NPR

Ovals wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:19 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:52 pm Anyone pointed out that the Barrington Declaration includes amongst its medical practitioner signatories homeopaths, massage therapists, hypnotherapists, a Mongolian therapeutic sound practitioner, Harold Shipman, Dr Johnny Bananas, Dr Person Fakename and I.P. Freely?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronvairus- ... r-12099947

Still, those names, and occupations, add a little bit more credibility than Bimbot's support

But the problem is that because of, "Balance"; this arsehole's, "Declaration", got coverage in the first 5 minutes of every news bulletin in the UK this morning !

There are a handful of verifiable endorsements of this bullshit science; but every news program announced it as being backed by, 'thousands".

This is exactly the same kind of shameless, anti-science, horseshit that had that scum Wakefield causing thousands preventable deaths, by seeding doubt in the MMR vaccine.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:47 pm

Ovals wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:19 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:52 pm Anyone pointed out that the Barrington Declaration includes amongst its medical practitioner signatories homeopaths, massage therapists, hypnotherapists, a Mongolian therapeutic sound practitioner, Harold Shipman, Dr Johnny Bananas, Dr Person Fakename and I.P. Freely?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronvairus- ... r-12099947

Still, those names, and occupations, add a little bit more credibility than Bimbot's support

But the problem is that because of, "Balance"; this arsehole's, "Declaration", got coverage in the first 5 minutes of every news bulletin in the UK this morning !

There are a handful of verifiable endorsements of this bullshit science; but every news program announced it as being backed by, 'thousands".

This is exactly the same kind of shameless, anti-science, horseshit that had that scum Wakefield causing thousands preventable deaths, by seeding doubt in the MMR vaccine.

Hear Hear, the "balance" shite really winds me up

The BBC has lost its way, it is running scared of being hacked to pieces wrt the licence fee and its journalism has become a fawning parody of the independence that made it a standard to aspire to.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:02 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:47 pm

Ovals wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:19 pm



Still, those names, and occupations, add a little bit more credibility than Bimbot's support

But the problem is that because of, "Balance"; this arsehole's, "Declaration", got coverage in the first 5 minutes of every news bulletin in the UK this morning !

There are a handful of verifiable endorsements of this bullshit science; but every news program announced it as being backed by, 'thousands".

This is exactly the same kind of shameless, anti-science, horseshit that had that scum Wakefield causing thousands preventable deaths, by seeding doubt in the MMR vaccine.

Hear Hear, the "balance" shite really winds me up

The BBC has lost its way, it is running scared of being hacked to pieces wrt the licence fee and its journalism has become a fawning parody of the independence that made it a standard to aspire to.

Yes the bbc should definitely only report the news from your viewpoint, irrespective of how wrong it may be.

You and fishfoodie may disagree with it but it is a mainstream view that the way we have been dealing with Covid is wrong and needs challenged, this may not be a majority view but it is most certainly mainstream.

Just because this has been hijacked with some comedy names does not invalidate the point they are making.

Robust debate on how we continue to live with Covid is urgently needed and you wanting to silence opposing views reflects extremely poorly on you both.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:33 pm

Yes the bbc should definitely only report the news from your viewpoint, irrespective of how wrong it may be.

I'm going to isolate this point.

That is absolutely not what I said or implied,.

Some topics DO NOT have two sides, some have more than two, the trouble is that the media now has to put the point of view from real science and scientists, and then it is countered by some guy in a Ronald McDonald costume, in the interests of "balance".

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:33 pm

Robust debate on how we continue to live with Covid is urgently needed and you wanting to silence opposing views reflects extremely poorly on you both.

You should practice what you preach, really.

I don't want to silence opposing views on any topics, whilst you shouted down any writer with a differing view to yours as being unworthy of your attention very recently in the Scottish Politics thread.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:41 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:33 pm

Yes the bbc should definitely only report the news from your viewpoint, irrespective of how wrong it may be.

I'm going to isolate this point.

That is absolutely not what I said or implied,.

Some topics DO NOT have two sides, some have more than two, the trouble is that the media now has to put the point of view from real science and scientists, and then it is countered by some guy in a Ronald McDonald costume, in the interests of "balance".

I completely agree !

To NL; was the Shitgibbon correct when he said that there were; "Good people on both sides" ???

Technically, yes; but if you have one good person on one side; & two thousand on the other; you're correct; but you are completely mis-representing the situation.

The BBC, & others presented this bullshit proposition, as being a comparable position to that held by thousands of health professionals, across multiple countries; & pretended that the two were even vaguely equivalent.

THEY ARE NOT !!!

One is not peer reviewed; & is supported by a handful of known individuals; & the other is supported by 99.99999% of professionals who do this for a living.

Which would you put your loved ones lives on the line with ?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:49 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:23 pm It's open in two ways. One for general public and one for medical practitioners.

And the medical practitioners need some sort of proof ?

Of course not.

As long as they mirror your own view, I'm sure no proof is necessary.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:47 pm

Ovals wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:19 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:52 pm Anyone pointed out that the Barrington Declaration includes amongst its medical practitioner signatories homeopaths, massage therapists, hypnotherapists, a Mongolian therapeutic sound practitioner, Harold Shipman, Dr Johnny Bananas, Dr Person Fakename and I.P. Freely?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronvairus- ... r-12099947

Still, those names, and occupations, add a little bit more credibility than Bimbot's support

But the problem is that because of, "Balance"; this arsehole's, "Declaration", got coverage in the first 5 minutes of every news bulletin in the UK this morning !

There are a handful of verifiable endorsements of this bullshit science; but every news program announced it as being backed by, 'thousands".

This is exactly the same kind of shameless, anti-science, horseshit that had that scum Wakefield causing thousands preventable deaths, by seeding doubt in the MMR vaccine.

If you’re referring to Heneghan as “this arsehole” , you might want to look at his Bio before making silly comparisons....

With regard to his science , it’s already corrected official UK records by 20% so he must be doing something right.

What’s shameless is a comparison to Wakefield who was actively supported by people who are now in the mainstream science not those arguing for nuance.

One is not peer reviewed; & is supported by a handful of known individuals; & the other is supported by 99.99999% of professionals who do this for a living.

Which would you put your loved ones lives on the line with ?

The idea that it’s balanced by 99.999% on either side is an outright lie. If that’s your evidence and demand thank god there’s still attempts at balance.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:33 pmYes the bbc should definitely only report the news from your viewpoint, irrespective of how wrong it may be.

Come on man. You repeatedly complain about how you are "shouted down" for giving a different viewpoint and yet can't see how shit like that is the essence of bad faith posting.

With regard to his science , it’s already corrected official UK records by 20% so he must be doing something right.

I thought the death rate was lowered by 12% but I’m open to correction on that.

What he did was limit the recording of deaths due to covid to 28 days (I think it was 28) if you died after that period it wasn’t due to the virus from the official stats point of view, but the long covid phenomenon could mean that this is not a satisfactory way of recording deaths.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:06 am

With regard to his science , it’s already corrected official UK records by 20% so he must be doing something right.

I thought the death rate was lowered by 12% but I’m open to correction on that.

What he did was limit the recording of deaths due to covid to 28 days (I think it was 28) if you died after that period it wasn’t due to the virus from the official stats point of view, but the long covid phenomenon could mean that this is not a satisfactory way of recording deaths.

There’s been two corrections. And no he didn’t do the 28 day thing alone.

Viral fatigue will be a thing as it always has been, Unrelated to the issue which is an acceptance of Heneghans expertise which some are desperate to undermine.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:33 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:06 am

With regard to his science , it’s already corrected official UK records by 20% so he must be doing something right.

I thought the death rate was lowered by 12% but I’m open to correction on that.

What he did was limit the recording of deaths due to covid to 28 days (I think it was 28) if you died after that period it wasn’t due to the virus from the official stats point of view, but the long covid phenomenon could mean that this is not a satisfactory way of recording deaths.

There’s been two corrections. And no he didn’t do the 28 day thing alone.

Viral fatigue will be a thing as it always has been, Unrelated to the issue which is an acceptance of Heneghans expertise which some are desperate to undermine.

The scientific method is built on “rigorous skepticism”, I’m sure Heneghan would be the first to accept that.

The two pieces of work I’ve seen from him on Covid are first the hypothetical stats exercise which “showed” a 90% false positive rate, I’m sure he would acknowledge this wasn’t a real world representation.
Second was the 28 day limit to recording deaths due to Covid.

Since he is being quoted and cited on this thread very heavily, I’d be interested to read anything else you have from him

Try finding the actual declaration now via Google, they’ve removed it from searches it appears.

Look at the first page of response from Google.


The censorship here should be of genuine concern.


Reddit closing any conversations about the declaration.


Here we’ve already had a comparison with Wakefield etc.


There’s been almost no “peer reviewed “ science on any argument.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:03 pm
There’s been almost no “peer reviewed “ science on any argument.

really?

yermum wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:43 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:03 pm
There’s been almost no “peer reviewed “ science on any argument.

really?

On a novel virus..... what’s been produced and peer reviewed regarding Covid 19 in the last few months.?

yermum wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:43 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:03 pm
There’s been almost no “peer reviewed “ science on any argument.

really?

Again he’s talking out of his arse. Let’s try all of this to start with

https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus?query=main_nav_lg

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:21 pm

yermum wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:43 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:03 pm
There’s been almost no “peer reviewed “ science on any argument.

really?

Again he’s talking out of his arse. Let’s try all of this to start with

https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus?query=main_nav_lg

Sorry, what the fuck do,you think your post means or proves.?

Is the use of a drug now an “argument”

Twat.

Stunning work from our elected officials.

Research

https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease ... -2019-ncov

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:51 pm

yermum wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:43 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:03 pm
There’s been almost no “peer reviewed “ science on any argument.

really?

On a novel virus..... what’s been produced and peer reviewed regarding Covid 19 in the last few months.?

Err....

Don't confuse an explosion in the number of preprints with a lack of peer reviewed science. There's been many thousands of peer reviewed papers.

There's such demand that real work is going on to speed up the peer review process, e.g. https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:39 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:51 pm

yermum wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:43 pm

really?

On a novel virus..... what’s been produced and peer reviewed regarding Covid 19 in the last few months.?

Err....

Don't confuse an explosion in the number of preprints with a lack of peer reviewed science. There's been many thousands of peer reviewed papers.

There's such demand that real work is going on to speed up the peer review process, e.g. https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/

Your link has a few dozen articles.

I was commenting on peer reviewed scientific studies.


Maybe I’m wrong then, there’s a consensus view and it’s just not public yet.

I think I was expecting too much again.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:52 pm I think I was expecting too much again.

Indeed, is there any peer reviewed science regarding the effectiveness of lockdowns and particularly the effect vs other problems caused by the lockdowns ?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:57 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:52 pm I think I was expecting too much again.

Indeed, is there any peer reviewed science regarding the effectiveness of lockdowns and particularly the effect vs other problems caused by the lockdowns ?

Can’t even see the goalposts now

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:57 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:52 pm I think I was expecting too much again.

Indeed, is there any peer reviewed science regarding the effectiveness of lockdowns and particularly the effect vs other problems caused by the lockdowns ?

Do you mean like this sort of thing? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:07 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:57 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:52 pm I think I was expecting too much again.

Indeed, is there any peer reviewed science regarding the effectiveness of lockdowns and particularly the effect vs other problems caused by the lockdowns ?

Do you mean like this sort of thing? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

Yes.

Of course it was written by Imperial for Imperial.

Effect of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:23 pm Effect of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588

Fucking hell

We confirm that adding school and university closures to case isolation, household quarantine, and social distancing of over 70s would lead to more deaths compared with the equivalent scenario without the closures of schools and universities. Similarly, general social distancing was also projected to reduce the number of cases but increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70s only. We note that in assessing the impact of school closures, UK policy advice has concentrated on reducing total number of cases and not the number of deaths.17

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:38 pm

I think it’s working. So do millions of voters. Who cares if that shower in Parliament don’t?

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:05 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:38 pm

I think it’s working. So do millions of voters. Who cares if that shower in Parliament don’t?

Sorry you think the policy is working and there isn’t anything to worry about,?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:17 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:05 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:38 pm

I think it’s working. So do millions of voters. Who cares if that shower in Parliament don’t?

Sorry you think the policy is working and there isn’t anything to worry about,?

Yes and I said nothing of the sort.

This morning I reached a point where to my thinking, at the current rate infection is spreading in the UK we'll reach herd immunity before a vaccine is developed. It's now about keeping things to a level the NHS can cope with.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:21 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:17 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:05 pm

I think it’s working. So do millions of voters. Who cares if that shower in Parliament don’t?

Sorry you think the policy is working and there isn’t anything to worry about,?

Yes and I said nothing of the sort.

So you want a policy that makes you worried?

No, I want less sealioning.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:31 pm No, I want less sealioning.

Yeah, that’s just you trying to close down posts you don’t approve of ..... it’s not actually a thing,


Anyway the Tory wets thank you for your vote.



Winning back one Lib Dem at a time.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:33 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:31 pm No, I want less sealioning.

Yeah, that’s just you trying to close down posts you don’t approve of

The ironing

dkm57 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:23 pm This morning I reached a point where to my thinking, at the current rate infection is spreading in the UK we'll reach herd immunity before a vaccine is developed. It's now about keeping things to a level the NHS can cope with.

Even if there's 50,000 infections a day, that would take over two years. And if immunity doesn't last that long, we just start again.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:47 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:23 pm This morning I reached a point where to my thinking, at the current rate infection is spreading in the UK we'll reach herd immunity before a vaccine is developed. It's now about keeping things to a level the NHS can cope with.

Even if there's 50,000 infections a day, that would take over two years. And if immunity doesn't last that long, we just start again.

I’m fairly certain there’s not a human alive who knows what happens to immunity in TWO years.

Except Biffer here.

Government policy clearly isn't working.
It's a shambles, locally the hospitals are full and capacity has been overwhelmed by demand.