Someone elses attempt at sarcasm and the world of Covid

 

Today I wish to share with you another person's essay. This time Glen Bishop, a second year university student in England and reported by Will Jones. Why? Because he takes a similar tack to what I used in the essay I had submitted to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal and was published August 11, 2020. I then shared that essay on this blog: An Open Letter to Dr. Janet Demille

Here is a link to Will Jones' post that I recommend you read in full:

“If You Were to Release at this Point in Time, it Would Lead to a Lot of Death.” Texas, Florida and Mississippi Would Beg to Differ, Professor

And here is a part of Glens essay quoted by Will who, like what I did in my "open letter", uses sarcasm to try and point out the outrageousness of the actions proposed by people who should know better:

"Professor Brown should feel free to lock himself away for the rest of time if he wants to make sure he isn’t putting the ‘vaccine hesitant’ community at risk, but he shouldn’t advocate forcing the rest of sane society to do so. What next? A ban on car travel because some people refuse to wear seat belts and it puts them at risk of dying? A ban on ‘do not resuscitate’ wishes from patients? Do SAGE want to ban sex outside of committed relationships because some people do not use condoms and could spread STDs? What about “a circuit breaker on sex” whilst we do mass testing for STDs and make everyone get a “coitus passport”, so the plebs can only fornicate if they have tested negative for chlamydia, herpes, and HIV? If Professor Brown insists on advocating one set of restrictions, it is illogical not to advocate the others.  

If it is acceptable to restrict other people’s civil liberties because some people aren’t sensible with their own health, then I suppose Professor Brown will be getting to work advocating the banning of cigarettes, alcohol, chocolate, and junk food. Eradicating them from society may lead to a far greater increase in QALYs than eradicating Covid will, now that we have very effective vaccines. 78,000 die from smoking each year alone. Perhaps I ought not be giving Professor Brown these ideas. If you read this Professor, please don’t suggest them in your next JCVI meeting. You’ve done enough damage to civil liberties as it is. "

The aspects of this whole "pandemic" that have bothered me the most are the lack of good science and the repressive fear mongering by a dishonest and corrupt "free press" who continue to fail to ask critical questions and do not push back against any of the nonsense being promoted by unelected bureaucrats.

The Diamond Princess

 Ever since I first came across information I have mentioned a few times now how it set a precedent in how to analyze how virulent the SARS-CoV-2 virus is. Beginning with my post from April 26 "There is Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself". Altogether I have referenced the Diamond Princess a total of 6 time! Well, this short piece I came across today emphasizes why and is fully in agreement with what I concluded so many months ago.

From the March 28 edition of https://lockdownsceptics.org

The Diamond Princess Told Us About Pre-Existing Immunity, Asymptomatic Infection and the Infection Fatality Rate. Why Were Those Lessons Ignored?

By Toby Young

A reader who’s just completed a PhD in biology has got in touch to point out just how prescient the data from the Diamond Princess cruise ship was. Why was that data ignored by public health panjandrums?

I thought to bring your attention to a paper published in MedRxiv by Russell et al from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on the 9th March 2020. They were looking at data from the Diamond Princess to try and establish case fatality rates. They got it wrong, but they did give the original data they used.

3,711 passengers and crew were on the Diamond Princess. Median age 58.

The virus had circulated undetected for 2 weeks, so given that masked-up health officials had caught COVID on board (The Maritime Executive 12.2.2020), it’s probably safe to assume everyone on the ship (or possibly only almost everyone) had been exposed.

Everyone on board had a PCR test (eventually)

619 out of 3,711 tested positive (17%)

Of which:

Symptomatic: 301
Asymptomatic: 318

Observed deaths:
(70 – 79 age bracket): 6
(80 – 89 age bracket: 1

So, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that 83% of passengers and crew may have had prior immunity.

Of positive tests, half were asymptomatic.

Of those who tested positive, ~1% died. No one died under the age of 70.

In the light of all the data collected in the last year as this pandemic has ranged across the world, it’s startling to think that the broad outline of what we could expect was already known, just no-one wanted to see.

Free Speech

 

 Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms acknowledges that all citizens of Canada have fundamental freedoms that are subject only to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. These fundamental freedoms are:

“(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the

press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.”

What I wish to draw your attention to is item b) which can best be summarised as “freedom of speech and freedom of the press”.

Why are they important? There is a newspaper in the US that has the byline “democracy dies in darkness”. I find it ironic that a newspaper that has become notorious for promoting an orthodoxy chose to wrap itself under that line, but I digress. The issue is one where we, if we consider ourselves a free people, need to be aware of the politics that surround us. Some of those politics serve to bind us, others serve to divide us and yet others serve to subjugate us. It therefore is imperative that we expose ourselves to dissenting views to ensure we are not being lied to. Otherwise, we are seriously at risk of losing the freedoms that we associate with being a democracy.

While the political spectrum is broad it can be simplified in that there are two end members to that spectrum. One that values independence and one that values power. The latter typically is manifested by a large impassionate government ruled by a tyrant and supported by petty tyrants.

Back in the days of “The Enlightenment” (17^th and 18^th centuries) one philosophy that became generally accepted was that of “liberalism” whereby the freedom of the individual is protected and enhanced with a major proponent being John Locke. It is from this “liberalism” that sprung the ideas laid down in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We accept that we are masters of our own destiny, but we must also respect the rights of others. It is here that we run into difficulty in that many amongst us use perverse language to persuade the rest of us to give up our personal liberties. I for one am for cooperation with others, as that has many benefits, and is a character trait of humans yet is seldom exhibited by other species. But not at the price of giving up my freedom.

It was through revolution that the concept of freedom of speech and of the press became understood to being an important protector of our independence. When dissent can act then truth can become evident. And the only way dissent can be heard is if we retain the right to be exposed to dissenting opinions and ideas so that we can best gauge where the truth lies. Because those who are more interested in power rely on falsehoods. It is easier to take away an individual’s freedom if they can be fooled into believing it is for their own good, or the good of others by taking advantage of our innate altruism – the willingness to help others.

Even though free speech and freedom of the press are so important for the survival of our democratic society I for one am very troubled by the willingness of so many of us to give up these freedoms. We see that with so many media sources who only pay lip service to presenting dissenting views. Their dishonesty is easy to see. All one needs to do is look where they present “opinion”. If they show an unmistakable bias toward one viewpoint that media source has “turned to the dark side”.

This is a good point to look briefly at the “Star Wars” movies as they are collectively an allegory between two opposing forces (freedom versus power or good versus evil); “The Rebellion” and “The Empire”. Which side do you believe represents you? The one that uses any method available to regain their freedom or the group that believes “order” is paramount, and no dissent is tolerated? Yet many of us see ourselves as being members of the “rebel alliance” but insist on curtailing or even eliminating the rights and freedoms of others; we actually embody “The Empire”.

Take for example any person who accepts that “hate speech” is not acceptable in a “free society”. They are promoting the curtailment of the right to dissent; “free speech”. All you must do is ask yourself, “what is hate”? If a person uses the word “hate” in a sentence does that then make it “hate speech”? If the best you can come up with is some subjective explanation, then you have fallen into the trap of willingly giving power to those who should not have it. Similarly, any media source that believes a “diversity of views” means having more than one person saying the same basic idea rather than presenting truly dissenting views has also succumbed. In both cases they have in Star Wars parlance, “turned to the Dark side”.

In closing all of us need to reflect carefully on where we personally stand. Is freedom of speech and freedom of the press important to you?  If yes, then welcome to the “light side”. Our democracy will not founder if we allow the light of truth. As Leonardo da Vinci said, “Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

A Time for Bravery

The following is a submission I made to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal March 18 2021. As usual there is no guarantee it will be published, especially when actual facts are cited. They don't appear to like that type of essay for some reason. Even so, I try as it has a wider reach than just posting here so I hope they do publish. I do admit that has been on purpose in that while I make my writings publicly available I really am torn in that I value my privacy. Thus I have made little effort to expand the reach of this blog. 

George Carlin on how to be Brave

As a scientist the one trait I and others like me were taught, no matter our specialty, is how to do research. “Science” is really a process and is not a result. It is based on observation and research. The latter can involve experiments in the lab but also the reviewing the works of others. As such that is a reason why any scientist worth their salt, can become knowledgeable in any field they want to, up to a point. We all share the ability to do research by reading technical journals, analysing the data presented and drawing relevant conclusions. The key factor for many of us though is we ask questions; we try not to accept dogma.

Since the onset of what has now been identified as SARS-CoV2, a corona virus that can attack the respiratory system, I have been paying close attention. The first question I had was “is this virus as deadly as the media are trying to make it out to be”? I was very suspicious as every year for as far back as I can remember there have been warnings of having another true pandemic like the Spanish Flu. Yet nothing really happened. Examples are the Asian Flu, back in the late 1950’s; beginning in the early 1980’s it was going to be AIDS; around 2009 the Swine Flu was going to be it; beginning in 2014 Ebola was going to be it; beginning in 2015 Zika was going to be it; and now we have Covid-19. Is it going to be it even though the others all proved to not be the scourge they were first made out to be?

Early in 2020 there were two events that were good petri-dish type experiments in that they were closed systems whereby we could check out how easily the virus spread, how many were susceptible and how deadly it really is as there was no way to avoid being exposed. These are the Diamond Princess cruise ship and the Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier. In both cases almost all on the two ships were tested for the virus, admittedly using a technique of unproven value, the RT-PCR test. This part is important so let us take a moment to review what it is.

Using a couple of enzymes that act as catalysts, one can first take a strand of RNA, as found in viruses, and convert it into a double-stranded piece of DNA. Then, by heating and cooling the sample multiple times with the sample in a bath filled with bits and pieces of DNA proteins, one can duplicate a strand of DNA until one has enough pieces that they can be analysed. Amongst those bits and pieces are two specific types: “primers” that are specific pieces of DNA that are unique to our target; and pieces of DNA protein called “probes” that will fluoresce when exposed to certain wavelengths of light that can then be detected using a photodetector. The key though is having enough pieces of the duplicated DNA to produce a detectable signal.

Another especially important aspect is that you need to set a cycle threshold to see if there is a measurable signal. If detected, then it is a “positive”, if not then it is “negative”. It is here we run into a problem; what is the minimum number of cycles we should run? Keep in mind that a single strand of RNA will generate, using RT-PCR, 1.07 billion strands of DNA after 30 cycles, 34.36 billion after 35 cycles and 1.1 trillion after 40 cycles. Where should we draw the line? Too high and you get far too many false positives and too low we get false negatives. Public Heath England has published a guidebook which has this caution: “A single Ct value in the absence of clinical context cannot be relied upon for decision making about a person’s infectivity”. This same guide states “a typical RT-PCR assay will have a maximum of 40 thermal cycles” yet indicates that 26 is a better threshold.

Now back to our petri-dishes. The test results for both ships were remarkably similar. Approximately 20% of all on board both ships tested positive. Of those, only half actually developed symptoms. And of the approximately 8000 people involved, 15 died, most over 70 and with pre-existing medical conditions. People who were just trying to check off one more item on their “bucket list” before the end they knew was imminent due to their age.

Thus, began the rise of a cascade of questions for which I have been unable to find answers. First and foremost, for a new virus, how were they able to develop in such a short period of time a “test” that truly was reliable in that only “primers” unique to SARS-CoV2 were isolated and then mass produced to be used in test kits? Something in the past that would have taken years and they did it in a couple of months? How was it determined what cycle threshold should be used? Knowing that too high of a threshold easily can produce false positives how many of the positives from the two ships were due to false positives? Why are governments around the world, assisted by most media sources, making us fear a virus that is in the same order of magnitude of deaths, and is not more communicable, than that any other virus in the recent past? Why are civil servants who are tasked with ensuring our good health acting like tyrants by ignoring our fundamental freedoms, ignoring science, and even ignoring basic human decency by imposing irrational, nonsensical and anti-science “rules”? Why were these rues not vetted by our elected representatives? The latest example of this tyranny is the floating of the idea of “passports” to travel unless you have had a vaccination using a vaccine with unverified safety and effectiveness, something in the recent past took years due to the time to rigorously evaluate? Why has our society been so willing to give up the rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteed in our Constitution with barely a grumble? And worst of all, why do so many of us feel it is right to condone and assist the tyrants amongst us by siding with them?

There is no science that supports what we are doing to ourselves. I just hope enough of us come to our collective senses and stop this cruelty and return to a time where we respect the rights of others and face our demons with bravery rather than cowardice.

Misinformation

 

The following piece is an essay that I submitted to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal on March 11, 2021, in the hope they will publish it.

 

Over the last few months, we have been told about violent protests that were "mostly peaceful" and a truly mostly peaceful protest that was called a "violent insurrection".

There has been much talk about “misinformation” by the media and by government. I find this both ironic and disturbing. Ironic in that the primary sources of misinformation are those two sources as exemplified by my opening sentence. And disturbing in that both are working together to use this as an excuse to strip us of our right to Free Speech.

To illustrate unequivocally what the irony is I will use a metaphor; this is like allowing the fox (the government) to oversee the hen house assisted by the weasel (the media). We, the chickens will end up being their next meal. As such we must make sure this does not happen!

Even so while misinformation is part of life as some people are always trying to misrepresent something, whether it be items offered for purchase or the truth, we must be vigilant in protecting ourselves. As such I wish to share with you tools that I have found particularly useful. You may decide to integrate them into your toolbox or find others that do an adequate job. The important thing is that the onus is on you to protect yourself from those trying to dupe you by using misinformation.

The first thing we need to get straight is that misinformation is just a form of propaganda. It is done with the sole purpose of disguising the truth so that you become susceptible to a false narrative. Tools used by those who work to misinform include smearing and the improper application of words to deceive you as to what the meaning of the message is. So, let us start with those two to understand our adversary.

A “smear” is defined as “an unsubstantiated charge or accusation”. In that definition is the clue to identifying this object whole sole purpose is to misinform; “unsubstantiated”. If a person is accused of something yet no justification for that charge is presented, that is a smear. Once a smear has been detected you can be assured that the rest of what follows is not honest and therefore should be ignored.

Next is the improper application of words. This is far more difficult to detect as the English language is rife with words with many meanings, some of which are at times contradictory. It is therefore important to validate the use of key words as the context establishes whether the word is being used properly.

I prefer to use a hardcopy dictionary rather than an online one. The latter are updated far too rapidly, usually to support a particular bias, a problem exemplified by Wikipedia. This “semantic shift” has altered the meanings of words in such a way that, on purpose, you are now led to believe the opposite.

Here are several words that over time now have the opposite meaning:

Senile – used to be mean anything related to old age. Now it refers to dementia.

Hussy – used to be a term for a housewife, and how the word came about. Now it refers to a disreputable woman.

Egregious – used to mean distinguished or eminent. Now it means someone, or something is conspicuously bad.

So, what can we do to prevent ourselves from being sucked in by the disinformation that is all around us? I personally have several tools that I use that likely will aid you too. The first is to be skeptical, especially anything that is meant to generate an emotion. Such as an adjective in a news piece that is not factual. For example, not too long ago I came across a short piece on monitoring caribou, an animal we know little about because they are living primarily where we do not. In the very first sentence of the piece was the phrase “fragile caribou herd” where the word “fragile” is totally unsupported. This was done on purpose to try and elicit an emotional response rather than a reasoned one. It was disinformation.

Another is to find trusted sources. This one is harder in that it requires work on your behalf to fact check on your own. Which reminds me, I do not trust “fact checking” sites as they typically were set up to help encourage narratives. A case in point was my brother sent me a piece a while back whereby Snopes, a popular fact checking site, had “debunked” the use of hydroxychloroquine along with zinc to fight viruses. I was skeptical and so did my own search and quickly found references to research that confirmed that zinc, activated by hydroxychloroquine does aid the immune system in attacking the early onset of viruses. So, it turned out the claim had merit! So much for “Snopes” and so they are not on my trusted list.

And a third is to just check out other sources. Read or listen to other views. Watch and listen for the citing of facts, an incredibly good sign that source is more likely to be trustworthy. But the skeptic will verify that those “facts” are true. Name calling and other means of trying to debase a point of view is another excellent sign, in this case that they should not be trusted. Those who hide behind slandering words have themselves something to hide.

There you have it. Some simple rules to help guide your way through what seems to be ever growing onslaught of disinformation, too much of which is politically motivated. Free speech really is not about having the freedom to say what you want. It is the ability to listen to many different viewpoints and then be able to judge for yourself what is the truth. Do not let the worst offenders be our guardians.