if he wins, he's for packing it. if he loses, he'll be against it.
this is because almost none of these people stand on any principles.
they just seek power.
anyone currently shocked by the fact that the politicians in power recant and reverse the views they held when they were in opposition (and vice versa) has simply not paid any attention to history.
that's 100% to be expected.
where you stand depends up where you sit.
always.
if he wins, he's for packing it. if he loses, he'll be against it.
this is because almost none of these people stand on any principles.
they just seek power.
and why shouldn't they act this way?
it's what we reward. we all accept their lies even when we KNOW they are lies. we elect them anyway.
we accept that all we ever get is the lesser of evils.
will biden pay any price? nope.
the fault lies not w/ these narcissistic liars & sociopaths, it lies with us
we're the ones electing them & putting up with monstrous & dishonest behavior because "it's not as bad as what the other guy would do."
those are the railroad tracks to tyranny.
if the outcome of an election is so impactful that it can make or ruin your life or save or lose the republic (as many claim it is) is that not proof positive that the government is FAR too powerful?
do you really want to gamble for such stakes?
More from el gato malo
global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures
these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.
this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.
let's look.
above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.
we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.
this is devastating to the case for NPI.
clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.
barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.
this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.
there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.
this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.
everyone got the same R
these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.
this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.
let's look.
above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.
we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.
this is devastating to the case for NPI.
clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.
barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.
this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.
there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.
this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.
everyone got the same R
this methodology is a little complex, so let me explain what i did.
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) May 30, 2020
a few EU countries provide real day of death data. this lets us plot meaningful curves to show rate of disease change.
what struck me is how similar all the curves were.
everyone got the same shape. pic.twitter.com/bN0hILzoSl
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
It took a Freedom of Information request but @Covid19DataUK acquired 2017-2019 averages for England hospitalizations.
— Yinon Weiss (@yinonw) December 31, 2020
2020 had 18% fewer hospitalizations than prior years.
All around the world, using hospital data without context of prior years is just a fear generating lie. pic.twitter.com/DJDpqhIQuw
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
google censorship of great barrington declaration: update.
this morning, there was no link to it in a direct google search.
now, there is.
could this be because certain internet felines noticed this and @chiproytx and @tedcruz helped call them out on this?
we may never know.
but i'd like to think so.
the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.
when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?
yikes.
i mean, why would we trust THESE people instead of a reporter at one of the most partisan rags on earth? oh, wait..
they are not being censored for being wrong. they're being censored for being right and being credible
they're censored because the other side cannot rebut them
and that is simply not a thing we can or should tolerate, especially not in a search engine.
so remember this. look for it in the future. demand primary sources.
use other search engines.
bing seems to be seeking to inform, not to inflame and mislead.
if you missed it, the original thread was here:
(and yes, lots of people duplicated my finding this morning)
i'd be curious to see what they are all seeing
this morning, there was no link to it in a direct google search.
now, there is.
could this be because certain internet felines noticed this and @chiproytx and @tedcruz helped call them out on this?
we may never know.
but i'd like to think so.
the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.
when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?
yikes.
i mean, why would we trust THESE people instead of a reporter at one of the most partisan rags on earth? oh, wait..
they are not being censored for being wrong. they're being censored for being right and being credible
they're censored because the other side cannot rebut them
and that is simply not a thing we can or should tolerate, especially not in a search engine.
so remember this. look for it in the future. demand primary sources.
use other search engines.
bing seems to be seeking to inform, not to inflame and mislead.
if you missed it, the original thread was here:
(and yes, lots of people duplicated my finding this morning)
i'd be curious to see what they are all seeing
from the "make orwell fiction again" files:
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) October 10, 2020
google has memory holed the great barrington declaration
not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"
it's pure, simple propaganda
here's bing (who plays it straight) pic.twitter.com/kTdhH8zXia
the US runs its covid testing at 40Ct.
this is 1024X the amplification level of this cutoff for finding live virus that is in any way clinically relevant.
but please, tell me again how demanding more such testing is "science" and not "flooding the data w/ meaningless positives"
this is 1024X the amplification level of this cutoff for finding live virus that is in any way clinically relevant.
but please, tell me again how demanding more such testing is "science" and not "flooding the data w/ meaningless positives"
A systematic review published 12/3/20 by the Oxford U Ctr for Evidence-Based Med has confirmed that C19 rtPCR testing patient sample cycle thresholds (Cts) >30 (mean from 6-studies) are associated with NEGATIVE viral cultures, i.e., are non-infectious https://t.co/t79dSHnHgn
— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) December 6, 2020
More from Politics
"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"
This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD
There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.
In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut
If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.
Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.
This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD
Millions of people do not have photo ID. By forcing through mandatory voter-ID the government risk disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters. https://t.co/y0Upzof2FI
— Electoral Reform Society (@electoralreform) February 17, 2021
There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.
In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut
If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.
Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.
