Police on the beat blow the whistle on the Covid response

A senior constable from the Coffs Clarance HIghway Patrol in NSW published a letter in the Cairns News (a blog)  last year,  with a remarkable evidence-based critique of the official response to Covid. 

A few paras from a very long letter.

Many of us believe that we are removing our own rights and freedoms by enforcing these rules upon the community, including our family and friends. And the community is confounded by the intensified police enforcement around peaceful freedom protests and how inconsistent this is compared with the Black Lives Matter protest. This contradiction is further destroying public confidence.’

From the beginning.

‘We are writing to you to raise concerns we have about the use of the police to enforce the ongoing restrictions placed upon our citizens relating to COVID-19, which has seriously eroded community trust in our great police force. Since the Attorney  General Declared  a State of Emergency for the novel coronavi­ rus, our governments have acted upon certain powers to impose restrictions on its citizens, using the police to enforce their rules. Due to the novel nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, most people con­ curred that certain restrictions  should be followed, until more was learnt about the virus.

‘With the initial modelling from the Imperial College in the UK< 1> and the Peter Doherty Institute here in Australia, indicating a catastrophic number of cases that would severely burden our hospital system and could result in up to 150,000 Australian deaths it is easy to comprehend why our governments would respond as they did and why the vast population would comply.

‘We note that the modelling was later found to have serious calculation errors, such that experts who later reviewed it have said “no serious scientist gives (it) any validity”.  And now the RT PCR test has been proven to be unreliable at best, with the inventor stating it should “never be used to diagnose infectious disease” because it cannot tell if what it detected is alive or dead.  This test is still being relied upon to make critical decisions in the interest of public health and safety.

‘In the same way, we cannot use an inac­curate speed detection device to proc­ tor a civilian’s speed, the same must be demanded of a faulty RT PCR test and as such, police should not in any way mandate testing for COVID-19, or rely on any outcome of the results. Now that we have almost 12 months of statistical data that can be relied upon, in place of flawed computer modelling, these statistics show a reality that is far from the modelling projections, which were relied upon by National Cabinet in their response.

NSW Police Blow Whistle on Virus Deception

This entry was posted in COVID-19. Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to Police on the beat blow the whistle on the Covid response

  1. Roger says:

    ‘We note that the modelling was later found to have serious calculation errors…’

    By an order of magnitude.

    Funny how that’s been consigned to the forgettery by the incurious media.

  2. nb says:

    Bravo! The clarity and origin of this letter speak volumes.

  3. FlyingPigs says:

    ASIO will be around to kick this extreme right wingers garage door down.

  4. MatrixTransform says:

    an o530 wake-up call from concerned colleagues?

  5. Matt says:

    So now we’re taking medical advice from the plod. Remarkable.

  6. BrettW says:

    Anybody know if any blow back on writer from HQ.

  7. MatrixTransform says:

    So now we’re taking medical advice from the plod

    Matt cites Neil Mitchell and John Faine

    retard

  8. wal1957 says:

    Computer modelling has form…gerbil warming anyone?

  9. Dot says:

    LOL

    ALP/uniparty/the government is never wrong/loyal Chinaman/fluffer Matt thinks that cops being worried about the erosion of civil liberties is not a big deal.

    No one has died of COVID in Australia in almost a year.

    The average age of those who died of “a COVID RELATED DEATH” was higher than our life expectancy age.

    No young people died of it and virtually everyone who died had a comorbidity.

    We never had serology done on the deceased and the governmental advice on masks was contradictory nonsense; the random lockdowns of varying lengths were criticised by all manner of doctors for having no medical value.

    You’re a complete it, Matt.

    An arts degree qualified “health professional researcher”.

    You jackass.

  10. Matt says:

    I made no comment on the erosion of civil liberties Dot – it was a comment on the erroneous interpretation of medical information in the letter. And you’re continuing to spout the same nonsense.

  11. FlyingPigs says:

    Matt says:
    June 6, 2021 at 10:32 am
    So now we’re taking medical advice from the plod. Remarkable.

    how much do you get paid by the CCP?

  12. Matt says:

    About the same as you Flying Pig.

  13. Rafe Champion says:

    Matt, what are some of your specific concerns about misinterpretation of data in the letter?

    That is one question, do you have any concerns about the civil liberties that he mentioned.

    And a third, do you have any comment on the inconsistency in the treatment of peaceful anti-lockdown protesters and supporters of BLM?

  14. FlyingPigs says:

    Matt says:
    June 6, 2021 at 10:45 am
    About the same as you Flying Pig.

    have some respect!

    it is FlyingPigs.

  15. FlyingPigs says:

    and answer Rafe.

  16. PB says:

    “And a third, do you have any comment on the inconsistency in the treatment of peaceful anti-lockdown protesters and supporters of BLM?”

    Its speaks volumes about these times that anyone would even see a need to pose such a question, but here we are, and its now a fair question. One answer is right and one answer is “correct”.

  17. Matt says:

    Sorry Flying Pigs, didn’t realise that your preferred pronoun was plural!

  18. PB says:

    ‘In the same way, we cannot use an inac­curate speed detection device to proc­ tor a civilian’s speed,

    They cannot, but they still do anyway, and when caught out it always seems to be calibrated to overstate speeds. I’m sure its always a co-incidence.

  19. FlyingPigs says:

    Matt says:
    June 6, 2021 at 11:04 am
    Sorry Flying Pigs, didn’t realise that your preferred pronoun was plural!

    well your sure proving pigs might fly.

  20. Dot says:

    Rafe Champion says:
    June 6, 2021 at 10:54 am

    You know he can’t and won’t answer.

  21. Mother Lode says:

    Funny how that’s been consigned to the forgettery by the incurious media.

    The media is complicit because, exactly like politicians, they want power, which they wield through politicians.

    Nice to see police understanding how much they rely upon the community to magnify their capabilities. How stupid would they have to be to put their faith in pollies?

  22. Matt says:

    Rafe:
    – the claim the PCR test is ‘unreliable at best’
    – the claim that ‘45% of people who contract the virus are asymptomatic’
    – the misunderstanding about relative mortality of COVID vs flu
    – hydroxychloroquine
    I note that the letter was penned in Nov 2020, prior to the existing spate of outbreaks following the resumption of increased returned travelers and the emergence of new strains.
    On the second point, yes I do share some of the concerns about civil liberties.
    On the third point (and a slight correction because not all of the anti-lockdown protests have been peaceful) – I agree that there is a massive inconsistency in the approach, and it’s not just related to protests.

  23. Dot says:

    – hydroxychloroquine

    Works.

  24. rickw says:

    Destroying Public Confidence?

    It’s Destroyed. No one trusts these Nazi fuckers.

    They will follow all orders no matter how stupid or grim because they have no capacity for independent thought or action and they believe that they are doing good.

    This makes them far more dangerous than organised criminals. At least they recognise their criminality and are focused on their own business and generally leave everyone alone unless they decide to compete with them.

  25. Matt says:

    For malaria

  26. MatrixTransform says:

    enough vague references to higher authority Matt.

    please … please … cite your sources

  27. Steve trickler says:

    the claim the PCR test is ‘unreliable at best’

    Trolling is ramping up everywhere, not just here at the CAT. It has amplified ( pun intended ) over the last week across multiple platforms.

    I believe it is a deliberate campaign. And they comes across like the drip above.

  28. Matt says:

    ‘Early in the pandemic, several small clinical and in vitro studies from France and China reported on the efficacy of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against SARS-CoV-2 infections, which generated global attention towards these decades-old antimalarials (AM) and heralded numerous studies investigating their role in treating COVID-19. Despite several observational studies early in the pandemic affirming their beneficial role in treating COVID-19, 12 clinical studies reported no mortality benefits for CQ/HCQ in COVID-19 patients. The excitement over CQ/HCQ was ultimately quenched after three large randomized clinical trials, the COALITION-I trial in Brazil, the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom (UK), and the SOLIDARITY trial from World Health Organization (WHO) consistently reported no beneficial effects for CQ/HCQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.’

    I’m sure you can hunt down those studies yourself MT.

  29. MatrixTransform says:

    your’e lazy wanker aren’t you Matt

  30. Matt says:

    Out of interest Rafe, do you:

    – believe that the PCR test is unreliable?
    – believe that HCQ is an effective treatment?
    – that COVID is no more deadly than influenza?

  31. Dot says:

    Oh shit Matty

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext

    RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
    Prof Mandeep R Mehra, MD
    Sapan S Desai, MD
    Prof Frank Ruschitzka, MD
    Amit N Patel, MD
    Published:May 22, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6

    Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19.

    … and the real shit shocker:

    Interpretation
    We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.

    They lied, people died!

  32. Rafe Champion says:

    Thanks Matt!
    When trolls visit the list I usually invite them to join the discussion and mostly they don’t oblige.
    On the results of trials, the timing and dosage are critical variables. It is not my area and I am not going to pursue the details, others can do that, I have to get back to the pre-lunch wind-watching report.

  33. Matt says:

    And your point Dot? The paper was retracted in May last year. A number of clinical trials were put on hold, but subsequently resumed. And have consistently reported no beneficial effects for CQ/HCQ.

  34. Matt says:

    Maybe you can return to the questions after the wind watching Rafe – I’m happy to oblige answering questions.

  35. Dot says:

    And have consistently reported no beneficial effects for CQ/HCQ.

    That’s ANOTHER lie.

  36. Matt says:

    Devastating rebuttal Dot, not sure if I can possibly recover from that.

  37. MatrixTransform says:

    lol … when I said lazy, I meant intellectually

  38. Mark M says:

    Claude Moore – Brabazon : The man who proved pigs could fly

    https://aviationhumor.net/claude-moore-brabazon-the-man-who-proved-that-pigs-can-fly/

  39. Dot says:

    You’re just making shit up as you go along Matt.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32387409/

    Travel Med Infect Dis
    . May-Jun 2020;35:101738. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101738. Epub 2020 May 5.

    Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France

    Background: In France, the combination hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) is used in the treatment of COVID-19.

    Methods: We retrospectively report on 1061 SARS-CoV-2 positive tested patients treated for at least three days with the following regimen: HCQ (200 mg three times daily for ten days) + AZ (500 mg on day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days). Outcomes were death, clinical worsening (transfer to ICU, and >10 day hospitalization) and viral shedding persistence (>10 days).

    Results: A total of 1061 patients were included in this analysis (46.4% male, mean age 43.6 years – range 14-95 years). Good clinical outcome and virological cure were obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (p < .001) but viral culture was negative at day 10. All but one, were PCR-cleared at day 15. A poor clinical outcome (PClinO) was observed for 46 patients (4.3%) and 8 died (0.75%) (74-95 years old). All deaths resulted from respiratory failure and not from cardiac toxicity. Five patients are still hospitalized (98.7% of patients cured so far). PClinO was associated with older age (OR 1.11), severity of illness at admission (OR 10.05) and low HCQ serum concentration. PClinO was independently associated with the use of selective beta-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers (p < .05). A total of 2.3% of patients reported mild adverse events (gastrointestinal or skin symptoms, headache, insomnia and transient blurred vision).

    Conclusion: Administration of the HCQ+AZ combination before COVID-19 complications occur is safe and associated with a very low fatality rate in patients.

    NO! EVIDENCE!

    Just go away you anti civil liberties shill.

  40. Snoopy says:

    Murderous doctors at RBH were administering/prescribing CQ/HCQ to Covid patients in the first quarter of 2020.

  41. Rex Anger says:

    @ Dot-

    Matty dear is a ‘private’ health bugman. As such, his entire livelihood is entirely dependent on the Viktoristani Elf Department not revoking his permissions to practice and credentials if he wants to continue to make a living. As such, their schtick is his schtick.

    You will also get the usual deliberate misinterpretation of principles to support a political agenda, i.e. Randomised Controlled Trials show X doesn’t work, therefore everything is invalid.

    As far as assessments of study quality go, RCTs are considered the gold standard of medical research. But they are time-consuming to develop and run, may collapse mid-trial if the desired population has any adverse changes (e.g. a trial run with a desire-to-treat may well skew if enough of the placebo group develop symptoms severe enough to warrant being switched to the treatment group, etc.), and are still liable to data manipulation and bias.

    Since they are also prospective trials, they are potentially useless for determing if a proposed solution to a current problem (which the C00f is, for certain patient types).

    But hey, since retrospective analyses are deemed less ‘reliable’ than RCTs, and you can make up any study protocol and hypothesis you please to push any agenda you like and make it look ‘Scientific,’ it’s really easy for medical bugmen and dishonest activists to say “See? It dun work! LockDans and [non-vaccinating] vaccines for all! Is only way!”

  42. Matt says:

    It’s really good that you can copy and paste Dot, but sometimes it’s worth reading the full paper, not just the abstract.
    Firstly, the paper is from May 2020 – and as noted above (and as you continue to ignore), there is more recent evidence that disputes the effectiveness of HCQ.
    Secondly, the study you linked too included asymptomatic cases, many of whom would never have become seriously ill – this is likely to significantly bias the results.
    Thirdly, the study also excluded 350 patients because of potential increased cardiac risk – thereby removing patients who might have had adverse outcomes.
    And finally the study didn’t have a control group, so it’s not possible to exclude the possibility of other characteristics of the study population that might have also contributed to the reported outcomes.

  43. Dot says:

    Thirdly, the study also excluded 350 patients because of potential increased cardiac risk – thereby removing patients who might have had adverse outcomes.

    Yeah, shame about ethics.

    there is more recent evidence that disputes the effectiveness of HCQ

    The French study had n > 1000. Low n, from India? Get stuffed. A letter to the editor of Lancet! Wow, powerful stuff you moron.

    Look you disgusting shill, you’ve been bested in every way.

    Just shut up and let normal people get on with their lives.

  44. FlyingPigs says:

    yuan has to earn the yuan, eh Matt.

  45. Tel says:

    NSW Police are not too bad.

    Probably the best police force in Australia … not yet infiltrated by socialists, and not yet bought into the postmodern theory of anti-law.

  46. Matt says:

    Interesting that you could only respond to 1 of the 4 points Dot, wonder why that is? It’s a weak study that provides limited evidence of effectiveness, and there is more contemporary evidence that proves you wrong.

  47. Dot says:

    It’s a weak study

    This is just made up bullshit.

    1. 1st world country.
    2. Natural experiment.
    3. High n, good results, high confidence.
    4. Ethically conducted.
    5. Explicitly noted their goals and constraints.
    6. Peer reviewed literature – not retracted like that trash in Lancet, which was published contemporaneously.

    “No evidence!”

    Enough of your childish rhetoric.

    If you want to give up your civil liberties, check into a nuthouse.

    Please leave us alone.

  48. Dot says:

    Secondly, the study you linked too included asymptomatic cases, many of whom would never have become seriously ill

    Hang on fuckwit, didn’t you say this earlier?

    Matt says:
    June 6, 2021 at 11:17 am
    Rafe:
    – the claim that ‘45% of people who contract the virus are asymptomatic’

    Fucking LOL.

    Worthy of Memeology 101.

    The vacillating and caterwauling must peak soon.

  49. Matt says:

    Here we go then Dot:
    1. 1st world country – tick
    2. Natural experiment – better, an RCT
    3. High n, good results, high confidence. – tick, n=2134
    4. Ethically conducted – tick
    5. Explicitly noted their goals and constraints – tick
    6. Peer reviewed literature – tick

    Conclusion: Postexposure therapy with hydroxychloroquine did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic Covid-19 in healthy persons exposed to a PCR-positive case patient.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801

  50. MatrixTransform says:

    And finally the study didn’t have a control group

    way to go.
    managed to out-stupid yourself already

  51. Matt says:

    Thing you completely missed the point on asymptomatic cases Dot – completely understandable though given you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  52. Dot says:

    Matt says:
    June 6, 2021 at 12:46 pm
    Thing you completely missed the point on asymptomatic cases Dot – completely understandable though given you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    No, it means you are bullshitting.

  53. Dot says:

    Hydroxychloroquine also did not reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (18.7%, as compared with 17.8% with usual care) or the incidence of seropositivity.

    Um yeah that’s great.

    treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin

    You dopey fuck knuckle.

  54. Arky says:

    Matt, why are you so desperate to prove that there is no merit in finding drug treatments for the thing?

  55. Dave in Marybrook says:

    our great police force
    Awesome adjective to use! Concise and Trumpian.
    Go hard, and consider standing yourselves down.

  56. Matt says:

    You’re just embarrassing yourself now Dot.

  57. Dot says:

    ???

    No, I’m not.

    Your comments about asymptomatic cases are hilarious and stupid.

    HQC and azithromycin work in combination.

    Go away, you awful, spiteful, freedom hating shill.

  58. Matt says:

    Arky – I’m not. I’m all for finding drug treatments that work – and there are a few:
    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2980.long

    I’m opposed to people continuing to promote something that has been shown over and over to not work. I don’t know why people still cling to HCQ?

  59. Arky says:

    I don’t know why people still cling to HCQ?

    ..
    What about Ivermectin?

  60. Arky says:

    That data you linked is a year old Matt.
    Why is there nothing more recent on treatments?

  61. Matt says:

    Treatment or prevention?

  62. Rex Anger says:

    Hmm…

    I thought corticosteroids and iL-6, supplemental oxygen and ventilators have all been consistently used on all the dead cases across Europe and the US?

    And said methods and drugs are persisted with, simply because there is nothing else the intensivists are permitted to use, and monoclonal antibody therapy is expensive?

  63. Dot says:

    Matt also fails to consider that HCQ was given to some of the worst cases en masse.

    In combination with azithromycin, it is a proven, effective therapy.

    Yet he continues to pretend it is only ever used in isolation (where it is less effective).

    Just a lying shill. Against freedom.

    Talking up a fake crisis to deny civil liberties indefinitely.

  64. Matt says:

    That data you linked is a year old Matt.
    Why is there nothing more recent on treatments?

    This one?
    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2980.long

    It’s a living review, last updated April 2021.

  65. Matt says:

    In combination with azithromycin, it is a proven, effective therapy.

    As the studies all show, you are just plain wrong Dot. And no amount of stomping your feet and saying it’s a proven therapy will change that.

  66. Dot says:

    As the studies all [WTF!?] show, you are just plain wrong Dot. And no amount of stomping your feet and saying it’s a proven therapy will change that.

    You’re just making shit up, you ludicrous clown.

    Conclusion: Administration of the HCQ+AZ combination before COVID-19 complications occur is safe and associated with a very low fatality rate in patients.

  67. FlyingPigs says:

    stop paying government shills

  68. Rex Anger says:

    As the studies all show

    Appeal to authority, go on…

    To which authorities are you appealing, Matty darling?

    Only the ones that back the Narrative?

    How can you be certain the BMJ is open to all information out there on the subject, and not only that which is politically aligned and acceptable?

    How about the volumes of case studies, restrospective analyses and other evidence obtained over the last 18-24 months as the virus’ effects and available treatments were examined? Where the triple therapy of HCQ, Azthromycin and Zinc were found to help at-risk patients, as well as those given it in desperation? How also about the evidence for ivermectin?

    Do all these not count because Big Health now say so? Wasn’t that long ago any potentially viable treatment was grasped at.

    Peer Review is merely academic groupthink. No longer a means of external, informal editing and serious error detection (i.e. Quality Assurance), to prevent an embarrassing and financially damaging howler being published for all to see, forever…

  69. Matt says:

    To which authorities are you appealing,

    So Dot’s Lancet paper is out too, and same for the Travel Med Infect Dis paper? Or is only some peer reviewed published research bad?

  70. Dot says:

    So Dot’s Lancet paper is out too, and same for the Travel Med Infect Dis paper? Or is only some peer reviewed published research bad?

    The point was that the Lancet paper was RETRACTED.

    Like the Wakefield paper.

  71. Rex Anger says:

    Or is only some peer reviewed published research bad?

    Ironic that this is effectively the very question I was asking you, Matty darling…

    #MattStandsWithDan

  72. Steve trickler says:

    Matt says:
    June 6, 2021 at 12:44 pm
    Here we go then Dot:
    1. 1st world country – tick
    2. Natural experiment – better, an RCT
    3. High n, good results, high confidence. – tick, n=2134
    4. Ethically conducted – tick
    5. Explicitly noted their goals and constraints – tick
    6. Peer reviewed literature – tick

    Conclusion: Postexposure therapy with hydroxychloroquine did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic Covid-19 in healthy persons exposed to a PCR-positive case patient.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801

    Hey drip!

    The second name on that paper published is —-Marc Corbacho-Monné, B.M—-

    Linked to the [ drum roll ]

    Fauci’s and Wifeys cesspool

    The National Center for Biotechnology Information is part of the United States National Library of Medicine, a branch of the National Institutes of Health. It is approved and funded by the government of the United States.

    That was a quick search. I wonder what will be found if we look at all those listed.

    Fuck off drip!

  73. Matt says:

    The fact that the Lancet paper was retracted is a demonstration that they system works (and that’s not to say that it’s 100% either) – but it doesn’t therefore mean that there is a problem with all published research. You can’t claim that case studies and ‘other evidence’ (whatever the hell that means) are all acceptable, but RCTs and systematic reviews are not because they are a result of academic group think.

  74. Rex Anger says:

    The fact that the Lancet paper was retracted is a demonstration that they system works (and that’s not to say that it’s 100% either) –

    Only after it became too politically awkward and financially painful to keep up the masquerade, Matty darling.

    Lysenkoism is the crippling, enervating and terminal disease afflicting all intellectual research disciplines in this dreary, post-soviet world of ours…

  75. Rex Anger says:

    You can’t claim that case studies and ‘other evidence’ (whatever the hell that means) are all acceptable, but RCTs and systematic reviews are not because they are a result of academic group think.

    Yet I never said that, Matty darling.

    I was exposing your logical fallacy of appealing solely to RCTs as your source of proof that HCQ does not work.

    And you jumped at that bait harder than a greedy trout…

  76. Steve trickler says:

    They are all on the Fauci and Grady payroll- Drip. All of them! 🤣

    Oriol Mitjà, Ph.D., Marc Corbacho-Monné, B.M., Maria Ubals, B.M., Andrea Alemany, B.M., Clara Suñer, Ph.D., Cristian Tebé, Ph.D., Aurelio Tobias, Ph.D., Judith Peñafiel, M.Sc., Ester Ballana, Ph.D., Carla A. Pérez, B.M., Pol Admella, B.M., Núria Riera-Martí, B.M., et al., for the BCN-PEP-CoV2 Research Group*

    This the type of trolling going around at the moment. Useless wankers galore.

  77. Matt says:

    Only after it became too politically awkward and financially painful

    The original was published 22 May 2020, an Expression of Concern was published by the editors on 3 June 2020, and it was retracted on 4 June 2020 – hardly issues of political awkwardness or financial influence.

  78. Matt says:

    appealing solely to RCTs as your source of proof that HCQ does not work.

    Not true at all.

  79. Steve trickler says:

    Boom!

    The New England Journal Of Medicine.

    Perspective

    The Next Epidemic — Lessons from Ebola
    List of authors.
    Bill Gates

    Get Stuffed troll

  80. Rex Anger says:

    The original was published 22 May 2020, an Expression of Concern was published by the editors on 3 June 2020, and it was retracted on 4 June 2020 – hardly issues of political awkwardness or financial influence.

    Keep flapping, Matty darling.

    To have an expression of concern put out 12 days after publication, and the offending article removed within 24 hours, after the Mainstream Media had spent every minute of that 12 days trumpeting how this study (with all its glaring faults and known biases) imvalidated Orangutan Bard and everyone who thought HCQ and adjuncts could help ease the pandemic, screams political awlwardness.

    It also demonstrates that said study ought never have been released for publication in the first place.

    You will need to try harder with your disingenuousness, Matty darling. This is not Facebook…

  81. Steve trickler says:

    The troll is now naked in the street with his willy flapping in the breeze.

  82. Matt says:

    after the Mainstream Media had spent every minute of that 12 days trumpeting how this study

    Sure.

  83. Rex Anger says:

    Sure

    OK, so can you prove to me they didn’t?

  84. Matt says:

    I think the onus of proof is on you for that one Rex.

  85. Arky says:

    The fact that the Lancet paper was retracted is a demonstration that the system works

    ..
    Not really.
    Publishing a paper you then have to retract is an admission of failure.
    What you are saying is like saying that a car company’s systems work because they recalled and junked a car.
    “See? The system worked”!
    No. No it didn’t.

  86. Rex Anger says:

    I think the onus of proof is on you for that one Rex.

    Why?

    Got nothing?

    You dismissed it with a cheap sneer, so you clearly know better.

    Remember dear LockDrone, this isn’t Facebook…

  87. Matt says:

    Publishing a paper you then have to retract is an admission of failure.

    Correct – by the researchers involved.
    But the fact that others were able to point to flaws and ultimately (and quickly) have the paper retracted is a positive. How else would you have it?

  88. Matt says:

    Rex – make a big claim, back it up with something approximating evidence, otherwise it’s just like the rest of the drivel that you spout.

  89. Arky says:

    The big problem you have Matt, is that after the “hide the decline” peer review was brought into disrepute. This was never corrected.
    Then, with this pandemic thing the initial lies were never acknowledged and people were not sacked.
    So if they want to lie about masks “not being effective” because they want to preserve limited PPE for frontline workers, they have to then resign before letting someone different lies about the masks being absolutely necessary for people walking around outside. There is a cost to lying. The cost is that subsequently people stop believing you. No matter how much you think that the lying was required at the time.
    Then you expect the citizens to believe these same experts when it comes to getting a new technology injected into them, or about the effectiveness of other treatments.
    Good luck with that.

  90. Rex Anger says:

    Rex – make a big claim, back it up with something approximating evidence, otherwise it’s just like the rest of the drivel that you spout

    Nice projection, Matty darling.

    Did your friends at Getup! or the Premiers’ Department PR flunkeys draft that one for you?

  91. Rex Anger says:

    Publishing a paper you then have to retract is an admission of failure.

    Correct – by the researchers involved.

    So why have Editors in one’s Journals, Comrade?

    Oh wait- https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/lancet-editor-exposed-as-incompetent-liar/

    And- https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/03/31/lancet-editors-backing-for-extinction-rebellion/

    Never let such things as integrity and professional ethics get in the way of The Narrative, Comrades! We Are All In This Together!

    Like I said, Matty darling- You’re not on Facebook. The level of comprehension and research skills are much higher here…

  92. Tel says:

    Publishing a paper you then have to retract is an admission of failure.

    Correct – by the researchers involved.

    It’s proof that the “peer review” process is not bulletproof … then again not many processes are.

    The Wakefield paper was retracted mostly on procedural technicalities … in particular he had not been granted permission of an ethics committee, and this goes down to the argument of whether he was doing “research” tests or whether he was doing “clinical” tests … which is a rather fine line when it’s perfectly possible to be doing both simultaneously. You could think of it as a demarcation dispute between rival medial unions if you want to put it into an industrial context.

    No one ever proved that any of Wakefield’s measurements were wrong, and he never claimed to be following a full research project in the first place, with double-blind trials, random selection, etc. His only claim was that he found a pattern of clinical cases and this might be a starting point for some future research project. It’s worth at least understanding the facts of what happened there.

    https://circleofmamas.com/health-news/why-was-andrew-wakefields-lancet-paper-retracted/

    In comparison the Surgisphere retracted paper was complete and utter bunk, fully fabricated data, and complete lies end to end. It was retracted very quickly once other researchers started asking for the details of how they got that data, and it should never have got anywhere near publication.

    The damage has already been done, the news reports couldn’t wait to trash HCQ and as usual these people never apologize when they screw it up. They are doing their best to trash Ivermectin, or in some cases just ignore it completely.

  93. Matt says:

    The big problem you have Matt, is that after the “hide the decline” peer review was brought into disrepute. This was never corrected.

    That’s not a big problem I have, that’s a big problem we all have. As Tel notes, peer review is not bullet proof, but not many processes are. But as this retraction and Wakefield (and others) show there is the ability for more broad based peer review and the retraction of erroneous publications. In fact I think we will see this more through the more widespread use of pre-prints and open-sourced review prior to publication. The downside to that is that pre-prints are often treated as published.

  94. Arky says:

    To find out if retracting papers is indeed a sign of “the system working” lets take this proposition to it’s extreme.
    If retracting one article was a sign of success, then retracting two would be a further sign of even greater success.
    Would it not be, by this logic, if all the articles in a publication were retracted, a sign of complete an utter 100% success?
    Or could it possibly be that having to retract a study is a failure, as most would have it?

  95. Arky says:

    Indeed, if retractions are signs of success, editors could put the following on their resumes “During my time as editor of Evolutionary Gender Studies Review I achieved a retraction rate of 97.3%”.
    Magazines would be mainly filed with retractions of previously published studies.
    Editors could compete with each other by retracting articles before they were even published.
    “Read our latest edition with ten soon to be retracted cutting edge studies”.

  96. Dasher says:

    I think this hit a nerve on old mate Matt.

  97. Arky says:

    What we really need is a complex and incomprehensible statistical method to do a meta study of retracted articles.

  98. Matt says:

    Or you could just search for them here Arky:
    http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx

  99. Rex Anger says:

    I think this hit a nerve on old mate Matt.

    Matt surfaces whenever a critical post about the C00f and related policies appears.

    He then tries to dismiss it (and us all) with the SCIENCE! Complete and in all its prepackaged, pre-digested NPC talking points and cardboard cut-out ‘arguments’ to use on the dissenters.

    And then resorts to being all petty and low-energy when he is reminded that most commenters and posters on the Cat are actually smarter (or at the very least more world-wise) than him.

  100. Rex Anger says:

    What we really need is a complex and incomprehensible statistical method to do a meta study of retracted articles.

    Or you could just search for them here Arky:
    http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx

    I think Matty darling identifies as a trout, Arky.

    He bites every bait offered, and certainly throws himself about violently when landed…

  101. Rex Anger says:

    But as this retraction and Wakefield (and others) show there is the ability for more broad based peer review and the retraction of erroneous publications.

    Shame Matty darling didn’t read Tel’s comment completely before replying:

    No one ever proved that any of Wakefield’s measurements were wrong, and he never claimed to be following a full research project in the first place, with double-blind trials, random selection, etc. His only claim was that he found a pattern of clinical cases and this might be a starting point for some future research project. It’s worth at least understanding the facts of what happened there.

  102. Tel says:

    So if they want to lie about masks “not being effective” because they want to preserve limited PPE for frontline workers, they have to then resign before letting someone different lies about the masks being absolutely necessary for people walking around outside. There is a cost to lying. The cost is that subsequently people stop believing you. No matter how much you think that the lying was required at the time.

    The process by which the knaves mitigate that problem, is having a front man, who is generally a bit compromised and not super sharp. We can call this guy either “Patsy” or “Fauci” depending on which you prefer.

    The front man is considered disposable, and then they can scapegoat everything on that guy, who spectacularly takes the fall and is quickly replaced by a different front man. The new guy of course is cleansed of the sins of his predecessor and the process continues.

    There’s a pretty good explanation of the Cray brothers and their repeated “Long Firm” scams … how they would select one guy to create the corporation, become the CEO, manage everything and be the front man. Read the book “Lying for Money” by Dan Davies. Of course each of the “Long Firm” corporations would eventually go bankrupt, and that guy with his name on everything would vanish without trace, along with all the internal company records. Lots of people would lose money … which does not mean the money vanishes … only that it ended up in unknown pockets. Eventually the accountant of the Cray brothers pulled the ultimate scam and turned them in, while he himself vanished from view, into police protection.

  103. Matt says:

    Any chance you’d care to answer the questions now Rafe (now the wind watching is over)? Do you:

    – believe that the PCR test is unreliable?
    – believe that HCQ is an effective treatment?
    – that COVID is no more deadly than influenza?

  104. Primer says:

    ‘Many of us believe that we are removing our own rights and freedoms by enforcing these rules upon the community’

    Then f**king stop doing it, son.

  105. Dot says:

    Matt says:
    June 6, 2021 at 6:33 pm
    Any chance you’d care to answer the questions now Rafe (now the wind watching is over)? Do you:

    – believe that the PCR test is unreliable?
    – believe that HCQ is an effective treatment?
    – that COVID is no more deadly than influenza?

    No no.

    Fuck you, champ, and your pro lockdown horse you rode in on can fuck itself too.

    The PCR tests have been abused and selectively upcycled and downcycled.
    HCQ is demonstrated to be effective in peer reviewed journals. Papers disputing this have been retracted.
    COVID is no more deadly than influenza. Miraculously, it seems to cure influenza.

  106. Matt says:

    Dot – didn’t know you were a spokesperson for Rafe, but I’m sure he can answer for himself. I showed him the courtesy of answering his questions, I’m sure he can do the same.

  107. Dot says:

    Your courtesy is false as is your concern for our liberties.

  108. Rex Anger says:

    COVID is no more deadly than influenza. Miraculously, it seems to cure influenza.

    Indeed- How many C00f deaths were actually influenza, COPD exacerbations or any of the umpteen viral or bacterial community-acquired pneumonias?

    After all, you’re only a C00f death if your PCR came up trumps within 2 weeks of your recorded demise…

  109. MatrixTransform says:

    the appeal to incredulity
    and
    the appeal to higher authority

    we got ourselves a proper post-modernist

    reckons rhetoric == reality.

    ie. retard

  110. MatrixTransform says:

    I’m telling youse now … impossible to reason with.

    it’s mentally defective

  111. Rex Anger says:

    it’s mentally defective

    It is affliliated with VikHelf. No matter how peripherally…

  112. MatrixTransform says:

    sorry for the alliteration

    or, retards wrote Rx

    sorry again

  113. Rex Anger says:

    😉

  114. Struth says:

    You absolutely destroyed that Matt character.
    I didn’t read him anymore once he quoted a WHO study.

  115. Matt says:

    And yet funnily enough, here you are Struth.
    About the only thing destroyed around here is your credibility, and that of your buddies.

  116. Rex Anger says:

    About the only thing destroyed around here is your credibility, and that of your buddies.

    What makes you say that, Matty darling?

    You are the one trying to defend discredited and discreditable institutions and information, here…

  117. Matt says:

    I love that you truly believe that because you say something is discredited, it must be so.

  118. Rex Anger says:

    I love that you truly believe that because you say something is discredited, it must be so.

    You lot do it on a daily basis, Matty darling. Dunno why getting it back upsets you…

  119. Matt says:

    Not sure why you think it upsets me. Nothing that you’ve written bothers me in the slightest.

  120. Rex Anger says:

    Not sure why you think it upsets me. Nothing that you’ve written bothers me in the slightest.

    Yet here you are, trolly-kins…

  121. Rex Anger says:

    Still trying to get the last word in.

    You appear only when a Coof-critical post that makes Viktoristan appear in a bad light comes up on the Cat, and immediately try to use the same tired arguments your fellow NPCs have been trying to use to crush dissent for the last 18 months.

    It didn’t work then, and is even greater a failire now.

  122. Dot says:

    Just vapid, desperate vacillating rhetoric and zero substance.

    You have been comprehensively “owned” on everything.

    The reason why you can’t say so is that you have no shame.

    You defend the official position, even when it makes no sense in light of evidence, or it is concomitant with retracted papers, or it contradicts prior advice.

    You ran like hell when civil liberties were brought up.

    Just hollow, lame and soulless government shilling.

  123. Matt says:

    Reading & comprehension obviously not a strong suit Dot – re civil liberties I ran nowhere – ‘On the second point, yes I do share some of the concerns about civil liberties.’
    And as per Rex, you saying something does not make it true.
    For a blog that supposedly promotes open exchange of ideas, you are fairly closed minded. You should open your mind and explore some new ideas every now and then – it will do you good.

  124. Matt says:

    And I’ll happily leave the final word to one of you four – I know you won’t be able to resist.

  125. Rex Anger says:

    You should open your mind and explore some new ideas every now and then – it will do you good.

    From a bugman looming for a cheap one-up. Pass…

  126. Rex Anger says:

    And as per Rex, you saying something does not make it true.

    Poor troll. Running out of VikGov-approved trolling points.

    You riposte like a quadruple amputee…

  127. Dot says:

    On the second point, yes I do share some of the concerns about civil liberties.’

    Empty bullshit. The white washed bones of a sepulchre.

  128. Tel says:

    Out of interest Rafe, do you:

    – believe that the PCR test is unreliable?

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-04/covid-victoria-false-positive-cases-test/100190076

    Important quote:

    “False positives and false negatives are inevitable. They do happen and they will continue to happen,” Dean Whiting from Pathology Technology Australia said.

    There’s a guy who does it for a living and he recognises that the test can give back false results. I completely agree with Dean Whiting. How about you Matt, are you much smarter than Dean? Gonna go out on a limb and say he is wrong?

  129. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “For a blog that supposedly promotes open exchange of ideas, you are fairly closed minded. You should open your mind and explore some new ideas every now and then – it will do you good.”

    LOL…….only someone with a weak handshake could write that.

  130. Matt says:

    Tel – no medical test is 100%. I agree with Dean too – false positive and false negative results for any test will occur. Your linked article also says ‘ The rate of false positives is low for PCR tests, and Mr Whiting said the fact these false positives were detected meant the system was working.’
    That doesn’t make the test unreliable in the context of the comments in the original post.

  131. Tel says:

    Tel – no medical test is 100%. I agree with Dean too – false positive and false negative results for any test will occur.

    Therefore you agree that the test is unreliable … you have answered your own question.

    What’s the fascination with asking over and over a question that has a well known answer? What’s your point there?

  132. Matt says:

    Acknowledging that a test will return false positive and negative results does not imply the test is unreliable. The test can be relied on knowing that there is a small likelihood of a false positive/negative result. Or do you eschew all medical tests because they are all unreliable?

  133. Dot says:

    Cut the rhetorical nonsense.

    That’s not the argument at all, chowder head.

    The PCR test cycles have been increased and decreased at will to allow more false positives or to allow more false negatives respectively.

    There is no evidence based reason to do this.

    It is entirely political. At best, it was an overreaction to absurd, catastrophic modelling of an outbreak, then an attempt to walk it back and never admit a mistake was made.

  134. Matt says:

    And Dot has just demonstrated why I ask the question – thanks Dot!

  135. Dot says:

    There is no valid basis to alter how many cycles are used in PCR testing for the same microbial pathogen.

    None at all.

  136. Tel says:

    Acknowledging that a test will return false positive and negative results does not imply the test is unreliable.

    We all know what “reliable” means … please no word games.

    The test can be relied on knowing that there is a small likelihood of a false positive/negative result.

    If your mechanic told you that your brakes were reliable, with a small likelihood of sometime not working at all, would you agree this is how most people use the word “reliable”?

    Or do you eschew all medical tests because they are all unreliable?

    Now you are asking a different question … so I guess this is really about using trixy manipulation of words to catch people out. You aren’t interested in understanding anything but you want some gotchas, Have I figured that out?

    You are attempting to ask a question and then imply this means a bunch of other things in order to discredit and smear. I’m right aren’t I?

  137. Matt says:

    Not really Tel.

  138. Rex Anger says:

    You are attempting to ask a question and then imply this means a bunch of other things in order to discredit and smear. I’m right aren’t I?

    Not really Tel.

    Bugmen gonna bug…

    #NPC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.