Economist Rahim Taghizadegan shares a snippet of historical background to the economics of financial centralization: https://youtu.be/oapUX0qQ9rA

"Centralization is the concentration of means for a lesser amount of ends than private people would pursue independently."

Watch the full Open Session here
YouTube 👉https://youtu.be/ilY8g5PjOnw
Rumble 👉https://bit.ly/3VcYQEq

"Debates about 'Covid’s origin' usually involve unstated and unsubstantiated assumptions and therefore typically end up obscuring more important issues."

https://pandata.org/the-bat-dilemma/

"What people believe to be known knowns about covid origins may actually be unknown (or unknowable) unknowns. This article suggests revisiting fundamental questions and (humbly and openly) starting again from first principles....." ~ Prof Martin Neil

I ask all 20,824 followers to please consider posting this letter, immediately, to every single social medium of which you are part.
Don’t let them get away with it.
Don’t let them get away with it.
Don’t let them get away with it.

Thank you,
Mike





Full letter as pdf

https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/838

From Nick Hudson:

South Africans will start hearing about Value-Based Medicine. Pay attention when you do. This is the next step in the implementation of inferior centralised medicine, brought to you by the same people who pushed lockdowns and vaccine mandates. It's supposedly based on rational cost-benefit analysis. But remember that lockdowns and vaccine mandates both failed massively on any sensible cost-benefit analysis, so you need to read this as putting lipstick on a pig.

The pig is socialist, centralized medicine. Most of the country's hospital doctors have already been introduced to the concept. Many are shrugging, and taking the view that this is simply another iteration of changes in the way they are paid by medical aids, and nothing to be alarmed about. But this is the same apathy that caused them to go along to get along when the depravities of the Covid policy response came their way. They now need to demonstrate some spine and get organised against this.

Tag lines such as "a bad system is better than a good specialist" will accompany this offence against independence and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Such codswallop is fashionable among the fools who believe that good clinical medicine can be implemented by algorithmic protocols dusted with the woo-woo of "AI".

If you need a refresher on why centralisation always fails, read this: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1726956378382561407.html

"Far too many microphoned voices seem intent on revoking our equal moral status. They seek to belittle and reduce us through their sophistic contortions of public-health and social-science nomenclature. It’s simply a matter of will, to deny our standing, to coerce our submission, to diminish our sense of ourselves." ~ Christopher S. Grenda

https://pandata.org/public-health-natural-rights-a-tale-of-two-cities/

https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/every-single-aspect-of-the-covid

I’m pleased to see this position statement. As you know, I’m open minded to the possibility that something was done in certain point locations like NYC, Northern Italy, though if so, it wasn’t contagious or represented a net increase in lethality over whatever else was ordinarily present (because there’s no evidence in the all causes mortality data).
I’m not persuaded that there must have been such a release. Only that there might have been.
Deaths spiked in many locations only after WHO declared a fraudulent pandemic and those deaths were medical murder, if done knowingly and manslaughter, if foolish enough not to appreciate that avoidable deaths would be expected to follow imposition of such protocols.
There have been several “PCR false positive pseudo epidemics”, in which it was later determined at all the positive test results were false, in other words 100% false positives. That such events can happen when nobody is trying to deceive, imagine how easy it would be to create one, deliberately.
Best wishes
Mike

In a recent Lancet article, the authors make a claim that "vaccination has averted 154 million deaths" and go on to write about impact of vaccination on public health over the past 50 years: https://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00850-X/fulltext

It begins with "In this modelling study, we used a suite of mathematical and statistical models to estimate the global and regional public health impact of 50 years of vaccination..."
"Models" tell you all you need to know - over the past 4 years alone they have shown themselves to be unbelievable.

The article continues: "We then used these modelled outcomes to estimate the contribution of vaccination to globally declining infant and child mortality rates over this period."
In other words, the authors have assumed that vaccines have a certain share in the declining mortality rates. What if the vaccines increased the mortality rates, but this was masked by improved sanitation and food?

They go on to say: "We estimate that vaccination has accounted for 40% of the observed decline in global infant mortality, 52% in the African region."
Note the word "estimate."

If their models and estimates are correct, the Covid debacle will have killed millions of children on account of the fact that childhood immunization programmes were canceled during the "pandemic".

As expected, the authors' calculations of lives saved by vaccination did not take into account any lives lost by adverse events.

Their models included:
• published transmission models
• vaccine efficacy profiles
So we can rest assured that their findings are unreliable, since we know from experience how inaccurate these two are.

"All forms of modelling allowed us to capture both individual effects of vaccines (ie, protecting the vaccinated) and population-level effects (ie, reducing transmission and incidence, and indirectly protecting the unvaccinated."

What is not clear is where they accounted for vaccines with a negative efficiency, like Gates' polio shots which are now causing more polio than before.

"...selecting the parsimonious model with best performance"?
Does it mean they had several models in use, but chose the one that made vaccines look the best? Using that best performance model, "we used the selected model to impute the impact in countries with missing data."

The phenomenal scale of their bias, and their uncompromising faith in vaccines is demonstrated in this quote:
"To estimate vaccine impact in time periods not directly modelled, we fitted a functional relationship between model-estimated cumulative impact—in terms of either deaths averted or years of full health gained—and the cumulative number of fully vaccinated people. Four functional forms were fitted for each vaccine in each country: linear (presumes each dose has equal effect, no community herd effect), logarithmic, exponential (each additional dose has a respectively lesser or greater effect), and sigmoidal (programme takes time to establish and achieve community effects, then each subsequent dose has less individual effect). Therefore we selected functions that best fit locally specific data, thereby capturing locally relevant interactions between the individual and population effects of specific vaccines at specific places and times."

They do have the courtesy to explain why confidence intervals are not provided: "Propagation of uncertainty at all levels of estimation was also not possible for all the hierarchical underlying models or for the values input into those models."
Not possible? That is correct. This is possibly the most correct thing in the whole article.

How can one possibly calculate uncertainty for a process that involved one estimate after the other, on top of multiple models, on top of missing data, extrapolations, and so forth?

In other words, since 1974, vaccines have averted 154 million deaths plus or minus 300 million.

~ Comment by Thomas Verduyn

"If we had a pandemic of anything, it was a pandemic of propaganda, a pandemic of lies and a pandemic of testing."

Neil Oliver: "I'm not persuaded that there ever was anything novel called 'Covid'. Covid came and influenza vanished. All the people that were traditionally in their tens or hundreds of thousands every winter [that] would die of the flu? Nobody's dying of flu. What, this is now 'Covid'? That's kind of convenient."

"What we ended up with was a pandemic of testing, with the misapplication of PCR tests that were never designed, according to their designer, to be used as diagnostic tools."

"They simply took an opportunity to do something that they were planning to do anyway, which was to use a pandemic to seize control of people's freedom, and their money—the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Job done. All of that was achieved."

Join 👉 https://t.me/RogerHodkinson

Why did Wacker invest €100 million in a factory to produce mRNA vaccines for a non-existent market and how could it even afford to do so?

https://pandata.org/germany-creating-capacity-to-produce-over-one-billion-mrna-vaccine-doses-per-year/