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?
As I recall, Canada was still using computer modelling to guide policy for at least 2 years after that. I remember Teresa Tam with a hockey stick graph...and me rolling my eyez
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.
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
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 is not exactly inconsistent with his COVID Era work, but I agree that this particular paper could be a message along the lines of what you're hypothesizing
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.
Two of the authors, Cristiano and Boccia, are from Università Cattolica, Rome (where I took my MD degree in 1984). Cristiano is from the Section of Hygiene, whose head, Walter Ricciardi, dubbed “Professor lockdown” by an Italian newspaper, is a top notch medical bureaucrat (with a past as B-movies actor): head of the ISS (the italian equivalent of NIH), Italy representative in WHO, advisor to the Health minister for the covid crisis. Pope Bergoglio has appointed him a member of the Pontificial Life Academy. In 2018, in a libel trial verdict, a judge wrote that Ricciardi had been a consultant for vaccine industries. He has declared that “Bill Gates is never wrong” in predicting pandemics*.
Università Cattolica-Policlinico Gemelli in Rome, the popes’ hospital, has close ties with the Vatican. The clergy seems to have no moral qualms in supporting lucrative ad hoc medical theories**. As a node in the worldwide network of high powers, Vatican has fully supported the covid operation. Since the start of modern science with Galilei, the Church, learned as it is, subordinates scientific truth to political convenience. These strange bedfellows, a shoddy paper with self-serving aims and the lucid critic of sloppy science, constitute a false expert report to divert moral indictment, imposed by what goes under the euphemism “raison d’Etat”. In Italy there is a considerable know-how about cover-ups of false flag political terrorism. We have had a long series of bombings and homicides attributed to a bunch of duffers, depicted as all-powerful devils; what was really going on, and the puppetmasters, have been kept undisclosed to the large public by concocting childish narratives. Covid may be seen as a large scale false flag operation.
Shortly before this raison d’Etat paper, Ioannidis told that COVID papers are “more horrible than horrible”, adding what now sounds as excusatio non petita, that very likely much of his work on covid “must be wrong”; quoting his “Why most published research findings are false”. (The paper “Why so many research findings are fake” remains to be published). He is an eminent figure. Many of his teachings sprinkle with mastery. Now he coauthors a paper with the scientific arm of the Church, an institution whose propaganda traditionally hinges on a conception of truth as a function of priestly hierarchies; on joining the irrational to the ad auctoritatem. Does prestige counts as evidence? Do we consequently suffer a partial swap in the likelihood ratio? To a rational appraisal and given the casual context it rather appears as one of those paradoxical bayesian results, like that a confession can increase the probability of innocence. Here an absurd claim of innocence, backed but the high reputation of the first author, increases the evidence of bad faith. More generally, his endorsement of nonsense reminds us that we cannot “iurare in verba magistri”; as there are no popes on scientific matters.
*D. Rossi. La Fabian society e la pandemia. Arianna editrice, 2021.
**Quando è Pietro che si associa a Simon mago. Site menici60d15.
Thank you for this very useful information. It begs the question: how and why was Ionannidis collaborating with these people. I will edit the article to add a link to your comment.
The Vatican position was amply illustrated in just one potent image: the commemorative medal showing a hapless vaccinee seated between a priestly doctor and an injector.
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.
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.
Wait. They are claiming 2.5 million deaths of old people (90% over age 60) were averted and 14.8 million life years were gained by those 2.5 million, and people are celebrating and using this as evidence of efficacy?
1. Several billion took the jabs. It cost trillions. The world was shut down. Millions of lives ruined. Oh but a few million geriatrics get to eat baby food for a few more years! I’m no economist but that doesn’t seem like a great trade off, even if the “deaths averted” were true.
2. If they are gonna lie, they should do better. I’m sure they could come up with a formula where a hundred million or more lives were saved. Or a billion. Example: Number of people who took the vax X percent of those still alive. See? Easy.
He was one of the first high profile figures who called for opening up during the first lockdown. In the interview he was even asked if he was a Trump supporter.
I’m sure he was got at by the narrative purveyors and chose not to risk his Stanford career.
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….?
Stanford University , in the heart of silicon valley in the lovely city of Palo Alto has Never been a corporate politically captured institution
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?
As I recall, Canada was still using computer modelling to guide policy for at least 2 years after that. I remember Teresa Tam with a hockey stick graph...and me rolling my eyez
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
What a brilliant representation of the “safe and effective” fraud!
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.
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.
It is not exactly inconsistent with his COVID Era work, but I agree that this particular paper could be a message along the lines of what you're hypothesizing
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.
Two of the authors, Cristiano and Boccia, are from Università Cattolica, Rome (where I took my MD degree in 1984). Cristiano is from the Section of Hygiene, whose head, Walter Ricciardi, dubbed “Professor lockdown” by an Italian newspaper, is a top notch medical bureaucrat (with a past as B-movies actor): head of the ISS (the italian equivalent of NIH), Italy representative in WHO, advisor to the Health minister for the covid crisis. Pope Bergoglio has appointed him a member of the Pontificial Life Academy. In 2018, in a libel trial verdict, a judge wrote that Ricciardi had been a consultant for vaccine industries. He has declared that “Bill Gates is never wrong” in predicting pandemics*.
Università Cattolica-Policlinico Gemelli in Rome, the popes’ hospital, has close ties with the Vatican. The clergy seems to have no moral qualms in supporting lucrative ad hoc medical theories**. As a node in the worldwide network of high powers, Vatican has fully supported the covid operation. Since the start of modern science with Galilei, the Church, learned as it is, subordinates scientific truth to political convenience. These strange bedfellows, a shoddy paper with self-serving aims and the lucid critic of sloppy science, constitute a false expert report to divert moral indictment, imposed by what goes under the euphemism “raison d’Etat”. In Italy there is a considerable know-how about cover-ups of false flag political terrorism. We have had a long series of bombings and homicides attributed to a bunch of duffers, depicted as all-powerful devils; what was really going on, and the puppetmasters, have been kept undisclosed to the large public by concocting childish narratives. Covid may be seen as a large scale false flag operation.
Shortly before this raison d’Etat paper, Ioannidis told that COVID papers are “more horrible than horrible”, adding what now sounds as excusatio non petita, that very likely much of his work on covid “must be wrong”; quoting his “Why most published research findings are false”. (The paper “Why so many research findings are fake” remains to be published). He is an eminent figure. Many of his teachings sprinkle with mastery. Now he coauthors a paper with the scientific arm of the Church, an institution whose propaganda traditionally hinges on a conception of truth as a function of priestly hierarchies; on joining the irrational to the ad auctoritatem. Does prestige counts as evidence? Do we consequently suffer a partial swap in the likelihood ratio? To a rational appraisal and given the casual context it rather appears as one of those paradoxical bayesian results, like that a confession can increase the probability of innocence. Here an absurd claim of innocence, backed but the high reputation of the first author, increases the evidence of bad faith. More generally, his endorsement of nonsense reminds us that we cannot “iurare in verba magistri”; as there are no popes on scientific matters.
*D. Rossi. La Fabian society e la pandemia. Arianna editrice, 2021.
**Quando è Pietro che si associa a Simon mago. Site menici60d15.
Thank you for this very useful information. It begs the question: how and why was Ionannidis collaborating with these people. I will edit the article to add a link to your comment.
From Stanford remarks: "So, my disclosures. Number one, I know next to nothing."
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/transcript-john-ioannidis-closing
Confessional? Pre-emptive? Washing one's hands of it?
The Vatican position was amply illustrated in just one potent image: the commemorative medal showing a hapless vaccinee seated between a priestly doctor and an injector.
A 'Martyr and Torturers' for our century?
You mean this image of e̷u̷t̷h̷a̷n̷a̷s̷i̷a̷ murder?
https://www.openpr.com/news/2657334/vatican-vaccination-coin-judas-is-now-minting-his-own-30-pieces
Yes, that's the one.
If that coin were to be dug up in some future age it would say everything about our time in one image.
Boccia
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2764369
Excellent comment.
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.
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.
Wait. They are claiming 2.5 million deaths of old people (90% over age 60) were averted and 14.8 million life years were gained by those 2.5 million, and people are celebrating and using this as evidence of efficacy?
1. Several billion took the jabs. It cost trillions. The world was shut down. Millions of lives ruined. Oh but a few million geriatrics get to eat baby food for a few more years! I’m no economist but that doesn’t seem like a great trade off, even if the “deaths averted” were true.
2. If they are gonna lie, they should do better. I’m sure they could come up with a formula where a hundred million or more lives were saved. Or a billion. Example: Number of people who took the vax X percent of those still alive. See? Easy.
I remember watching the interview with him by Journeyman Pictures in April 2020.
https://youtu.be/PC3nptwY50I?si=Essl2SNn6bJArlR9
He was one of the first high profile figures who called for opening up during the first lockdown. In the interview he was even asked if he was a Trump supporter.
I’m sure he was got at by the narrative purveyors and chose not to risk his Stanford career.
Thanks https://open.substack.com/pub/woodhouse/p/john-ioannidis-time-to-start-opening?r=jjay2&utm_medium=ios