Wow…. Even Prof John Ioannidis on the “Safe and Effective” bought and paid network…. Stanford University must be captured by it Research Grant payments….?
Yes I agree. I have often quoted John for his COVID infection fatality rate data. It is hard to imagine he does truly believe his study is accurate when the assumption is utterly ridiculous, indeed laughable. You would think he would be embarrassed to have his name on the study.
We've been barraged by deceptive "research" since the start of the "pandemic". The only surprising thing about this study is that Ioannidis put his name on it.
Right. The worst and most damaging of the "our model projects [X] of deaths" shite was Neil Mad Sheep Ferguson's initial death projections ~ March 2020, which were revised downward 95% two weeks later and another 2% one week later.
Garbage In . . . Garbage Out
GIGO.
Projections had dropped by 97% within a few weeks, but it was already too late. The world had gone crazy, and bad actors in governments seized the day. They lied, millions died.
What could have been done? As soon as anyone said the words "computer models and projections" at least 5 task force teams should have received the programs and the data and deconstructed every little assumption and data decision. And reconstructed it with logical decisions.
Did we learn nothing from the computer modeling at Long Term Capital Management?
It seems they can get to anyone. Playing devils advocate here. Is it possible a black Suburban showed up at John’s house and told him to get on board the S&E Express?
Is it possible John decided to publish something so patently absurd as a subtle fuck you to his molachian handlers?
Just considering it because this is so out of character with his earlier work.
Scenario #1 seems most likely. This study will be headlines in MSM, and his name, which has been associated with truth in science literature, will be showcased to full effect. "They" are using him. It's getting dirty.
Nov 21·edited 12 hrs agoLiked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton
Ioannidis was already pretty clear 2 years ago when he said that vaccination is a "huge benefit" for someone who is elderly or middle age, that masks do work, that mechanical ventilation is fabulous, that even with natural immunity you should still get your experimental gene-based inoculations... A master mind indeed. You can listen to him making this claims on this short clip that I posted on X, https://x.com/Agus_Z_X/status/1859644574186242553 ). He also said "models could be published to force whatever people believe". (Source) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKG81ZwKQWQ
I remember reading about his research on the case fatality rate at the beginning of the pandemic. Before the lockdowns we experienced panic buying at the supermarkets. It was the same where I work in Kendal. None of us caught covid during those few weeks. By the end of the summer there were only 2 covid deaths in the whole of the company employing 114,000 colleagues most of whome were supermarket workers. I realised fairly quickly that this virus was not as deadly as we were told, I spent a lot of time reassuring my colleagues. I am very surprised at this latest paper by Dr. Ioannidis.
At first sight it looks like Ioannidis has flipped. But perhaps this will turn out to be just a spoof to demonstrate (1) how gullible the mainstream media are or (2) how gullible peer reviewers are or (3) how perceptive peer-reviewers can be - or something else Who knows? It will be instructive to see how this story develops.
That occurred to me as well, and perhaps some Ioannidis devotees might hope this to be the case -- that the article could be one big red herring, or perhaps a whole school of red herrings, though somehow i doubt this was his intention.
On March 11, 2020, the W.H.O., relying on an attenuated definition of a pandemic, and a faulty computer projection of extremely high numbers of deaths, declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic.
Many governments based their COVID-19 prevention policies, including border closures, quarantines and lockdowns, on computer models designed by Ferguson and his team at Oxford, despite the exponential inaccuracies of his previous model he had provided during the H1N1 pandemic.
Ferguson’s models predicted more than 2.2 million Americans would die from COVID-19. It was ‘said’ 24/7 over MSM that many have died of Covid-19, but this is based on questionable and bloated extrapolations of co-morbidities and false positive PCR Test results.
The absurd Covid-19 computer prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US by the summer of 2020, was made by historically failed modeler, Neil Ferguson. His institute at the Imperial College of London is bankrolled by Bill Gates. Ferguson’s predictions were used to convince Trump and Boris Johnson that states of emergency and lockdowns were necessary.
Great points. Here is my analysis of John's paper: "A Critique of "Global estimates of lives and life-years saved by COVID-19 vaccination during 2020-2024" Methodological Limitations Hamper Reliability of Estimates; Ignoring Adverse Events and Vaccine-Related Deaths Renders them Meaningless. https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/a-critique-of-global-estimates-of
24 hrs ago·edited 22 hrs agoLiked by Norman Fenton, Martin Neil
We can indeed draw some very important conclusions from this "scientific" paper.
1) Enough money can buy anything
2) Big Pharma is desperate
3) They think we are stupid
4) Science has been completely corrupted
.. and of course any suggestion that the timing of this paper and the nomination of RFK Jnr to Secretary of HHS in the new Trump administration would be a crazy conspiracy theory ...
Now we have the insanity of Washington provoking a nuclear WWIII. I hope you are mapping out where you are in relation to military bases/targets and plan accordingly.
Nov 21·edited 20 hrs agoLiked by Norman Fenton, Martin Neil
At least prostitutes are honest about it. I hold them in much higher esteem than corrupt actors in public health.
Here in NZ our overlords used tragically, deliberately inaccurate modelling to support their agenda. The then (the rat fled the ship a while back) Director General of Health, Sir (no I'm not joking, they gave him a knighthood - for services to public health of all things!) Ashley Bloomfield was, shortly after resigning, speaking at a public meeting, telling the terminally gullible that modelling showed excess deaths that had been persistently high (with the usual suspects whistling passed those graveyards) was about to turn negative.
A few good dissenting deplorables challenged him on that point and why years into the ongoing tragic excess deaths scenario, and only when resigned, was he only now talking about excess deaths. Those good folks were thrown out of the building.
We've something that sounds somewhat similar to Shakespeare's et tu. It's called utu. A concept of reciprocity. I long for the day what goes around comes around for the usual suspects.
Seriously??
Dr. Ioannidis, blink in morse code if you’re under duress!
Wow…. Even Prof John Ioannidis on the “Safe and Effective” bought and paid network…. Stanford University must be captured by it Research Grant payments….?
I have been a John Ioannidis fan for many years. I suggest that he is not immune to his own research findings: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
I think he admitted that at a recent conference when he launched this paper. Something is very odd.
Thank you Norman and Martin for exposing this. Must admit that it surprised me that John Ioannidis would be involved in such trickery.
Of all people, he knows better.
Yes I agree. I have often quoted John for his COVID infection fatality rate data. It is hard to imagine he does truly believe his study is accurate when the assumption is utterly ridiculous, indeed laughable. You would think he would be embarrassed to have his name on the study.
We've been barraged by deceptive "research" since the start of the "pandemic". The only surprising thing about this study is that Ioannidis put his name on it.
Right. The worst and most damaging of the "our model projects [X] of deaths" shite was Neil Mad Sheep Ferguson's initial death projections ~ March 2020, which were revised downward 95% two weeks later and another 2% one week later.
Garbage In . . . Garbage Out
GIGO.
Projections had dropped by 97% within a few weeks, but it was already too late. The world had gone crazy, and bad actors in governments seized the day. They lied, millions died.
What could have been done? As soon as anyone said the words "computer models and projections" at least 5 task force teams should have received the programs and the data and deconstructed every little assumption and data decision. And reconstructed it with logical decisions.
Did we learn nothing from the computer modeling at Long Term Capital Management?
What a brilliant representation of the “safe and effective” fraud!
It seems they can get to anyone. Playing devils advocate here. Is it possible a black Suburban showed up at John’s house and told him to get on board the S&E Express?
Is it possible John decided to publish something so patently absurd as a subtle fuck you to his molachian handlers?
Just considering it because this is so out of character with his earlier work.
Scenario #1 seems most likely. This study will be headlines in MSM, and his name, which has been associated with truth in science literature, will be showcased to full effect. "They" are using him. It's getting dirty.
It’s been dirty for sure and getting worse. Given that Trump is still doubling down on OWS, it’s unsettling.
Ioannidis was already pretty clear 2 years ago when he said that vaccination is a "huge benefit" for someone who is elderly or middle age, that masks do work, that mechanical ventilation is fabulous, that even with natural immunity you should still get your experimental gene-based inoculations... A master mind indeed. You can listen to him making this claims on this short clip that I posted on X, https://x.com/Agus_Z_X/status/1859644574186242553 ). He also said "models could be published to force whatever people believe". (Source) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKG81ZwKQWQ
Many people have revised their opinions in the intervening years. It's discouraging that the claims you describe were only two years ago.
I remember reading about his research on the case fatality rate at the beginning of the pandemic. Before the lockdowns we experienced panic buying at the supermarkets. It was the same where I work in Kendal. None of us caught covid during those few weeks. By the end of the summer there were only 2 covid deaths in the whole of the company employing 114,000 colleagues most of whome were supermarket workers. I realised fairly quickly that this virus was not as deadly as we were told, I spent a lot of time reassuring my colleagues. I am very surprised at this latest paper by Dr. Ioannidis.
Yes I remember you telling me about your experiences where you worked
Ioannidis once published a paper entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."
I guess you can say that he proactively refuted himself by publishing that paper.
Yes - quite a few people are now saying that.
At first sight it looks like Ioannidis has flipped. But perhaps this will turn out to be just a spoof to demonstrate (1) how gullible the mainstream media are or (2) how gullible peer reviewers are or (3) how perceptive peer-reviewers can be - or something else Who knows? It will be instructive to see how this story develops.
Many thanks for the heads-up!
we can but hope jim;
That occurred to me as well, and perhaps some Ioannidis devotees might hope this to be the case -- that the article could be one big red herring, or perhaps a whole school of red herrings, though somehow i doubt this was his intention.
On March 11, 2020, the W.H.O., relying on an attenuated definition of a pandemic, and a faulty computer projection of extremely high numbers of deaths, declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic.
Many governments based their COVID-19 prevention policies, including border closures, quarantines and lockdowns, on computer models designed by Ferguson and his team at Oxford, despite the exponential inaccuracies of his previous model he had provided during the H1N1 pandemic.
Ferguson’s models predicted more than 2.2 million Americans would die from COVID-19. It was ‘said’ 24/7 over MSM that many have died of Covid-19, but this is based on questionable and bloated extrapolations of co-morbidities and false positive PCR Test results.
The absurd Covid-19 computer prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US by the summer of 2020, was made by historically failed modeler, Neil Ferguson. His institute at the Imperial College of London is bankrolled by Bill Gates. Ferguson’s predictions were used to convince Trump and Boris Johnson that states of emergency and lockdowns were necessary.
Great points. Here is my analysis of John's paper: "A Critique of "Global estimates of lives and life-years saved by COVID-19 vaccination during 2020-2024" Methodological Limitations Hamper Reliability of Estimates; Ignoring Adverse Events and Vaccine-Related Deaths Renders them Meaningless. https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/a-critique-of-global-estimates-of
Sold out, now paid to bolster defense from vax-injured lawsuit flood
We can indeed draw some very important conclusions from this "scientific" paper.
1) Enough money can buy anything
2) Big Pharma is desperate
3) They think we are stupid
4) Science has been completely corrupted
.. and of course any suggestion that the timing of this paper and the nomination of RFK Jnr to Secretary of HHS in the new Trump administration would be a crazy conspiracy theory ...
Agreed on all points, with a slight qualification of item 1): ". . . except a healthy, undamaged immune system."
Agree - it was a bit broad in the heat of the moment. It can also not buy happiness or eternal life ;)
Absolutely. Yours was a very worthwhile post.
Now we have the insanity of Washington provoking a nuclear WWIII. I hope you are mapping out where you are in relation to military bases/targets and plan accordingly.
At least prostitutes are honest about it. I hold them in much higher esteem than corrupt actors in public health.
Here in NZ our overlords used tragically, deliberately inaccurate modelling to support their agenda. The then (the rat fled the ship a while back) Director General of Health, Sir (no I'm not joking, they gave him a knighthood - for services to public health of all things!) Ashley Bloomfield was, shortly after resigning, speaking at a public meeting, telling the terminally gullible that modelling showed excess deaths that had been persistently high (with the usual suspects whistling passed those graveyards) was about to turn negative.
A few good dissenting deplorables challenged him on that point and why years into the ongoing tragic excess deaths scenario, and only when resigned, was he only now talking about excess deaths. Those good folks were thrown out of the building.
We've something that sounds somewhat similar to Shakespeare's et tu. It's called utu. A concept of reciprocity. I long for the day what goes around comes around for the usual suspects.
Nailed it. Great comment.