Not sure if you're familiar with the work of The Ethical Skeptic on Twitter, but he's got charts galore that seem to say the excess deaths are heart, blood and cancer related. FWIW.
Not sure if you're familiar with the work of The Ethical Skeptic on Twitter, but he's got charts galore that seem to say the excess deaths are heart, blood and cancer related. FWIW.
I am on the fence with Ethical Skeptic. He seems smart but doesn't explain himself well (compared to EL Gato Malo for example). Also people have asked him to share his data but he complains that it would take too much time and he couldn't get on with more important stuff, however surely many people working on the same data would provide far more insights.
Have the same sense but thought I was the only one. He often speaks in riddles which I assumed was to escape the twitter ban-hammer. However, now that it has been lifted he has not changed.
There really is no good reason to avoid speaking clearly (like Igor does). Playing games and forcing people to figure out what you really mean is not only annoying to the reader, but bound to cause misunderstandings. It is however, an effective way to avoid hard claims that can later be disproven.
Have you ever heard an interview with Dr. Judy Miskovits? It's kind of the same thing. She is very immersed in her world, and has a hard time dumbing it down. In fact, most of what she says in any interview can go over the normal person's head.
Perhaps it's the same thing for TES. He just can't figure out a way to dumb things down for the rest of us. Maybe he just doesn't have that skill to take it down four steps.
That being said... TES does not necessarily seem wrong.
Alex Berenson speaks clearly, but his conclusions are often easy to shoot down. Ethical Skeptic is too complicated to understand, so you can't necessarily do that. Took me ages to work out what the pull forward effect is - he talks about that a lot.
Impressive. You figured out the pull forward effect? That's Beyond My Pay Grade, as they say. LOL. Ed Dowd looks at it from a very different viewpoint (finance) and is VERY clear.
I think I searched for it to be honest. It came up as "pent up demand" for products and worked it out from there. Ivor Cummings had talked about the same thing without using that term.
Alex is interesting to read, and he is right about some things, but he keeps insisting that Ivermectin doesn't work, when it does, and the doctors who treat with Ivermectin can see what a huge difference it makes. Plus, there is a ton of research that shows it works, and if one has research training and understands how to read research with a critical eye, you can see how the negative studies were planned that way - using too low a dose for too a short a time, starting too late in the illness to do much good, and the - big surprise - Ivermectin fails to separate from placebo, because the deck was stacked against it. You didn't give it a chance to show the difference it could have made. Plus there are laboratory studies that show how Ivermectin works in the cell - it blocks a transporter protein to keep the virus from traveling where it wants to in the cell, things like that. So it is known "how" it works, and you see that in well designed human studies, compared to placebo, when research is designed in a way that allows the truth to be seen. I don't rely on Alex too much, though of course he is right about some things, and he is worth reading, but not everything he is says reflrcts reality.
You are 110% correct, and your phrase "plainly speaking" is actually a much better choice of words than "dumbing things down." And you are correct, you do have to be intelligent to do so.
However... not everyone has that talent even if their IQ is high.
i think what i meant is that most people have common sense and if you speak to that, they don't need to understand the science and scholarly information. that would be useful if someone wants to argue with you on "the science" - I'll leave that to the scholars and intelligent people. What I like about Igor and a lot of people here is that they speak in ways I can easily understand, and I learn lots from the links people provide - though I would love to be on the computer much less.
Interesting comment re: Ethical Skeptic. I'm not a data/math/chart person, and have, at times, had a hard time understanding his charts. I just get the gist of them, aka "deaths going up." I thought it was just me.
Perhaps there is a reason we don't know that he's keeping his data vague. IDK.
Not sure if you're familiar with the work of The Ethical Skeptic on Twitter, but he's got charts galore that seem to say the excess deaths are heart, blood and cancer related. FWIW.
I am on the fence with Ethical Skeptic. He seems smart but doesn't explain himself well (compared to EL Gato Malo for example). Also people have asked him to share his data but he complains that it would take too much time and he couldn't get on with more important stuff, however surely many people working on the same data would provide far more insights.
Here's some data - have you seen it?
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-what-is-in-the-vials
Have the same sense but thought I was the only one. He often speaks in riddles which I assumed was to escape the twitter ban-hammer. However, now that it has been lifted he has not changed.
There really is no good reason to avoid speaking clearly (like Igor does). Playing games and forcing people to figure out what you really mean is not only annoying to the reader, but bound to cause misunderstandings. It is however, an effective way to avoid hard claims that can later be disproven.
Have you ever heard an interview with Dr. Judy Miskovits? It's kind of the same thing. She is very immersed in her world, and has a hard time dumbing it down. In fact, most of what she says in any interview can go over the normal person's head.
Perhaps it's the same thing for TES. He just can't figure out a way to dumb things down for the rest of us. Maybe he just doesn't have that skill to take it down four steps.
That being said... TES does not necessarily seem wrong.
Alex Berenson speaks clearly, but his conclusions are often easy to shoot down. Ethical Skeptic is too complicated to understand, so you can't necessarily do that. Took me ages to work out what the pull forward effect is - he talks about that a lot.
Impressive. You figured out the pull forward effect? That's Beyond My Pay Grade, as they say. LOL. Ed Dowd looks at it from a very different viewpoint (finance) and is VERY clear.
I think I searched for it to be honest. It came up as "pent up demand" for products and worked it out from there. Ivor Cummings had talked about the same thing without using that term.
Alex is interesting to read, and he is right about some things, but he keeps insisting that Ivermectin doesn't work, when it does, and the doctors who treat with Ivermectin can see what a huge difference it makes. Plus, there is a ton of research that shows it works, and if one has research training and understands how to read research with a critical eye, you can see how the negative studies were planned that way - using too low a dose for too a short a time, starting too late in the illness to do much good, and the - big surprise - Ivermectin fails to separate from placebo, because the deck was stacked against it. You didn't give it a chance to show the difference it could have made. Plus there are laboratory studies that show how Ivermectin works in the cell - it blocks a transporter protein to keep the virus from traveling where it wants to in the cell, things like that. So it is known "how" it works, and you see that in well designed human studies, compared to placebo, when research is designed in a way that allows the truth to be seen. I don't rely on Alex too much, though of course he is right about some things, and he is worth reading, but not everything he is says reflrcts reality.
planly speaking is not dumbing things down; quite the opposite. :)
You are 110% correct, and your phrase "plainly speaking" is actually a much better choice of words than "dumbing things down." And you are correct, you do have to be intelligent to do so.
However... not everyone has that talent even if their IQ is high.
i think what i meant is that most people have common sense and if you speak to that, they don't need to understand the science and scholarly information. that would be useful if someone wants to argue with you on "the science" - I'll leave that to the scholars and intelligent people. What I like about Igor and a lot of people here is that they speak in ways I can easily understand, and I learn lots from the links people provide - though I would love to be on the computer much less.
Interesting comment re: Ethical Skeptic. I'm not a data/math/chart person, and have, at times, had a hard time understanding his charts. I just get the gist of them, aka "deaths going up." I thought it was just me.
Perhaps there is a reason we don't know that he's keeping his data vague. IDK.
So far.
Wait a little longer for the prion diseases.