Dr. Dan Wilson, Covid-19 Mask Science |490|

How about looking at what an NHS doctor thinks about COVID, lockdowns, masks etc:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/03/06/believing-in-impossible-things-and-covid19/

David

There is indeed, an uncanny resemblance between those two subjects.

The effort to send out the message that the only 'moral' response is to engage in impossibly expensive measures - disregarding that it will be the poor that may most as a result.

The complete refusal to admit that there are two sides to the picture - do you destroy tens of thousands of businesses (which costs lives), or conceivably risk a few more deaths in other ways.

A complete disregard for the most interesting questions - after CO2 levels rose from about 250 ppm to 400 ppm, how come the 'damage' is so very slight (e.g. 1 C temperature rise in 140 years) - why exactly is it that most people aren't touched by the pandemic except by the measures used to attack it?

Why is it necessary to use censorship, of all things, to try to get the message across?

David

Good article at your link, David.

I've seen this crap my entire adult life whether working for govt or working in the private sector (though not so much with my current employer, which is one reason I stay there).

Anyhow, the way it works is something like this - someone points out that the emperor has no cloths. Authority figures gather around whoever has uttered such an unacceptable statement. That person is asked, "Why would you say such a thing? Do you want to embarrass the Emperor? Are you trying to break down civil order? Aren't you a team player?"

The "nay sayer" will respond with something like, "No. I'm trying to help. The Emperor really doesn't have cloths on. Look, I can prove it". He then goes onto make some solid arguments that would prove, to any sane serious person, that the Emperor is naked. The authority figures listen for a minute or two, briefly appear interested in the arguments and even offer a few counter arguments. They begin to look and sound annoyed as their counter-arguments fall apart. It's a little dance that happens every time. Then, at some point near the end of the meeting, the authority figures note that time is running out. They then say something like, "Look. The Emperor has clothes. Some very nice velvet green trousers. A beautiful silk shirt and a most wonderful royal purple robe". This declaration is delivered with stern faces focused intensely on the nay sayer. The authorities have decided what reality will be and all involved will agree with what that.

You see, it's usually not about science or truth. A lot of people will drop science and truth in favor of maintaining power and position. That's just the way people are. Someone wants a covid crisis all of the underlings fall in line and agree that there is a crisis. Someone wants you to wear masks (compliance humiliation ritual?), the Emperor's scientists will agree that masks must be worn, maybe two or three at a time!

Once you understand that science and truth take a distant second seat to power, it's all very simple to understand. The world has always been such.

Personally, my schtick has always been, "Look, I get it. You want to gain power and money. Ok. Pay me and treat me right and I'll show you what you need to know to accomplish your objective. If you don't base your tactics and strategies on truth and science, you're going to fail. If you don't understand your own weaknesses, you're going to fail. If you don't understand what is achievable and what is pie in the sky, your going to lose in the long run. Some of I what will tell you is going to hurt, but you need to hear it so you can adapt and overcome and grow stronger." And this is where institutional cowardice and stupidity come in. The guys I'm talking to don't want to take painful messages up the chain of command - and they don't want an underling (me) to have access to the high-ups. So we're back to the official message being that the naked emperor is beautifully attired.

But yeah - I don't know anyone who's died of covid. I know some people that contracted and had cold/flu like symptoms and are fine. That is most people's experience. Anyone with half a brain can understand that if cigarette smoke can go through a mask, that a virus can too. Anyone can read on the authorities own publications that it's almost exclusively the very old and very ill (other conditions) that die with covid contributing. So the authorities must resort to more forceful tactics, like outright censorship to keep the [at this point] non-ruse going. It's become a simple power play. Nothing more/nothing less.The more strong arm they become, the weaker their position and the more obvious to more people that it's weak. Again, it's not about science and truth. Anyone who thinks that govt is for either is a total fool. Govt is not your friend. They only care about you for your money - and to the extent that they fear you.
 
Last edited:
thanks. you know I don't think I realized what they were doing until I was forced into this dialogue with dan. I mean like a lot of dis crazy luciferian social engineering b******* there's a certain genius behind it. in this case, make it about whether or not masks the stuff that comes out of your mouth... and make people think that they're really digging into the science by investigating which masks which particles.

Alex, you are, by far, one of a kind when it comes to asking these intellectuals difficult questions. One of your poignant observation was the fact that when the Chief's won the Super Bowel during the "Pandemic," there was a full crowd with no masks, during a time in which the virus was supposedly active. I live near Kansas City, and lo and behold, I don't see people dying of Covid-19 left and right. However, I see mask mandates everywhere.

I juxtapose this scenario with what I experienced in Missoula Montana several years ago. A severe case of influenza hit that city, and people were incredibly sick everywhere you went! It isn't like this Covid-19 bullshit where you don't see any sick people walking around unless you turn on the news! I mean, literally, everywhere you went, people were coughing, choking, sneezing, groaning, throwing up, and so forth. I got so sick that I lost my hearing in my right ear and lost equilibrium for weeks! I rarely, if ever, go to the doctor due the ridiculous price of health insurance, and/or doctor bills, but this was a true emergency. Several doctors looked at me and couldn't tell exactly what was going on with my hearing, but said that it is the consequence of the flu. Furthermore, they told me that people were dying of this flu everyday, young and old, everyday in the city. Why the fuck wasn't this shit on the news and called at least an epidemic?

The doctors couldn't figure out what was going on with my hearing, so they sent me to these "ears, nose, and throat specialists." They tested my hearing and told me that it has become so incredibly distorted that a hearing aid will do nothing to help. Their recommendation was to stick a needle into my ear and inject steroids. First of all, let me tell you, that is extremely painful and it does nothing to help. I had that done three times, and it only made my hearing more distorted. Now, I have to plug my right ear everyday in order to get through life, and I can't be in a crowded place because it sounds like a cacophony of chaos, even with my right ear plugged!

Naturally, I became fascinated with this so called "pandemic" because of my experiences. Furthermore, my friends and family that were not living in Missoula Montana didn't all start wearing face masks after they learned of my torturous dilemma. Those people live in the states, and this sickness was in Montana. So, am I suppose to believe that shit didn't spread around our country and fucking ruin a bunch of people's lives? Instead, I am suppose to believe something came from China and did something 100 times worse, when the practical evidence is lacking beyond what we see on TV?

Thanks for the great shows, man! They truly help the work day to be more tolerable. I look forward to each and everyone of them!
 
a year of life-expectancy[/URL], and we have had as many as 624,000 excess deaths in the US, since this started. I am still dumbfounded that people have seriously chosen something as trivial as "masks" as the hill they will die on when it comes to protecting civil liberties.

It doesn't need to be "masks" on that hill that people die on to protect civil liberties. How about people telling you to tape your eyes shut to protect you from whatever bullshit virus they come up with? If that happens, you will not be able to read anything on social media that tells you about the 624,000 excess deaths, since this supposedly started, that are taking place; - despite the fact that you have not witnessed one single pile of bodies. Is that good science for you?
 
Your understanding of how an actual real-world science (not idealised philosophical abstaction of "the Science") works is ridiculously and miserably inadeqate.

You may believe your BS. I don't. And pointing me to Bauer doesn't help. People who know what they're talking about don't take him seriously. How can you expect me to take him seriously?

The hard fact that yet-existent RCTs show that masks don't work, doesn't mean that further RCTs can't show something different, Maybe it will be proven, one coming day, that masks do work after all, and nearly all previous research suffered from some kind of yet-unidentified mistakes. Maybe.

But right here and right now, the best available evidence explicitly and unequivocally points toward total ineffectiveness of mask-wearing as a measure against the spread of viral respiratory infections. And therefore, there is no scientific basis to enforce them, violently, on the unwilling individuals (and population as a whole).

But people with expertise obviously disagree with this, which doesn't offer me a way to choose Rancourt's "interpretation" over all others. Even the relevant scientists in the links Rancourt offers disagree with your characterization. According to them, the RCTs are not explicit or unequivocal. And the supporting evidence is strong enough to justify many millions of dollars and weeks/months/years of effort going into RCTs. Clearly, this couldn't possibly be the slam dunk you and Alex try to claim it is.

That was my question. Why choose Rancourt? Or Dan Wilson? Why not choose people with obvious expertise instead, so we don't have to have these stupid arguments? There are millions of people out there who aren't beholden to Big Pharma or to a Party Line from a government, who also know what they are talking about. Why not draw on their expertise instead?

The reasons I trust him are the sound empirical evidence and valid rational argumentation he presents - as well as a laughable inability of his opponents - including you - to present anything like sound counterevidence and valid counterargumentation, which leads them - and you - to the irrational and unempirical personal attacks against him, and other heretics and apostates exposing the rot and corruption of the Global Scientific Church.

But that's a dumb way to choose who to trust. You have no idea whether his argumentation is actually legitimate. It just sounds like it is to people like you who otherwise don't know?

I'm not trying to counter his arguments. I'm pointing out that it becomes immediately obvious that his arguments may not be legitimate. Legitimate public health arguments don't need a physicist, speaking to an inexpert audience, to be heard.
 
It doesn't need to be "masks" on that hill that people die on to protect civil liberties. How about people telling you to tape your eyes shut to protect you from whatever bullshit virus they come up with?

Exactly. I could see everyone getting upset about that. Not being able to see would have a deeply profound effect on my life. Like telling me what health care I can access, or who I can marry. Why give a shit about the extent to which a piece of cloth, much smaller than the shirt I'm also forced to wear, may or may not help during a pandemic?

If that happens, you will not be able to read anything on social media that tells you about the 624,000 excess deaths, since this supposedly started, that are taking place; - despite the fact that you have not witnessed one single pile of bodies. Is that good science for you?

Wear do you live? They pile dead bodies in the street in your town? I mean 600,000 people died from cancer last year, but I didn't see dead cancer bodies in the street. And from my vantage point, the earth looks pretty flat to me.
 
You may believe your BS. I don't. And pointing me to Bauer doesn't help. People who know what they're talking about don't take him seriously. How can you expect me to take him seriously?
The trouble is, too few people actually try to reason about the science, they just make am appeal to science authority figures - as you did. If Henry Bauer were proved right (and think he may well be), the pharmaceutical companies would be bankrupt because of the law suits against them and the loss of business. That means that right or wrong, it is no use appealing to authority figures to answer these questions because Big Pharma funds their research, takes them on fancy trips, and generally ensures that they are all safely muzzled with dollar bills. I didn't make the system - it is utterly daft - the research should have been firewalled from the business of making and selling drugs many decades ago. Now we are stuck with a badly broken system.

I remember vividly when the AIDS epidemic kicked off and became associated with HIV. I was living in a settled relationship with my girlfriend, so I didn't feel personally threatened. However it was self evident that a disease that had an incubation time of years, was spread by sex, and was uniformly fatal would leave nothing left but a few extreme religious communities.

However, it didn't work out like that, even though it took some time for the retroviral drugs to be invented. There were also huge parts of the world that could never be adequately tested or treated because of the cost - it would have been armageddon........but it wasn't! It is clear that loads of people have unprotected sex (otherwise there would not be any unplanned pregnancies) - so what is the explanation?

Henry Bauer makes a very plausible and all too believable case as to what really happened. It is a bit long, to explain (again) here, but go to his website and READ, after all, I have pointed out that the official story was clearly false. If you read it, I will try to fill and details to the best of my ability.

David
 
Wear do you live? They pile dead bodies in the street in your town? I mean 600,000 people died from cancer last year, but I didn't see dead cancer bodies in the street. And from my vantage point, the earth looks pretty flat to me.
Yes, but you try going round asking people about cancer, and you will get loads of agonising stories. If you chat with people, what you find is that many have not encountered the disease at all, a few know someone who maybe had it because they felt quite poorly for a few days, and one or two know someone - generally old - who went to hospital with the disease, and maybe died. Towards the end of our first lockdown (when mask wearing was discouraged) I asked someone at the local supermarket if they had lost many staff to the disease - after all, they are mixing with customers al day long. I was amazed to hear that nobody had even caught the disease, never mind died of it.

Most people will acknowledge that they think there is something phoney about the COVID crisis - something that (for example) nobody would have said at the time of the polio epidemics.

David
 
Alex, you are, by far, one of a kind when it comes to asking these intellectuals difficult questions. One of your poignant observation was the fact that when the Chief's won the Super Bowel during the "Pandemic," there was a full crowd with no masks, during a time in which the virus was supposedly active. I live near Kansas City, and lo and behold, I don't see people dying of Covid-19 left and right. However, I see mask mandates everywhere.

I juxtapose this scenario with what I experienced in Missoula Montana several years ago. A severe case of influenza hit that city, and people were incredibly sick everywhere you went! It isn't like this Covid-19 bullshit where you don't see any sick people walking around unless you turn on the news! I mean, literally, everywhere you went, people were coughing, choking, sneezing, groaning, throwing up, and so forth. I got so sick that I lost my hearing in my right ear and lost equilibrium for weeks! I rarely, if ever, go to the doctor due the ridiculous price of health insurance, and/or doctor bills, but this was a true emergency. Several doctors looked at me and couldn't tell exactly what was going on with my hearing, but said that it is the consequence of the flu. Furthermore, they told me that people were dying of this flu everyday, young and old, everyday in the city. Why the fuck wasn't this shit on the news and called at least an epidemic?

The doctors couldn't figure out what was going on with my hearing, so they sent me to these "ears, nose, and throat specialists." They tested my hearing and told me that it has become so incredibly distorted that a hearing aid will do nothing to help. Their recommendation was to stick a needle into my ear and inject steroids. First of all, let me tell you, that is extremely painful and it does nothing to help. I had that done three times, and it only made my hearing more distorted. Now, I have to plug my right ear everyday in order to get through life, and I can't be in a crowded place because it sounds like a cacophony of chaos, even with my right ear plugged!

Naturally, I became fascinated with this so called "pandemic" because of my experiences. Furthermore, my friends and family that were not living in Missoula Montana didn't all start wearing face masks after they learned of my torturous dilemma. Those people live in the states, and this sickness was in Montana. So, am I suppose to believe that shit didn't spread around our country and fucking ruin a bunch of people's lives? Instead, I am suppose to believe something came from China and did something 100 times worse, when the practical evidence is lacking beyond what we see on TV?

Thanks for the great shows, man! They truly help the work day to be more tolerable. I look forward to each and everyone of them!
wow... that really sucks. this whole situation is just about the craziest thing I've ever seen in my life. can't imagine what's going to come next
 
The trouble is, too few people actually try to reason about the science, they just make am appeal to science authority figures - as you did.

No I didn't. Stop pretending this is about authority figures. I dislike appeals to authority as much as the next person. I said "people who know what they're talking about". Totally different animal.
 
Yes, but you try going round asking people about cancer, and you will get loads of agonising stories.

How many of those "agonizing stories" happened in the last 11 months? None for me. At least I know people who were hospitalized for COVID. I don't know anybody with cancer in the last year (hospitalized or not). Does that mean I get to claim that Big Cancer is phony?
 
Sadly, those graphs are based on garbage data.

On Day 1 of Public Policy school we learned GIGO; Garbage In = Garbage Out.

The data on Covid-19 so hopelessly corrupt and fraudulent we will never be able to learn anything useful from it.
well, I know these graphs are imprecise and the data is flawed, but it is funny that the graphs seem to support exactly what the research has said all along -- masks don't work.
 
No I didn't. Stop pretending this is about authority figures. I dislike appeals to authority as much as the next person. I said "people who know what they're talking about". Totally different animal.
Well how the hell do you distinguish between the two unless you dig into the science a bit first?

David
 
How many of those "agonizing stories" happened in the last 11 months? None for me. At least I know people who were hospitalized for COVID. I don't know anybody with cancer in the last year (hospitalized or not). Does that mean I get to claim that Big Cancer is phony?
Well I guess your experience is grossly different from mine. For example, we went for a walk and got talking to a man on a canal boat. He was upset because his friend had been denied treatment for his cancer (because the NHS is treating very few people for anything but COVID) and it was now probably inoperable.

Do you work in a health-related job - that might sway the numbers you would know of?

Did you read Dr Kendrick's blog? In there he points out that the countries that locked down fared worse (in deaths per million) than those that didn't.

David
 
Randy sent me some interesting graphs:
View attachment 1927

I'm not a mask proponent. In fact, I doubt they represent a net value. Yes, they probably stop some viral spread by preventing gobs of virus containing body fluids from landing on surfaces (or in faces). On the other hand, people take their unclean hands and fiddle with the masks. They take the masks on and off and adjust them, etc. thus placing viruses and bacteria onto the interior of the masks and even right on their face and mouths and noses. And, of course, the masks cannot possibly filter all of the virus. It's too small. That should be a no brainer and it's preposterous that anyone would honestly argue otherwise.

That said, there could be confounds in the graph. Like masks are required in the more population dense zip codes, where disease is more likely to spread. I don't know if that's true, but the possibility should be taken in account.

Btw - Ellis' figure of > 600K excess deaths should be taken with a grain of salt. There are a lot of issues with how the CDC calculates excess death figures. One thing for sure - I know this professionally, but the CDC even alludes to it - is that excess deaths, whatever the true figure, include a substantial number of people that died due to the covid panic; not the virus itself. These casualties are among the millions of people with chronic and emerging conditions that did not seek medical care because their physician's office was closed and/or they were made too afraid of covid to go to the hospital. We are seeing a frighting drop is cancer screenings, diabetes treatment, cardio-vascular condition treatments, etc. We are even seeing a substantial decrease in hospitalizations for things like strokes and heart attacks (20% to 30%). There is no reason to believe that people are having fewer heart attacks and strokes. It is extremely dangerous to not be hospitalized after such a medical crisis (I think even Skeptiko fans can agree to that?). Then there are all the deaths of despair - drug ODs, alcoholism, suicides that are up significantly since covid. Psychiatric medication prescriptions are also way up (these are prescribed via so called "telemedicine" in which someone has a Skype or zoom conference with a behavioral healthcare giver - a new model of service delivery that is fraught with peril, IMO).

How do you not get hospitalized for acute appendicitis and live? - https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/pa...cute-needs-like-appendicitis-heart-conditions

This trend (referred at the link) has abated a little since the article was written, but most definitely continues.

The years of life lost due to covid policy exceed years of life lost due the virus itself. That should be unacceptable policy in anyone's book.
 
Last edited:
But that's a dumb way to choose who to trust. You have no idea whether his argumentation is actually legitimate. It just sounds like it is to people like you who otherwise don't know?

I'm not trying to counter his arguments. I'm pointing out that it becomes immediately obvious that his arguments may not be legitimate. Legitimate public health arguments don't need a physicist, speaking to an inexpert audience, to be heard.

Wow. Really, wow. Empirical evidence and rational arguments are "dumb" now. Only a blind trust in the pronouncements of the authority figures is what is smart, apparently.

And yes - it is AUTHORITY FIGURES, absolutely nothing more: scientific heretics and apostates usually know at least no less about what they reject (or approve) than the mainstream loyalists, but has notably less incentives to follow the line than any mainstream scientist.

And it remains true not only when we are talking about the people who are "specialists" in the topic being discussed in the strict sense (like Bhakdi and Ioannidis), but also widely knowledable and highly intelligent people who are not of the exact scientific speciality that deals with the topic - or are not formally academic "specialists" at all, but laypersons who spent big amounts of time and effort to learn and master the topic themselves.

As Rancourt replies to the stupid accusations of not being a medical scientist:

My competence to develop beliefs about COVID
Links to my articles about COVID are listed here:

http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2020/07/links-to-denis-rancourt-articles-and.html

I am retired and a former tenured Full Professor of Physics, University of Ottawa. Full Professor is the highest academic rank. During my 23-year career as a university professor, I developed new courses and taught over 2000 university students, at all levels, and in three different faculties (Science, Engineering, Arts). I supervised more than 80 junior research terms or degrees at all levels from post-doctoral fellow to graduate students to NSERC undergraduate researchers. I headed an internationally recognized interdisciplinary research laboratory, and attracted significant research funding for two decades.

I have been an invited plenary, keynote, or special session speaker at major scientific conferences some 40 times. I have published over 100 research papers in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, in the areas of physics, chemistry, geology, bio-geochemistry, measurement science, soil science, and environmental science.

My scientific h-index impact factor is 40, and my articles have been cited more than 5,000 times in peer-reviewed scientific journals (profile at Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=1ChsRsQAAAAJ ).

My personal knowledge and ability to evaluate the facts in this article are grounded in my education, research, training and experience, as follows:

i. Regarding environmental nanoparticles. Viral respiratory diseases are transmitted by the smallest size-fraction of virion-laden aerosol particles, which are reactive environmental nanoparticles. Therefore, the chemical and physical stabilities and transport properties of these aerosol particles are the foundation of the dominant contagion mechanism through air. My extensive work on reactive environmental nanoparticles is internationally recognized, and includes: precipitation and growth, surface reactivity, agglomeration, surface charging, phase transformation, settling and sedimentation, and reactive dissolution. In addition, I have taught the relevant fluid dynamics (air is a compressible fluid), and gravitational settling at the university level, and I have done industrial-application research on the technology of filtration (face masks are filters).

ii. Regarding molecular science, molecular dynamics, and surface complexation. I am an expert in molecular structures, reactions, and dynamics, including molecular complexation to biotic and abiotic surfaces. These processes are the basis of viral attachment, antigen attachment, molecular replication, attachment to mask fibers, particle charging, loss and growth in aerosol particles, and all such phenomena involved in viral transmission and infection, and in protection measures. I taught quantum mechanics at the advanced university level for many years, which is the fundamental theory of atoms, molecules and substances; and in my published research I developed X-ray diffraction theory and methodology for characterizing small material particles.

iii. Regarding statistical analysis methods. Statistical analysis of scientific studies, including robust error propagation analysis and robust estimates of bias, sets the limit of what reliably can be inferred from any observational study, including randomized controlled trials in medicine, and including field measurements during epidemics. I am an expert in error analysis and statistical analysis of complex data, at the research level in many areas of science. Statistical analysis methods are the basis of medical research.

iv. Regarding mathematical modelling. Much of epidemiology is based on mathematical models of disease transmission and evolution in the population. I have research-level knowledge and experience with predictive and exploratory mathematical models and simulation methods. I have expert knowledge related to parameter uncertainties and parameter dependencies in such models. I have made extensive simulations of epidemiological dynamics, using standard compartmental models (SIR, MSIR) and new models.

v. Regarding measurement methods. In science there are five main categories of measurement methods: (1) spectroscopy (including nuclear, electronic and vibrational spectroscopies), (2) imaging (including optical and electron microscopies, and resonance imaging), (3) diffraction (including X-ray and neutron diffractions, used to elaborate molecular, defect and magnetic structures), (4) transport measurements (including reaction rates, energy transfers, and conductivities), and (5) physical property measurements (including specific density, thermal capacities, stress response, material fatigue…). I have taught these measurement methods in an interdisciplinary graduate course that I developed and gave to graduate (M.Sc. and Ph.D.) students of physics, biology, chemistry, geology, and engineering for many years. I have made fundamental discoveries and advances in areas of spectroscopy, diffraction, magnetometry, and microscopy, which have been published in leading scientific journals and presented at international conferences. I know measurement science, the basis of all sciences, at the highest level.

This is such extensive interdisciplinary knowledge and skill, compared with his heretical independence and fearlessness, what makes him much more trustworthy source than any mainstream medical scientist, caught in the networks of power, interest and indoctrination.

It is what makes people like Henry Bauer indispensable sources about the utterly rotten, near-dead state of the modern academia.

Were you able to think, observe and decide by yourself, you would recognize that such people are, at least, worthy of being attentively heard - even if, of course, not always being agreed with: they undoubtedly have their own weaknesses, prejudices and intellectual blind spots. But to identify their failings and mistakes correctly, your should first enegage with them and their materials, attentively and respectfully.

________________________________________________

Anyway, this is my last reply to you. Your are either just a troll, or willfully blind to the degree of being beyond reasoning. One way or another, debating with you is a useless waste of time and effort.

I friendly recommend anyone else here to stop engaging with you as well.
 
Back
Top