anyone expects that to do anything but to steadily push up all-causes mortality. Yet it will do so in a gradual way. It would not be apparent in the way respiratory...
@scottorandojin ...virus epidemics show themselves in the excess deaths record, which is a spike. Instead it’ll be a slow, inexorable rise. I fear that is what we’re largely seeing now. I say this because recently, the PHE weekly record of all-causes mortality definitely isn’t spiking, in the...
@scottorandojin ...way we’d expect if there were thousands of correctly diagnosed deaths from a contagious respiratory virus. Here are the last two weeks. Worth reading the short narratives.
@scottorandojin Surely, if the thousands of recent “covid19 deaths” were all correctly attributed, there must be quite a pulse of excess all-causes mortality?
I expect the ‘wait two weeks’ warning will be given & I do worry about that. Nothing in this mornings tweets asks anyone to do...
@scottorandojin ...anything except to think & to ask questions.

More from Yardley Yeadon

I urge all followers who have read my criticisms of PCR mass testing in U.K. to carefully read Mr Fordham’s carefully worded letter. Note that the innovation minister in the Lords, Lord Bethel, already admitted that the PCR system doesn’t have the equivalent of an MOT. https://t.co/zXzeDMKCBb


Without this information it’s impossible to interpret any result. If the oFPR is 4%, for example, and if the true prevalence is 0.3% (it’s probably less), then for every 10,000 tests, 400 positives would be false & 30 positives would be genuine. So 93% of positives are false.

As Mr Fordham points out, almost all policies pivot on PCR mass testing. Hancock previously admitted on talkRADIO to Julia Hartley-Brewer in late summer that the FPR was “just under 1%”. That was a flat lie (possibly inadvertent but he’s never corrected the record). The reason...

...we are sure Hancock told a lie is that they have never known the FPR. Those including Hancock who believe that the oFPR can be estimated by inspection of the lowest positivity ever recorded, while logical, is completely wrong. Changes in personnel, throughout, testing...

...architecture & the like can radically alter the oFPR. Since Hancock’s remark in late summer, PCR mass testing has moved into the Lighthouse Labs & this creates a new & urgent need to continually assess oFPR. I’ve good reason to believe it’s now VERY much higher now that the...

More from Health

Thread on how atheism leads to mental retardation (backed with medical citations🧵💉)

To start with, atheism is an unnatural self-contradicting doctrine.

Medical terminology proves that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Oxford scientists assert that people are "born believers".

https://t.co/kE0Fi588yn
https://t.co/OqyXcGIMJn


It should be known that atheism could never produce an intelligently-functioning society and neither ever will.

Contrastingly, Islam produced several intellectuals & polymaths, was on the forefront of scientific development, boasting 100% literacy


It is also scientifically proven that atheism led to lesser scientific curiosity and scientific frauds, which is also why atheists incline to pseudo-science.

Whereas, religion in general and Islam in particular boosted education.

https://t.co/19Onc84u3g


Atheists are also likely to affected by pervasive mental and developmental disorders like high-functioning autism.

Cognitive Scientists and renowned Neurologists found that more atheism is leads to greater autism.

https://t.co/zRjEyFoX3P
I think @SamAdlerBell in his quest to be the contrarian on Fauci gets several things wrong here. 1/


First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/

I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/

I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/

Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/

You May Also Like

This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)