patrick.net

I heard Epstein was not very smart, and not terribly good with people.

... The antivirals series documented why we mistrust big journals and their articles, which, in some cases, are thinly veiled adverts for one or more products. ...

The better it sounds, the more likely it is to be too good to be true. Big journals are a specialised media business. We have abundant examples of that fact, but Tamiflu's rise is perhaps the best-documented example.

A modestly performing drug with central nervous system toxicity was pedalled through ghostwritten selected data via mega journals. Journal article “authors” had never seen the whole datasets, and few, if any, had participated in the analysis or editing of the articles. To this day, 60% of the randomised data have never been seen in public...

But, but, but - it’s a peer reviewed scientific journal! They would never write click bait! Well, they just did. And not “just”, they have been doing this for a long time, as long as this particular genre has been funded by the military-industrial Pandemic Preparedness Racket. And, just like the celebrity gossip magazines in the checkout aisles, they recycle the same fake stories over and over again, with different characters, locations, accessories and pets.

And you buy them every time.

Because THIS TIME, it has a pangolin and a brain infection in it.

There must be some seasonality to these informational campaigns, too, because LAST TIME the same brouhaha was all over media almost exactly a year ago. Do you remember the bombshell story from Project Veritas about Pfizer mutating viruses? And here is the Boston University 80% mouse killer story from The Fear Porn Magazine Winter 2023 Edition, debunked:

Boston University made an 80% mouse killer SarsCov mutant very recently. Besides provoking a number of great memes, it managed to not produce an apocalyptic lab leak and so did not wipe out Boston University itself (oh well, maybe next time). Why, you may ask? It was a 80% lethal strain! Of a novel mutated virus from the lab! It was even published in a peer reviewed journal, so it must be true! There were great takedowns of that BS from BU which I won’t republish now, but here is a short synopsis - PhDs played with soups of “viruses” that they thought might be more deadly because awesome computer models told them so. Nothing transmissible from animal to animal was made and 8/10 mice were euthanized because in the opinion of the investigators they were going to die anyway. Actually, the truth is simpler than this - the PhDs need to eat, they didn’t want to hunt for food or grow it, and so they submitted a grant application to the church of NIH using the prayerful keywords that the NIH likes (killer, zoonotic, viruses, pandemic preparedness), and the NIH gave them money for a couple of months. The PhDs bought food and paid rent. Some mice were sacrificed at the altar of the church of NIH. The end.

Anyone who has dared commit the mortal sin of research over the past few years, or even the venial sin of inquiry, has undoubtedly slammed into the sneering wall of derision erected by the phalanx of Indoctrinated pawns deployed in defense of their Party abusers.

”Do you have a degree? In this specific subject? From what university?”

”You haven’t gotten accreditation from a Party-approved source?”

”Are you employed in that field? Are you an expert?”

”Why won’t you just listen to the experts?”

The sneering wall of derision cries out in a million voices, legion, a tower of babbling incredulity and condescension, but for those who can hear the past the empty roar, a single, droning, insect cry emerges from behind the cacophony:

”Shut. Up.”

Over and over and over again.

”Shut. Up. Shut. Up. Shut. Up. Shut. Up. Shut. Up. Shut. Up. Shut. Up. Shut. Up.”

The message has no end, and no beginning, and vibrates into a mindless mantra, an insatiable gestalt plague of semantic satiation. It is as monotonous in its form as it is in its function: to assimilate.

THE COVID PANDEMIC BROKE ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS WHO PUT THEIR PERSONAL POLITICS AHEAD OF SCIENCE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD.

Sorry to shout, but it needs to be said: A life changing pandemic hit our planet and the learned class of people that we looked to for advice totally botched the job. Unfortunately, it wasn’t just on masks.

A recent New York Magazine investigation noted that the expert class also screwed the pooch when they clamored for lockdowns—a senseless, stupid experiment that devastated thousands of small businesses and working-class families. (“COVID Lockdowns Were a Giant Experiment. It Was a Failure. A Key Lesson of the Pandemic.”)

https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1764876916194959761

https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1764876916194959761

There's actually a lot of engineering put into driving surfaces and there's no way plastic could replace it.

Fisman et al. (2022, 2024) concocted a parameter, which they denote Psi (the Greek letter, ψ). They applied their concocted Psi to incorrectly claim that the risk of infection with COVID-19 to the vaccinated is Psi-fold disproportionately due to the unvaccinated.

Their Psi parameter is mathematically ill-defined, artificially large by its design, and varies in directions contrary to what is physically possible. It is an absurd quantity introduced ad hoc, having no epidemiological basis.

With my co-author Joseph Hickey, PhD, we rigorously proved that the Fisman et al. parameter Psi is nonsense, and we showed that its application can cause harm in society. We made our proof and demonstration in this detailed report:

Rancourt, D.G., and Hickey, J., “Comment on ‘Impact of immune evasion, waning and boosting on dynamics of population mixing between a vaccinated majority and unvaccinated minority’ by Fisman et al. (2024): Incorrect definition and application of a parameter ψ”. CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest, Brief Report, 25 April 2024. https://correlation-canada.org/comment-on-fisman-et-al-2024/ (also available at several other websites)

Virtually all peer reviewed medical journals have been coopted and compromised, particularly those owned by the WEF partner publishing houses Elsevier and Springer/Nature (see the prior essay “Disease X and the Corrupt Lancet” for further details). Relevant to this point was the recent reveal during the Dr. Peter Daszak public testimony in the US Congress that both the Lancet (published by Elsevier) and Nature (Springer) have refused to testify in response to specific congressional requests.