Pure B***shit: Novak Djokovic granted medical exemption to play at Australian Open


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 341
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2022/01/05/independent-panels-novak-djokovic-incredibly-rich/?fbclid=IwAR19lO8-O-BSYdqun0mUzX0ENzaEmxOlF1I01sPF2Isz757uYScJrTgp-xE Independent panels conclude that No

IMG_9356.MP4  

So some Aussies haven't been able to come home from overseas for 18 months due to vaccine hoops you need to jump through.  But wait.   Novak Djokovic granted medical exemption to play a

I have what should be a few simple questions:

Is this thread the result of?

  1. A guy who is an a-hole.
  2. A country run by a bunch of a-holes.
  3. People are angry over the a-hole breaking the rules.
  4. People are angry over the a-holes making the a-hole rules.
  5. All the above...

-the Pig

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, PigFish said:

I have what should be a few simple questions:

Is this thread the result of?

  1. A guy who is an a-hole.
  2. A country run by a bunch of a-holes.
  3. People are angry over the a-hole breaking the rules.
  4. People are angry over the a-holes making the a-hole rules.
  5. All the above...

-the Pig

2.A country run by a bunch of a-holes. Lockdowns don't work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a diehard Federer fan, I am certainly no fan of Djokovic.  Also, certainly not going to make him out to be a hero.  That said, the vitriol and name calling does seem a bit exaggerated here and in general.  I get he is not very likable. However his record in giving is worth noting. He provided charitable donations to three separate countries early on in the pandemic to help them battle Covid.  He supported the Australians via charitable donations when they were dealing with wildfires.  Not saying any of this entitles him entry into the lockdown/draconian capital of the world for a tennis tourney.  However, I would say his charitable record is pretty admirable compared to many athletes and likely proves a counterpoint to the arsehole and twat rhetoric.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Schumi5 said:

As a diehard Federer fan, I am certainly no fan of Djokovic.  Also, certainly not going to make him out to be a hero.  That said, the vitriol and name calling does seem a bit exaggerated here and in general.  I get he is not very likable. However his record in giving is worth noting. He provided charitable donations to three separate countries early on in the pandemic to help them battle Covid.  He supported the Australians via charitable donations when they were dealing with wildfires.  Not saying any of this entitles him entry into the lockdown/draconian capital of the world for a tennis tourney.  However, I would say his charitable record is pretty admirable compared to many athletes and likely proves a counterpoint to the arsehole and twat rhetoric.  

arseholes are the politicians involved. 

Twats are all those who spat in the face of Melbournians by trying to pull a swifty.  You may not agree with what they endured but by god you should respect it. 

Jesus/Spartacus are what his supporters referenced to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, miamipadronsmoker said:

2.A country run by a bunch of a-holes. Lockdowns don't work. 

perhaps you could point us to a country not run by a-holes? 

lockdowns obviously vary from country to country and the results depend partially on the extent of imposition and timing but the overwhelming evidence/view of scientific and medical experts is that they most certainly do. it takes only moments to find all manner of evidence.

Imperial College in London - their studies have shown that lockdowns have saved millions of lives worldwide.

University of California - lockdowns across China, South Korea, Italy, those parts of the US which bothered, France and Iran averted 62 million cases in those countries (different from saving that many lives but undoubtedly saving many).

those countries determined not to lockdown Brazil, Sweden, large parts of the US, Russia etc, have suffered far greater numbers of deaths in comparison to those which did institute lockdowns. the numbers are irrefutable. 

you may disagree with lockdowns on moral or political grounds, you many simply find them extremely inconvenient (i speak as someone locked out of my home state for 6 months so i most certainly agree on that basis) but the evidence is that they have saved many many lives. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ken Gargett said:

perhaps you could point us to a country not run by a-holes? 

lockdowns obviously vary from country to country and the results depend partially on the extent of imposition and timing but the overwhelming evidence/view of scientific and medical experts is that they most certainly do. it takes only moments to find all manner of evidence.

 

 

Ken, they don't last. 

They must have a purpose. In many cases that purpose is to buy time to increase vaccination rates. However once that is done, it's over. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, El Presidente said:

Ken, they don't last. 

They must have a purpose. In many cases that purpose is to buy time to increase vaccination rates. However once that is done, it's over. 

fully agree. i am sure that someone somewhere has done the requisite survey to try and show which worked better than others. not sure the Qld example would rate highly. 

and as much as politicians have done horrendous jobs in so many cases, i don't think i would have liked the job of deciding the intricacies a lockdown. that really was rock and a hard place stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

arseholes are the politicians involved. 

Twats are all those who spat in the face of Melbournians by trying to pull a swifty.  You may not agree with what they endured but by god you should respect it. 

Jesus/Spartacus are what his supporters referenced to. 

I more than respect what Melbournians had to endure. It saddens me to no end. As a Canadian, I also throw rocks from a glass house as we are only marginally better. Where I struggle, both here and with the pandemic in general, is the misdirected allocation of the angst. The missed funerals, the separated families, most of the human suffering is attributed to misguided and in my estimation, appalling measures and overreach by governments in many countries. I truly wish the human populace generally could muster up a fraction of the hate they found for Djokovic and correctly direct it to those actually responsible for the pain they have had to endure. If that were to ever happen perhaps we could truly take some steps forward in this battle.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Schumi5 said:

muster up a fraction of the hate they found for Djokovic and correctly direct it to those actually responsible for the pain they have had to endure. If that were to ever happen perhaps we could truly take some steps forward in this battle.

I don't think there is hate. Simply detestation. 

Same detestation that is directed at the Tennis Australia hierarchy who put together the plan to hoodwink. Same detestation that most of us here have toward all politicians. 

No one wants to be locked down and have freedoms curtailed. We got off easy in Brisbane and hardly endured a thing. However, Melbourne went through hell and back.  To have their face rubbed in it by corporate/sporting elites was a step too far. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

I don't think there is hate. Simply detestation. 

Same detestation that is directed at the Tennis Australia hierarchy who put together the plan to hoodwink. Same detestation that most of us here have toward all politicians. 

No one wants to be locked down and have freedoms curtailed. We got off easy in Brisbane and hardly endured a thing. However, Melbourne went through hell and back.  To have their face rubbed in it by corporate/sporting elites was a step too far. 

but rob, tennis australia has come out today and commended tiley for doing such a brilliant job over this. the rest of australia must have it wrong???? 

they must think we are all brain dead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is right and who is wrong...? Frankly I don't know, don't much care anymore!

I am an empiricist by nature, not a follower of expert opinion. And frankly when I am looking for clues, I generally follow a trail of money for bias. Where there is money, there is motivation! That is all I will say about what money buys.

I am not making a case either way, to be frank. However I read a post above from my friend Ken who appears be influenced by certain 'studies.' One of those studies quoted about lockdowns is from Imperial College of London.

My questions are simple:

What does it take to become and maintain the title of expert?

Who decides, which guy wears a tin hat???

 

18 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

it takes only moments to find all manner of evidence.

Neil Ferguson’s Latest Faux Pas in a Long Line of Fear- Driven Predictions

The real story here is that Neil Ferguson is somehow still regarded to have any credibility whatsoever.

Don Via, Jr.

@COVID19Up: The infamous (and ought to be, disgraced) Professor Neil Ferguson has botched yet another fear-driven prediction regarding a COVID-19 case surge in the United Kingdom.

In July, Professor Ferguson once again postulated the dire consequences of lifting the UK’s lockdown restrictions. He stated it was “almost inevitable” that doing so would bring more than 100,000 new COVID-19 cases a day—potentially up to 200,000.

Ferguson had to rescind that prognosis just a few weeks later, as the severity of the surge has been lackluster at best. After a slight spike above 50,000 cases, the majority of which were mild or asymptomatic, the number quicklysettled down to 27,335 cases by August 9. Also mostly

     

asymptomatic or mild.

That’s definitely not 200,000 COVID-19 cases. And the death toll remains generally stagnant.

The data actually reflects the opposite of what pundits and officials claimed would happen. Immediately following the UK lifting its lockdown mandate, cases fell by 40%.

   

That is not to say that the people infected are insignificant

in any way, but it does indeed severely undercut professor Ferguson’s fear-mongering.

The real story here is that Neil Ferguson is somehow still regarded to have any credibility whatsoever.

Public officials and mainstream media still place Ferguson on a pedestal as a leading COVID-19 authority despite having a demonstrable history of inaccuracy and his previous “scientific” projections being devastatingly false.

As this author has recounted in two previous reports, Neil Ferguson’s track record is anything but unsullied. First writing for The Free Thought Project in January of this year:

It has been the decision of governments the world over to exercise wanton reckless abandon to bring the global market to a screeching halt. And on a consensus of what? Faulty computer coding? As many have exhaustively covered throughout this crisis, the policy for governments around the world to institute sweeping lockdown mandates has absolutely no scientific basis.

Beginning in May, first reported by The Telegraph, independent data analyst experts revealed that the Imperial College pandemic projection models were completely inaccurate. It was these models, designed by Professor Neil Ferguson, that were used as justification

   

to begin worldwide lockdowns. Yet upon this groundbreaking news coming to light, it received almost no coverage from mainstream outlets. Analysts showed Ferguson’s models had several mathematical errors, and were ran on obsolete software. Leading experts who examined it say it could be “the most devastating software mistake of all time”. They called it “totally unreadable” & “a buggy mess that would get you fired in the private industry” and whose approach “ignores widely accepted computer science principles”.

Ultimately, Ferguson himself was forced to resign from his position at the Imperial College of London for breaking lockdown protocols. This guy had such little faith in the accuracy of his own models that he was completely comfortable disregarding his own data — with further investigation showing he has a track record of doing so. Despite this, governments around the world hastily accepted these models without first considering if it should undergo an independent peer review. The choice was made to base policy decisions that could potentially change the history of our planet as we know it on blind faith.”

Other esteemed experts, such as Stanford University professor of disease prevention John Ioannidis, one of the foremost respected and cited in his field, said of the

  

Imperial model:

“The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.”

In fact, shortly after the initial models were used as justification to begin the lockdowns, Ferguson appeared to drastically lower his prediction following a new analysis by the Imperial college team. Resulting in a recalculation of the figure to one 25 times smaller than originally estimated. He then doubled down on his first projection, causing quite a stir of confusion online.

Since the day that fateful decision was made, the world has been plunged into what is arguably the largest expansion of authoritarianism and attack against civil liberties in recent human history.

The rest of the report goes on to demonstrate data purporting how the ruling class financially benefited from policies that decimated working-class and lower class economies. Further enriching themselves and effectively bringing about the largest transfer of wealth of any era.

The report also simultaneously exemplifies the disastrous consequences of these policies.

 

Including multiple reports from the United Nations, showing that hundreds of millions of people are now being forced into starvation and poverty—decades of work fighting these very things being undone—because of the policies instituted at the behest of Professor Ferguson’s faulty data models.

In my follow up report from July 2021, titled New Research Shows Coronavirus Lockdowns Cost More Lives Than They Saved, even more evidence was displayed showcasing these horrid ramifications. An excerpt from the article reads:

• Drug use and subsequent overdose deaths are increasing at an alarming rate.

• Deaths by suicide are on the rise both nationally and internationally.

• More heartbreaking still, what is now being referred to as an epidemic of child suicide as the self-inflicted deaths of children is now on the rise.

• As well as causing a noticeable increase in both domestic violence and child abuse. Including sexual assault the world over, as human rights groups have warned that human trafficking has surged during lockdowns.

         

These are the statistics that we rarely if ever hear from the

media pundits and policy officials that arrogantly parade around as humanity’s saviors.

The report concluded with the following uncompromisingly forthright statement:

To be quite blunt, these policies should be regarded as a crime against humanity.

It goes well beyond a nauseating example of government malfeasance. Policymakers were rash, reactionary, and criminally negligent. Blood is on their hands, and a lot of it. We should all be quite frank about it; the decisions of lawmakers to enact these policies is directly contributory to the deaths of countless people. They are culpable, and liability should most certainly be applicable.

Manslaughter is generally defined as the unintentional killing of another human being. So while democide may not fit the bill due to a seeming lack of intent behind these killings; what does one even call mass state- sponsored criminally negligent manslaughter? Is there even a word for it? If not someone ought to think of one quick, because there are a lot of government officials that deserve to be charged with it.”

In this writer’s opinion, Professor Neil Ferguson belongs at the very top of that list. And just as much so for those who

blindly followed his word, as this is not the only time in his ill-fated career that Professor Ferguson has drastically missed the mark. His tenure is rife with ineptitude.

Noted by the UK’s Daily Mail, in 2001 Professor Ferguson was instrumental in the data models projecting the trajectory of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in England.

Policies implemented under Ferguson’s advisory based on his data resulted in the mass slaughter of over six million animals to stop the spread of the disease. A decision which left rural England economically devastated at the cost of £10 billion.

As the Mail states, Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University, who unlike Ferguson is an actual

expert of animal diseases, “claimed the model made incorrect assumptions about how foot and mouth disease was transmitted and, in a 2006 review, he claimed Imperial’s foot and mouth model was ‘not fit for purpose’, while in 2011 he said it was ‘severely flawed’.”

Having told The Daily Telegraph on March 27, 2020, “the episode was ‘a cautionary tale’ about the limits of mathematical modelling and he felt a sense of ‘déjà vu’ about the current situation,” following the UK’s lockdown mandate days prior.

In 2002, modeling from Ferguson’s Imperial team predicted 50,000 deaths could result from the outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease). Later stating it could become as high as 150,000 should the disease spread to sheep as well. The actual death toll was only 177.

Then in 2005, Ferguson again predicted global calamity. Claiming that around 200 million people would be killed during the bird flu pandemic. However, according to the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy’s 2005 Avian Influenza Year-End Review, just 142 people were counted as fatalities of H5N1.

The review stated: “What didn’t happen in 2005, of course, was a human pandemic. By the end of the year,

  

the virus still had not shown an ability to spread easily from person to person.”

Yet again in 2009, Ferguson’s track record of inaccuracy continued. That year, England’s chief medical officer Professor Sir Liam Donaldson released an estimate based on analysis conducted by Ferguson and his Imperial college team. The estimate being that a worst-case scenario would see 65,000 Brits perish from the swine flu pandemic.

But at the pandemic’s end, less than 500 were found to have died from the H1N1 virus.

Despite these various past follies (and even present blunders) Ferguson has retained an utmost smug demeanor. In the face of an infamy brought about by a career of notorious failures and even forced resignation. He still arrogantly stands atop his pedestal as one of Britain’s “premier health advisors.” And the British establishment is all too eager to allow it.

Ferguson seemingly makes statements on a whim based on reckless data models. He recants his statements at leisure with complete disregard for the consequences already taking effect. As Dr. Ron Paul recently pointed out, after recanting previous statements, Ferguson has neglected even attempting to offer any sort of apology for the catastrophic results that have already ensued from his

 

impetuousness.

The incredible encroachments against personal freedom of the last 16 months goes well beyond the cliche of giving the State an inch and watching them take a mile. They’ve taken several miles and continue to do so as the goalposts continue moving.

Now, as countless mediums of despotism are imposed, the world is writhing in protest. For several months, most recently on the 24th of July, over a million protesters in dozens of countries around the globe took to the streets in mass uprisings against new lockdowns and COVID-19 vaccine passport mandates.

One of the only countries not experiencing this is Sweden. Recently it was reported that the country has yet again reached zero COVID-19 deaths per day. Sweden’s overall health is not diminishing, the economy is intact, and their liberty is mostly secure. Despite being lambasted by establishment talking heads the world over, it appears that Sweden has solved the coronavirus problem. And they did so by disregarding Professor Ferguson’s abysmal recommendations.

If only more nations had followed their lead.
At the end of the day, Neil Ferguson is one of two things:

  

catastrophically incompetent in his profession, or a pathological liar.

In any case, he should never again be considered to have any sort of credibility whatsoever.

This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish it under a Creative Commons license with attribution to COVID19Up.org.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PigFish said:

My questions are simple:

What does it take to become and maintain the title of expert?

Who decides, which guy wears a tin hat???

 

 

 

What does it take to become and maintain the title of expert?

  1. Media (any)  interview
  2. Instagram followers 

Who decides, which guy wears a tin hat???

  1. It's generally the guy who scans his body for 5G infiltration before doing the rounds of his firearm burial bunkers. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PigFish said:

Who is right and who is wrong...? Frankly I don't know, don't much care anymore!

I am an empiricist by nature, not a follower of expert opinion. And frankly when I am looking for clues, I generally follow a trail of money for bias. Where there is money, there is motivation! That is all I will say about what money buys.

I am not making a case either way, to be frank. However I read a post above from my friend Ken who appears be influenced by certain 'studies.' One of those studies quoted about lockdowns is from Imperial College of London.

My questions are simple:

What does it take to become and maintain the title of expert?

Who decides, which guy wears a tin hat???

 

Neil Ferguson’s Latest Faux Pas in a Long Line of Fear- Driven Predictions

The real story here is that Neil Ferguson is somehow still regarded to have any credibility whatsoever.

Don Via, Jr.

@COVID19Up: The infamous (and ought to be, disgraced) Professor Neil Ferguson has botched yet another fear-driven prediction regarding a COVID-19 case surge in the United Kingdom.

In July, Professor Ferguson once again postulated the dire consequences of lifting the UK’s lockdown restrictions. He stated it was “almost inevitable” that doing so would bring more than 100,000 new COVID-19 cases a day—potentially up to 200,000.

Ferguson had to rescind that prognosis just a few weeks later, as the severity of the surge has been lackluster at best. After a slight spike above 50,000 cases, the majority of which were mild or asymptomatic, the number quicklysettled down to 27,335 cases by August 9. Also mostly

     

asymptomatic or mild.

That’s definitely not 200,000 COVID-19 cases. And the death toll remains generally stagnant.

The data actually reflects the opposite of what pundits and officials claimed would happen. Immediately following the UK lifting its lockdown mandate, cases fell by 40%.

   

That is not to say that the people infected are insignificant

in any way, but it does indeed severely undercut professor Ferguson’s fear-mongering.

The real story here is that Neil Ferguson is somehow still regarded to have any credibility whatsoever.

Public officials and mainstream media still place Ferguson on a pedestal as a leading COVID-19 authority despite having a demonstrable history of inaccuracy and his previous “scientific” projections being devastatingly false.

As this author has recounted in two previous reports, Neil Ferguson’s track record is anything but unsullied. First writing for The Free Thought Project in January of this year:

It has been the decision of governments the world over to exercise wanton reckless abandon to bring the global market to a screeching halt. And on a consensus of what? Faulty computer coding? As many have exhaustively covered throughout this crisis, the policy for governments around the world to institute sweeping lockdown mandates has absolutely no scientific basis.

Beginning in May, first reported by The Telegraph, independent data analyst experts revealed that the Imperial College pandemic projection models were completely inaccurate. It was these models, designed by Professor Neil Ferguson, that were used as justification

   

to begin worldwide lockdowns. Yet upon this groundbreaking news coming to light, it received almost no coverage from mainstream outlets. Analysts showed Ferguson’s models had several mathematical errors, and were ran on obsolete software. Leading experts who examined it say it could be “the most devastating software mistake of all time”. They called it “totally unreadable” & “a buggy mess that would get you fired in the private industry” and whose approach “ignores widely accepted computer science principles”.

Ultimately, Ferguson himself was forced to resign from his position at the Imperial College of London for breaking lockdown protocols. This guy had such little faith in the accuracy of his own models that he was completely comfortable disregarding his own data — with further investigation showing he has a track record of doing so. Despite this, governments around the world hastily accepted these models without first considering if it should undergo an independent peer review. The choice was made to base policy decisions that could potentially change the history of our planet as we know it on blind faith.”

Other esteemed experts, such as Stanford University professor of disease prevention John Ioannidis, one of the foremost respected and cited in his field, said of the

  

Imperial model:

“The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.”

In fact, shortly after the initial models were used as justification to begin the lockdowns, Ferguson appeared to drastically lower his prediction following a new analysis by the Imperial college team. Resulting in a recalculation of the figure to one 25 times smaller than originally estimated. He then doubled down on his first projection, causing quite a stir of confusion online.

Since the day that fateful decision was made, the world has been plunged into what is arguably the largest expansion of authoritarianism and attack against civil liberties in recent human history.

The rest of the report goes on to demonstrate data purporting how the ruling class financially benefited from policies that decimated working-class and lower class economies. Further enriching themselves and effectively bringing about the largest transfer of wealth of any era.

The report also simultaneously exemplifies the disastrous consequences of these policies.

 

Including multiple reports from the United Nations, showing that hundreds of millions of people are now being forced into starvation and poverty—decades of work fighting these very things being undone—because of the policies instituted at the behest of Professor Ferguson’s faulty data models.

In my follow up report from July 2021, titled New Research Shows Coronavirus Lockdowns Cost More Lives Than They Saved, even more evidence was displayed showcasing these horrid ramifications. An excerpt from the article reads:

• Drug use and subsequent overdose deaths are increasing at an alarming rate.

• Deaths by suicide are on the rise both nationally and internationally.

• More heartbreaking still, what is now being referred to as an epidemic of child suicide as the self-inflicted deaths of children is now on the rise.

• As well as causing a noticeable increase in both domestic violence and child abuse. Including sexual assault the world over, as human rights groups have warned that human trafficking has surged during lockdowns.

         

These are the statistics that we rarely if ever hear from the

media pundits and policy officials that arrogantly parade around as humanity’s saviors.

The report concluded with the following uncompromisingly forthright statement:

To be quite blunt, these policies should be regarded as a crime against humanity.

It goes well beyond a nauseating example of government malfeasance. Policymakers were rash, reactionary, and criminally negligent. Blood is on their hands, and a lot of it. We should all be quite frank about it; the decisions of lawmakers to enact these policies is directly contributory to the deaths of countless people. They are culpable, and liability should most certainly be applicable.

Manslaughter is generally defined as the unintentional killing of another human being. So while democide may not fit the bill due to a seeming lack of intent behind these killings; what does one even call mass state- sponsored criminally negligent manslaughter? Is there even a word for it? If not someone ought to think of one quick, because there are a lot of government officials that deserve to be charged with it.”

In this writer’s opinion, Professor Neil Ferguson belongs at the very top of that list. And just as much so for those who

blindly followed his word, as this is not the only time in his ill-fated career that Professor Ferguson has drastically missed the mark. His tenure is rife with ineptitude.

Noted by the UK’s Daily Mail, in 2001 Professor Ferguson was instrumental in the data models projecting the trajectory of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in England.

Policies implemented under Ferguson’s advisory based on his data resulted in the mass slaughter of over six million animals to stop the spread of the disease. A decision which left rural England economically devastated at the cost of £10 billion.

As the Mail states, Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University, who unlike Ferguson is an actual

expert of animal diseases, “claimed the model made incorrect assumptions about how foot and mouth disease was transmitted and, in a 2006 review, he claimed Imperial’s foot and mouth model was ‘not fit for purpose’, while in 2011 he said it was ‘severely flawed’.”

Having told The Daily Telegraph on March 27, 2020, “the episode was ‘a cautionary tale’ about the limits of mathematical modelling and he felt a sense of ‘déjà vu’ about the current situation,” following the UK’s lockdown mandate days prior.

In 2002, modeling from Ferguson’s Imperial team predicted 50,000 deaths could result from the outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease). Later stating it could become as high as 150,000 should the disease spread to sheep as well. The actual death toll was only 177.

Then in 2005, Ferguson again predicted global calamity. Claiming that around 200 million people would be killed during the bird flu pandemic. However, according to the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy’s 2005 Avian Influenza Year-End Review, just 142 people were counted as fatalities of H5N1.

The review stated: “What didn’t happen in 2005, of course, was a human pandemic. By the end of the year,

  

the virus still had not shown an ability to spread easily from person to person.”

Yet again in 2009, Ferguson’s track record of inaccuracy continued. That year, England’s chief medical officer Professor Sir Liam Donaldson released an estimate based on analysis conducted by Ferguson and his Imperial college team. The estimate being that a worst-case scenario would see 65,000 Brits perish from the swine flu pandemic.

But at the pandemic’s end, less than 500 were found to have died from the H1N1 virus.

Despite these various past follies (and even present blunders) Ferguson has retained an utmost smug demeanor. In the face of an infamy brought about by a career of notorious failures and even forced resignation. He still arrogantly stands atop his pedestal as one of Britain’s “premier health advisors.” And the British establishment is all too eager to allow it.

Ferguson seemingly makes statements on a whim based on reckless data models. He recants his statements at leisure with complete disregard for the consequences already taking effect. As Dr. Ron Paul recently pointed out, after recanting previous statements, Ferguson has neglected even attempting to offer any sort of apology for the catastrophic results that have already ensued from his

 

impetuousness.

The incredible encroachments against personal freedom of the last 16 months goes well beyond the cliche of giving the State an inch and watching them take a mile. They’ve taken several miles and continue to do so as the goalposts continue moving.

Now, as countless mediums of despotism are imposed, the world is writhing in protest. For several months, most recently on the 24th of July, over a million protesters in dozens of countries around the globe took to the streets in mass uprisings against new lockdowns and COVID-19 vaccine passport mandates.

One of the only countries not experiencing this is Sweden. Recently it was reported that the country has yet again reached zero COVID-19 deaths per day. Sweden’s overall health is not diminishing, the economy is intact, and their liberty is mostly secure. Despite being lambasted by establishment talking heads the world over, it appears that Sweden has solved the coronavirus problem. And they did so by disregarding Professor Ferguson’s abysmal recommendations.

If only more nations had followed their lead.
At the end of the day, Neil Ferguson is one of two things:

  

catastrophically incompetent in his profession, or a pathological liar.

In any case, he should never again be considered to have any sort of credibility whatsoever.

This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish it under a Creative Commons license with attribution to COVID19Up.org.

 

 

morning ray. 

i have absolutely no issue with empiricists and would agree that very often following the money will reveal much, though i am not certain quite how it is pertinent to my comment. 

however, 'appears to be influenced'? really? i mentioned a couple of studies on the basis of evidence - could very easily have been many others. they are out there. 

on the other hand, you would 'appear to be influenced' by the report you posted in response (i will try and read it in full at some stage but i really am short of time today with deadlines having been off-air for a while - and i also am well aware that we and others could get into a long and happy debate about all this but forgive me, that will have to be for another day - although it really feels we have covered it to death) but it is always worth seeing where an author or publication sits to give one a general idea of the worth of it.  

it really does not take long to discover that this publication is seen as strongly biased in its views on the subject (promoting robert malone, who really is the epitome of the tin hat brigade, if you want an example - not easy to get kicked off twitter for lying and deliberately spreading misinformation although others have managed it) and the publication may well have been mentioned in a harvard study looking at just that). nothing wrong with a publication taking a side but it does tend to lessen the value of the articles it features. also, the author is someone who seems rather keen to be seen as the next julian assange though without any of the contacts/impact/relevance of the man (and that is not meant as taking any side in respect of said gentleman). he seems to mostly write for the free thought project which would seem to be considered verging on whackadoodle territory. others may find both the publication and the author more compelling. good luck to them. 

my point was simply that the overwhelming scientific/medical evidence suggests that lockdowns work. from that aspect. 

whether they work from a political/moral/economic perspective is entirely another matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2022 at 2:40 PM, El Presidente said:

arseholes are the politicians involved. 

Twats are all those who spat in the face of Melbournians by trying to pull a swifty.  You may not agree with what they endured but by god you should respect it. 

Jesus/Spartacus are what his supporters referenced to. 

Now we know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not big on waiving anyones flag... but if I had to choose to support the 'moderation group' at twitter vs. Robert Malone MD, the inventor of the mRNA/DNA vaccine technology... I will listen to Robert Malone!

@Ken Gargett Just so I understand your post. Twitter defines who wears a tin hat...???? Dude, that is funny!

Malones bio!

I am an internationally recognized scientist/physician and the original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology, DNA vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA platform delivery technologies. I hold numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines: including for fundamental DNA and RNA/mRNA vaccine technologies.

I have approximately 100 scientific publications with over 12,000 citations of my work (per Google Scholar with an “outstanding” impact factor rating). I have been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, have chaired numerous conferences and I have sat on or served as chairperson on HHS and DoD committees.  I currently sit as a non-voting member on the NIH ACTIV committee, which is tasked with managing clinical research for a variety of drug and antibody treatments for COVID-19.

I received my medical degree from the Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine. I completed the Harvard Medical School fellowship as a global clinical research scholar in 2016 and was scientifically trained at the University of California at Davis, the University of California at San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories.  I have served as an assistant and associate professor of pathology and surgery at the University of California at Davis, the University of Maryland, and the Armed Forces University of the Health Sciences.  For many years, my wife and I have built and run a consultancy and analytics firm specializing in biotechnology and clinical trials development.

My partner in all of this is Jill Glasspool Malone, PhD.  She likes to stay behind the scenes, but you can be assured that in almost all of my professional endeavors, she has been and will be involved.  She also is well published and has an extensive CV.  We have been together since high school (over 45 years) and have been married for 42 of those. We live on a horse farm in Virginia, which has become our own personal “Galt’s Gulch”.  An idea that we embrace and build upon.  Having an intentional community is one of the tenets of how we live.

So, what has brought me to the point of daily podcasts, interviews, op-eds, advocacy with legislators and building a twitter feed of almost a half million people? It started with my own experiences and concerns regarding the safety and bioethics of how the COVID-19 genetic vaccines were developed and forced upon the world, and then then expanded as I discovered the many short-cuts, database issues, obfuscation and frankly, lies told in the development of the Spike protein-based genetic vaccines for SARS-CoV-2. Personal experiences involving identifying, developing, and trying to publish peer-reviewed academic papers focused on drug repurposing and the rights of physicians to practice medicine as well as what I have seen close colleagues go through have further influenced me. Finally, as unethical mandates for administering experimental vaccines to adults and children began to be pushed by governments, my research into what I believe is authoritarian control by governments that are being manipulated by large corporations (big finance, big pharmaceutical, big media and big technology) influenced my changing world view.

Now, I have always been taught and believed that vaccines must be developed in conjunction with life saving treatments for an emerging infectious disease or a pandemic.  I am a vaccinologist.  I invented the core mRNA vaccine technology platform.  I have spent much of my career working on vaccine development.  I have also had extensive experience in drug repurposing for infectious disease outbreaks. I am not an antivaxxer in any way, shape or form.  But I do believe that the short cuts that the USG have taken in bringing the mRNA and the adenovirus vaccines to market for this pandemic have been detrimental and contrary to globally accepted standards for developing and regulating safe and effective licensed products.

I have now done hundreds of podcasts and interviews. I am a regular guest on many shows and have written many editorials that have been published in mainstream newspapers.  Along with many other physicians and scientists advocating early treatment, I have toured globally to help educate physicians and the public about early treatment options while also opposing the unethical mandates.

I used to believe that the FDA, NIH, and CDC were working for the people, not big pharma. I thought that if we could just re-purpose already known, safe drugs for emerging infectious diseases, we could quickly find ways to reduce the death rate.  I thought that drug and vaccine development were regulated by the Federal government for the common good.  What I have learned over the last two years is that regulatory capture of the federal government has warped and shaped the work of Congress and Federal agencies to such an extent that they no longer represent what is in the best interests of the nation, the world, and humanity.  The more I have expressed data-based concerns about what is happening with the vaccines, the US Federal and WHO responses, the more I have been censored, defamed, and subjected to various forms of character assassination by big tech and legacy media. I am not alone in being targeted. Mainstream media has attacked and censored me and other prominent physicians/scientists who do not recite the governmental narrative.  This has been developed into a standard process and deployed worldwide as a technique for suppressing physician dissent – quite literally hunting physicians deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes (such as questioning vaccine safety and effectiveness) or of the “sin” of treating patients with lifesaving drugs in an outpatient setting.

What is happening is not right, it is not proper and it is not fair.
So, let get down to fixing it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PigFish said:

I am not big on waiving anyones flag... but if I had to choose to support the 'moderation group' at twitter vs. Robert Malone MD, the inventor of the mRNA/DNA vaccine technology... I will listen to Robert Malone!

@Ken Gargett Just so I understand your post. Twitter defines who wears a tin hat...???? Dude, that is funny!

Malones bio!

I am an internationally recognized scientist/physician and the original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology, DNA vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA platform delivery technologies. I hold numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines: including for fundamental DNA and RNA/mRNA vaccine technologies.

I have approximately 100 scientific publications with over 12,000 citations of my work (per Google Scholar with an “outstanding” impact factor rating). I have been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, have chaired numerous conferences and I have sat on or served as chairperson on HHS and DoD committees.  I currently sit as a non-voting member on the NIH ACTIV committee, which is tasked with managing clinical research for a variety of drug and antibody treatments for COVID-19.

I received my medical degree from the Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine. I completed the Harvard Medical School fellowship as a global clinical research scholar in 2016 and was scientifically trained at the University of California at Davis, the University of California at San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories.  I have served as an assistant and associate professor of pathology and surgery at the University of California at Davis, the University of Maryland, and the Armed Forces University of the Health Sciences.  For many years, my wife and I have built and run a consultancy and analytics firm specializing in biotechnology and clinical trials development.

My partner in all of this is Jill Glasspool Malone, PhD.  She likes to stay behind the scenes, but you can be assured that in almost all of my professional endeavors, she has been and will be involved.  She also is well published and has an extensive CV.  We have been together since high school (over 45 years) and have been married for 42 of those. We live on a horse farm in Virginia, which has become our own personal “Galt’s Gulch”.  An idea that we embrace and build upon.  Having an intentional community is one of the tenets of how we live.

So, what has brought me to the point of daily podcasts, interviews, op-eds, advocacy with legislators and building a twitter feed of almost a half million people? It started with my own experiences and concerns regarding the safety and bioethics of how the COVID-19 genetic vaccines were developed and forced upon the world, and then then expanded as I discovered the many short-cuts, database issues, obfuscation and frankly, lies told in the development of the Spike protein-based genetic vaccines for SARS-CoV-2. Personal experiences involving identifying, developing, and trying to publish peer-reviewed academic papers focused on drug repurposing and the rights of physicians to practice medicine as well as what I have seen close colleagues go through have further influenced me. Finally, as unethical mandates for administering experimental vaccines to adults and children began to be pushed by governments, my research into what I believe is authoritarian control by governments that are being manipulated by large corporations (big finance, big pharmaceutical, big media and big technology) influenced my changing world view.

Now, I have always been taught and believed that vaccines must be developed in conjunction with life saving treatments for an emerging infectious disease or a pandemic.  I am a vaccinologist.  I invented the core mRNA vaccine technology platform.  I have spent much of my career working on vaccine development.  I have also had extensive experience in drug repurposing for infectious disease outbreaks. I am not an antivaxxer in any way, shape or form.  But I do believe that the short cuts that the USG have taken in bringing the mRNA and the adenovirus vaccines to market for this pandemic have been detrimental and contrary to globally accepted standards for developing and regulating safe and effective licensed products.

I have now done hundreds of podcasts and interviews. I am a regular guest on many shows and have written many editorials that have been published in mainstream newspapers.  Along with many other physicians and scientists advocating early treatment, I have toured globally to help educate physicians and the public about early treatment options while also opposing the unethical mandates.

I used to believe that the FDA, NIH, and CDC were working for the people, not big pharma. I thought that if we could just re-purpose already known, safe drugs for emerging infectious diseases, we could quickly find ways to reduce the death rate.  I thought that drug and vaccine development were regulated by the Federal government for the common good.  What I have learned over the last two years is that regulatory capture of the federal government has warped and shaped the work of Congress and Federal agencies to such an extent that they no longer represent what is in the best interests of the nation, the world, and humanity.  The more I have expressed data-based concerns about what is happening with the vaccines, the US Federal and WHO responses, the more I have been censored, defamed, and subjected to various forms of character assassination by big tech and legacy media. I am not alone in being targeted. Mainstream media has attacked and censored me and other prominent physicians/scientists who do not recite the governmental narrative.  This has been developed into a standard process and deployed worldwide as a technique for suppressing physician dissent – quite literally hunting physicians deemed guilty of thoughtcrimes (such as questioning vaccine safety and effectiveness) or of the “sin” of treating patients with lifesaving drugs in an outpatient setting.

What is happening is not right, it is not proper and it is not fair.
So, let get down to fixing it.

ray, again, this is brief as deadlines and crap. 

one thing that really irritates me is people putting words in my mouth and then debating what i am supposed to have said. exactly what you have done here. i said robert malone was kicked off twitter. i did not say that twitter defines the tin hat brigade and you know that full well. your suggestion is blatantly dishonest. 

as for wasting time reading malone's self-created bio, i could have all the time in the world and that still wouldn't make the top million things i need to do. he has been shown to have lied many times about what he has allegedly achieved. i did see the first para - the inventor? he was one of a number of the early researchers. he was not the inventor. and so it goes.

you are welcome to listen to malone. i also enjoy fiction but i do not think he'll make the list. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken... understand please that I am funning with you!

I took the first referenced study, found that a major contributor has been fired, and is largely disqualified (empirically) by his own merits (of past failures).

Do you want me to pull up the money that the Gate Foundation contributes to the institution so you can follow the money? Gates is big into pharma investments, and if his software company is anything like the drugs they own patents on, or produce, we are all in big trouble.

Here sir is your latest injection of Windows ME... -LOL

Cheers mate!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PigFish said:

Ken... understand please that I am funning with you!

I took the first referenced study, found that a major contributor has been fired, and is largely disqualified (empirically) by his own merits (of past failures).

Do you want me to pull up the money that the Gate Foundation contributes to the institution so you can follow the money? Gates is big into pharma investments, and if his software company is anything like the drugs they own patents on, or produce, we are all in big trouble.

Here sir is your latest injection of Windows ME... -LOL

Cheers mate!

One's intuitions can end up being misleading regardless of its apparent whim...

Financial interest of some in anything is not a proper argument for the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of anything...

Please do provide an elaborate argument supporting your position if you feel like I have miscaracterized it.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

it really does not take long to discover that this publication is seen as strongly biased in its views on the subject (promoting robert malone, who really is the epitome of the tin hat brigade,

... mate, you said this guy is the epitome of the tin hat brigate... You said that!

 

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

not easy to get kicked off twitter for lying and deliberately spreading misinformation although others have managed it)

You brought up Twitter, not me. Did you catch him a lie, or are you saying Twitter accused him of lying? Twitter accusing (one) of lying is a badge of honer.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, and if by parsing your post, you view it that way sorry! Really!

I am trying to have some academic fun with what you represent that might just be amusing to the reading public. -R

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PigFish said:

... mate, you said this guy is the epitome of the tin hat brigate... You said that!

 

You brought up Twitter, not me. Did you catch him a lie, or are you saying Twitter accused him of lying? Twitter accusing (one) of lying is a badge of honer.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, and if by parsing your post, you view it that way sorry! Really!

I am trying to have some academic fun with what you represent that might just be amusing to the reading public. -R

ray, this might be amusing you but i honestly have better things to be doing. i don't find it fun when someone deliberately misquotes me and then attacks what i allegedly said, and then uses the old' oh, it was just a bit of fun' excuse to hide behind. so forgive me, but this will be the last from me in this little back and forth. 

yes, i mentioned twitter. yes, i also said that this bloke is the epitome of the tin hat brigade. but nowhere did i say what you allege. i also mentioned harvard. you could just as easily have claimed that i said harvard defines who is tin hat material. but you chose twitter instead. what a shock. 

knock yourself out having as much fun as you like but please leave me out of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeanff said:

One's intuitions can end up being misleading regardless of its apparent whim...

Financial interest of some in anything is not a proper argument for the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of anything...

Please do provide an elaborate argument supporting your position if you feel like I have miscaracterized it.

Cheers!

I am happy with my level of research to satisfy my own whims my friend. Trying convince anyone here of anything is not really a good use of my time.

You should understand that I wanted to have some fun with Ken and his tin hat comments. I wanted some people who read Kens post to realize that there is an alternate view. That twitter does not define who wears a tin hat, not by my standards. If that is not what Ken meant to say, well, I have apologized for that already. That is what he 'appeared to say' by stating that he was excused from twitter, as if that is some time blight on a mans resume... MHO

Some of you folks should do your own research. You might want to look into what the NIAID and many of the other government acronym agencies did to AIDs sufferers some decades ago.

There were congressional investigation on mass testing on foster kids, some not even testing positive with HIV, with no placebo group. 

History repeats itself. AZT was a killer chemo and if you read anything about that whole debacle you will figure out how the system of public/private partnership with governments and big pharma is something that people should fear more than COVID.

Straight from the tin-hat back at you... -LOL -Ray

Look forward to our next Zoom up!

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.