Conference season is almost over for me; thanks for your patience. In the meantime, please enjoy this picture of a small mushroom in Saxony, and note also this sequel to the mask replication study I posted about on Sunday: The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report were totally happy publishing the original paper on
Congrats on getting near the finish line. Any superspreaders? Big conference in my field had a huge breakout - despite everyone being v'd of course. Shockingly, none of my colleagues commented on this remarkable turn off events.
“They” are STILL flogging all of the same crap (mask, vax, lockdown, passports) that failed so laughably & damagingly (not sure that’s a legit word) the 1st time around & in the face of REAL scientific evidence. That’s why I’m so worried for what’s to come
I had my first positive Covid test last week. I had the same experience I keep hearing from everyone else, at least this time around. It is tough to clear. I have been at 90%+ for days. I am still not at 100%. Anyway it was just an unpleasant, slightly distinctive head cold otherwise.
A womens environmental group that I (used to ) hike with is still requiring vaccinations to join in on their hikes... day hikes... in the woods... I am SO over this.....
Trying hard not to be discouraged. Yeah, I can find new hiking buddies, but why don't they see how ludicrous their policy is ?!?!? Do I send them an email (to try to get them to understand) or just walk away from the group? Sigh...
The CDC does not conduct a true peer review of what is published in the MMWR. "The content published in MMWR constitutes the official voice of its parent, CDC."
The review process is clearly biased: "Although most articles that appear in MMWR are not "peer-reviewed" in the way that submissions to medical journals are, to ensure that the content of MMWR comports with CDC policy, every submission to MMWR undergoes a rigorous multilevel clearance process before publication. This includes review by the CDC Director or designate, top scientific directors at all CDC organizational levels, and an exacting review by MMWR editors. Articles submitted to MMWR from non-CDC authors undergo the same kind of review by subject-matter experts within CDC. By the time a report appears in MMWR, it reflects, or is consistent with, CDC policy."
Is this fair? science based? unbiased? Dr Hoeg's excellent work probably did "not comport" with the CDC's policy on masks. I will add many of the MMWR study reports published by the CDC are poorly designed and as published would probably not pass a true peer review.
Here is the link to an MMWR written on what MMWRs are...
I worry about the long term effects of such blatant fraud and hypocrisy. I now assume that anything I hear in the mainstream media or “medicine” is 180 degrees backwards. I know that I am not alone. There is virtually no societal cohesion. If a true emergency ever struck, we would be in trouble.
Stew with butter and garlic or use to remove impediments?
I remain pleased with myself that I never bought a mask. Crocheted two of 'em, with inside pocket for disposable coffee filter, and am gonna unravel and use for another project...
"I'm sorry, I'm hearing impaired. Could you please remove your mask so I can see your lips? Or you could write using this pad and pen here."
Mask off in 100% of cases. Apparently, the woke programming that you must immediately abase yourself for anyone displaying or claiming a "disability" (whatever happened to "equal treatment", hm?) is so strong it trumps their belief that cloth and paper stops a virus.
Well, I'm still going to triple mask and wear a condom when I drive in the car all by myself to McDonalds to get a Big Mac three times a day. I take my health seriously. Don't worry, I wear gloves when I eat.
Congrats on getting near the finish line. Any superspreaders? Big conference in my field had a huge breakout - despite everyone being v'd of course. Shockingly, none of my colleagues commented on this remarkable turn off events.
“They” are STILL flogging all of the same crap (mask, vax, lockdown, passports) that failed so laughably & damagingly (not sure that’s a legit word) the 1st time around & in the face of REAL scientific evidence. That’s why I’m so worried for what’s to come
I had my first positive Covid test last week. I had the same experience I keep hearing from everyone else, at least this time around. It is tough to clear. I have been at 90%+ for days. I am still not at 100%. Anyway it was just an unpleasant, slightly distinctive head cold otherwise.
A womens environmental group that I (used to ) hike with is still requiring vaccinations to join in on their hikes... day hikes... in the woods... I am SO over this.....
Trying hard not to be discouraged. Yeah, I can find new hiking buddies, but why don't they see how ludicrous their policy is ?!?!? Do I send them an email (to try to get them to understand) or just walk away from the group? Sigh...
Canadastan Gone Rogue - Ontario Paying Doctors to Push the Injections and Track the “Un-vaxxed”
… Rebel News
https://drtrozzi.org/2022/05/31/ontario-paying-doctors-to-push-the-injections-and-track-the-un-vaxxed/
The CDC does not conduct a true peer review of what is published in the MMWR. "The content published in MMWR constitutes the official voice of its parent, CDC."
The review process is clearly biased: "Although most articles that appear in MMWR are not "peer-reviewed" in the way that submissions to medical journals are, to ensure that the content of MMWR comports with CDC policy, every submission to MMWR undergoes a rigorous multilevel clearance process before publication. This includes review by the CDC Director or designate, top scientific directors at all CDC organizational levels, and an exacting review by MMWR editors. Articles submitted to MMWR from non-CDC authors undergo the same kind of review by subject-matter experts within CDC. By the time a report appears in MMWR, it reflects, or is consistent with, CDC policy."
Is this fair? science based? unbiased? Dr Hoeg's excellent work probably did "not comport" with the CDC's policy on masks. I will add many of the MMWR study reports published by the CDC are poorly designed and as published would probably not pass a true peer review.
Here is the link to an MMWR written on what MMWRs are...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a2.htm?s_cid=su6004a2_w
I worry about the long term effects of such blatant fraud and hypocrisy. I now assume that anything I hear in the mainstream media or “medicine” is 180 degrees backwards. I know that I am not alone. There is virtually no societal cohesion. If a true emergency ever struck, we would be in trouble.
Speaking of replication and masks...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-canada-sex/wear-a-mask-while-having-sex-canadas-top-doctor-suggests-idUSKBN25T2Y9
Stew with butter and garlic or use to remove impediments?
I remain pleased with myself that I never bought a mask. Crocheted two of 'em, with inside pocket for disposable coffee filter, and am gonna unravel and use for another project...
Best dirty trick I pulled on a mask-dupe so far:
"I'm sorry, I'm hearing impaired. Could you please remove your mask so I can see your lips? Or you could write using this pad and pen here."
Mask off in 100% of cases. Apparently, the woke programming that you must immediately abase yourself for anyone displaying or claiming a "disability" (whatever happened to "equal treatment", hm?) is so strong it trumps their belief that cloth and paper stops a virus.
How you dare to say that refusing to publish a paper that refutes your preexisting conclusion is publication bias!
Wait ... that is precisely the definition of publication bias. Oops.
The Covidians will never stop with their drivel.
Peer review is about reaching consensus. Science is about searching for truth. Not exactly the same thing.
Well, I'm still going to triple mask and wear a condom when I drive in the car all by myself to McDonalds to get a Big Mac three times a day. I take my health seriously. Don't worry, I wear gloves when I eat.
Idiots at the NY Times are still flogging the mask charade:
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220531&instance_id=62786&nl=the-morning&productCode=NN®i_id=110762776&segment_id=93785&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F63d6a47f-17a6-55ab-997e-4b405bc526c4&user_id=5670703881d560695fd1f5d72815cc76
Last time I checked, that could be called fraud, misrepresentation, and falsifying data.
No one should be surprised if that is the ultimate conclusion when & if the prior study is carefully analyzed.