Lies Damn Lies and Epidemiology, Social control with a thin mask of pseudo-science .

So the fate of Canada’s most vulnerable, its children can be decided by a Tweet from a prominent Epidemiologist. Even though masking is of very questionable utility and may cause harm. Even though Canada Public Health the CDC and every scientist agree children are at almost zero risk from Sars-Cov2 and are not efficient carriers. Even though there is clear evidence of serious harm to children from mask measures.

 Impairments in #Children caused by wearing the masks were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%),

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-124394/v1

How can it be that a respected Epidemiologist could be unaware of the lack of science behind his assertions and indeed their potential for harm. Epidemiology is, and has always been, about social control with pseudo science and the actual scientific literature bears this out.

“Epidemiology—is it time to call it a day?” Observational epidemiology has not had a good press in recent years. Conflicting results from epidemiological studies of the risks of daily life, such as coffee, hair dye, or hormones, are frequently and eagerly reported in the popular press, providing a constant source of anxiety for the public.2 3 In many cases deeply held beliefs, given credibility by numerous observational studies over long periods of time, are challenged only when contradicted by randomized trials. In the most recent example, a Cochrane review of randomized trials shows that antioxidant vitamins do not prevent gastrointestinal cancer and may even increase all cause mortality.

British Medical Journal, 2004. https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7471/868

Epidemiologists are the people that provide our new Public Health overlords with the models used to destroy our societies. When you hear the term Epidemiologist you would be forgiven for picturing white coated scientists hunched over beakers and electron microscopes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most epidemiologists have very little background in the hard sciences of chemistry, biology or physics. In essence Epidemiologists are statisticians.

Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations. A Dictionary of Epidemiology (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

There has been an intense questioning of the methodology and base competency of epidemiology and the use of its conclusions for decades in the scientific community. The fact that governments are basing the most vicious attack on basic human rights ever perpetrated is terrifying and has to be stopped at any cost. More and more Canadian citizens need to be asking for Judicial Reviews of their Public Health orders and demanding that the Epidemiological data behind it be shown publicly and opened for critical review.

Analysis and reporting of epidemiological data may be inadequate and misleading. Reviewing 73 studies published in January 2001, Pocock and colleagues (p 883) found that some made exaggerated claims; statistical analysis was not always used appropriately; adjustment for confounders was often poorly explained; and subgroup analyses and multiple associations were overinterpreted. The choice of groupings and analysis for quantitative exposure variables was highly variable, and publication bias occurred. Overall, there is a serious risk that some epidemiological publications reach misleading conclusions.

Epidemiological studies may mislead, 2004 British Medical Journal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC523090/

The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297

We found 73 articles in observational epidemiology; most were either cohort or case-control studies. Most studies looked at cancer and cardiovascular disease, even after we excluded specialty journals. Quantitative exposure variables predominated, which were mostly analysed as ordered categories but with little consistency or explanation regarding choice of categories. Sample selection, participant refusal, and data quality received insufficient attention in many articles. Statistical analyses commonly used odds ratios (38 articles) and hazard/rate ratios (23), with some inconsistent use of terminology. Confidence intervals were reported in most studies (68), though use of P values was less common (38). Few articles explained their choice of confounding variables; many performed subgroup analyses claiming an effect modifier, though interaction tests were rare. Several investigated multiple associations between exposure and outcome, increasing the likelihood of false positive claims. There was evidence of publication bias. Conclusions This survey raises concerns regarding inadequacies in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological publications in mainstream journals

Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice, British Medical Journal 2004;

https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7471/883

We have heard several times about severe Bias in Epidemiological studies, where could that be coming from?

“Biasing of studies towards results desired by the investigators—investigator bias—arises from many sources, from outright data fabrication to subtle and even unconscious bias in design and analysis choices. Investigator bias has had an important impact in some areas of clinical practice, and can be a major source of uncertainty about study effects. Among the sources of investigator bias, empirical studies have suggested that estimates of effect are often associated with funding source

You will never guess who funds Epidemiology while making Billions from Vaccines…literally you will never guess.

A UB epidemiologist is one of 11 researchers from three countries who received grant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges Explorations (GCE) initiative.

http://www.buffalo.edu/ubnow/stories/2020/05/smith-gates-foundation-grant.html

” US Federal Government’s funding allocations through the NIH have been influenced by private foundations..Most notable of these foundations has been the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation….Private benefactors support research with the expectation that the results will translate into tangible benefits.”..

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5400526_The_grand_impact_of_the_Gates_Foundation

HHS Announces $22 Billion in Funding to Support Expanded Covid Testing, Vaccination Distribution

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0107-covid-19-funding.html

Personal gain may also play a role

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/top-public-health-docs-in-london-norfolk-get-six-figure-ot-pay?fbclid=IwAR3TbuLo7DnSr6pHIHyo-jWGF7n-Kv3nhyirxBw0EdZJI8oacYBJ6hmCz9o

Another Driver of Bias is Ideology, so is there any evidence of Ideological Bias in Epidemiology?

As a scientific movement, Rorty said that eugenics was founded in “epidemiology, the development of the social sciences, and the expanding — and increasingly important — science of human (and animal) genetics.”

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/12/07/stanfords-history-with-eugenics/

First is that social stratification is an appropriate topic of study for epidemiologists. To ignore it would be to ignore a major source of variation in health in society. Not only is the social gradient in health appropriate to study but we have made progress both in understanding its causes and what can be done to address them. Post-modern ‘critical theory’ raises questions about the social construction of science. Given the attack on science by politicians of bad faith, it is important to recognise that epidemiology and public health have a crucial role to play in providing evidence to improve health of society and reduce inequalities.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28776115/

identifying and responding to social determinants of health requires inter‐disciplinary reasoning across epidemiology and philosophy. For the reasoning used in epidemiology to be sound, for its scope and (moral) purpose as a science to be clarified as well as for social justice theory to be relevant and coherent, epidemiology and philosophy need to forge a meaningful exchange of ideas that happens in both directions.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00714.x

Our mission is to train social epidemiologists who can apply principles of social justice, a core set of epidemiologic skills, and substantive knowledge to study the complex relations between the social environment and health.

The powers that are destroying our societies and shredding our freedoms are using a completely un-scientific discipline corrupted by money and ideology. We need to end this and end them, or they will surely end us.

Canadian MD’s call out the corona hoax

William Ray

Pre-existing T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed healthy controls in Ecuador,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33582369/

Lockdown harms include but are not limited to:

•Death from delayed medical treatment;

•Death from delayed or cancelled diagnosis;

•Death from suicide; •Death from drug overdose.

https://jccf.ca/wp-content/upl

“our data suggest that the mutations would not result in immune evasion of linear epitopes for a large majority of these COVID patients.”..
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.06.20248960v1

“Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity [11], an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship.”
https://advance.sagepub.com/articles/preprint/Comment_on_Dehning_et_al_Science_15_May_2020_eabb9789_Inferring_change_points_in_the_spread_of_COVID-19_reveals_the_effectiveness_of_interventions_/12362645

the relative risk of testing positive for COVID-19 was 1.77 times greater for patients with likely deficient vitamin D status
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2770157

While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case
growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less
restrictive interventions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484

Covid19 screening May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. 9,899,828 participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of #asymptomatic cases”….

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

External peer review of the #PCRTest to detect #Covid19 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for #falsepositive results.
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

 Impairments in #Children caused by wearing the masks were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%),

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-124394/v1

Therefore, the probability of airborne transmission due to respiratory aerosol is very low in outdoor conditions

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120315000

2 comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s