“The Book of Vision”: Indie auteur Terrence Malick serves as executive producer for this heady, cerebral quasi-period piece that plunges a questioning doctor/student (Lotte Verbeek) into the unorthodox 18th century practices and thoughts of a physician (Charles Dance). Malick’s participation means the cinematography is a standout in documentary filmmaker Carlo S. Hintermann’s ambitious first feature foray. This intriguing talker is the festival’s opening night selection.
https://localnewsmatters.org/2021/02/04/pass-the-remote-must-see-adventurous-selections-at-the-online-sf-independent-film-festival/

Dr Simon's immunity booster protocol. t.me/goddek

"In terms I can only describe as unfailingly polite, Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.
Putin literally laughed at the idea of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – Schwab’s idea of a planned society through AI, robots and the merging of man and machine. 
He flat-out told them their policies driving the middle class to the brink of extinction over the COVID-19 pandemic will further increase social and political unrest while also ensuring wealth inequality gets worse."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/great-reset-putin-says-not-so-fast

"Conte was not considered by those elites to be strong enough to manage the “great reset” of Italy’s economy, an endeavour that can only be pulled off by a “technical” — or technocrat-led — government."
https://unherd.com/2021/02/mario-draghi-is-no-saviour/

Mike Yeadon: "I’ve had a read through of that paper in the clinical trial of the AZ vaccine in South Africa.
Remember, the narrative is “it doesn’t work against the SA variant”.
I do not believe they’ve established this in any way.
Immediate reaction is that no conclusions can possibly be drawn from this because it’s massively underpowered!
Check out the confidence intervals crossing zero. Vaccine efficacy 95% CI are -76.8 to +54.8%.
I had a friend in clinical development who used to say “I absolutely hate pilot studies. They’re always underpowered. Everyone assumes the result will be directionally correct. It’s just not true. If the error bars are a big multiple of the variance in the endpoint you’d trying to measure, it’s just noise, garbage”.
Here, the uncertainty looks ten times bigger than the variance you’d hope for in a properly powered study.
If this is all the evidence there is, then I’ll stick with multilocus immunity, and that tiny changes in the virus do NOT lead to “immune escape”. It’s propaganda. Sadly, I know of genuine physicians who aren’t immunologists who’ve bought the narrative. When those on our side of the debate agree with this unlikely story, we’re lost.
Also, note in the tail end of the results. The vast majority of well over 80 epitopes identified against which T-cell responses formed were unaffected by mutations. Just as we’d expect.

So what have we really got? Unreliable PCR tests to “confirm” that subjects with vague & non specific symptoms, which they claim are suggestive of Covid19, actually have the virus. But the symptoms could be those of any respiratory virus.
The antibody / virus neutralisation assays, purporting to evaluate whether immune serum “works” against the mutants, are artificial & highly contrived. Furthermore they lacked internal controls.

This has all the smell of a rather poorly designed & underpowered study which had a purpose. It’s not good science. Pretty good politics, though!

But if you’re told we must close the borders to prevent vaccine- and naturally-acquired immunity being bypassed by mutants, please know that it’s BS.

Cheers,
Mike
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.10.21251247v1.full.pdf

"And this is just part of the web of money and influence surrounding Edmunds and other key players in the modelling game including a very high-profile person named Neil Ferguson (more on Ferguson below)."
https://thewallwillfall.org/2021/02/13/the-pandemic-modelling-cabal-have-a-serious-conflict-of-interest-rosemary-frei-msc/

The Guardian's "Global Development is supported by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation"
https://dumptheguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/11/its-as-if-theres-no-covid-nepal-defies-pandemic-amid-a-broken-economy

ONE WEEK LEFT TO VIEW:
📽 WATCH ONLINE in 🇺🇲
THE BOOK OF VISION (plus Q&A) https://t.co/TUDvoqGvCC
"An ancient, patient, fallible medicine that relies even before technology on the body’s intrinsic ability to react to illness..connected to the life of people & places, woods & waters, dreams & nightmares"
📽⬇️
San Francisco IndieFest 2021
https://watch.eventive.org/sfindiefest2021/play/5fd3f9c73ee6300037fba02f

A new study, involving over 25,000 school-aged children, shows that masks are harming schoolchildren physically, psychologically, and behaviorally, revealing 24 distinct health issues associated with wearing masks.
https://montanadailygazette.com/2021/01/25/new-study-finds-masks-hurt-schoolchildren-physically-psychologically-and-behaviorally/

January 11th, 2020: Where the PCR test assays come from: the internet. No checks, no controls. But is this early article telling us a lot more? Read this carefully: "News about the sequence came from Edward Holmes, a virologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Sydney, who tweeted the first notice about the availability of what he referred to as an “initial” sequence of the virus early this morning. Holmes is a member of a consortium led by Yong-Zhen Zhang of the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center & School of Public Health that posted the sequence on an open-access site, virological.org. The consortium said it had also deposited the sequence in GenBank..
Ralph Baric, a coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina..After downloading the sequence last night, his lab immediately began to try to reverse-engineer a live virus from the sequence.. “If you want to have a strong public health response, you have to do this quickly,” says Baric, who leads one of the few labs in the world that can re-create coronaviruses just from their sequences. (Bureaucratic hurdles would make it difficult for China to ship the actual virus quickly to other countries, he says.)
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/chinese-researchers-reveal-draft-genome-virus-implicated-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak

40% of first wave Covid cases caught in hospitals:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/12/40-per-cent-first-wave-covid-cases-could-have-caught-hospitals/

Mike Yeadon adds context to the vaccination question:
"For context to consideration of risks, I think it relevant to examine risks from flu & whether vaccination makes sense.
For both flu & covid19, risks of death rise steeply with age & underlying illness.
The line is steeper with covid19 than with flu. The effect of this is as age falls, the risks from covid falls faster than the risks from flu.
I think this is a reasonable position: those who aren’t at sufficient risk from flu to seek vaccination should not seek covid19 vaccination, because the risk for them from covid19 is lower than from flu. Yet they didn’t think of the flu risk was sufficiently great to warrant reducing it via vaccination.
I hope these ramblings are of interest, even if you disagree with them, which you’re wholly entitled to!
Best wishes, Mike"

Karl Popper's Falsification Principle: how to divide science from non-science. Science: For a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested (for medicine this means with evidence) and conceivably proven false. "The science" is only what could be proven false.

For Popper, science should always attempt to disprove a theory, rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses (eg that epidemiological modelling based on limited data & possibly flawed assumptions is a reflection of reality despite evidence to the contrary).

Scientific progress happens through proving theories wrong or partially wrong. The moment something is declared outside the boundaries of being able to be proved wrong (eg lockdowns, face masks & vaccines) then it is no longer science but a faith based set of unmovable beliefs.

The true scientist will always seek to find out how a PCR test can't possibly diagnose a disease, why cloth masks increase infections rather than decrease them, why lockdowns kill rather than save lives, why vaccines which skipped years of human trials can cause many deaths, etc

Because that is the only way in which scientific progress can be made: testing theories until the theories, or part of them, can be proved wrong and a new or modified theory is required to explain that aspect of reality, which in turn can be tested and improved. That is science.

Having an a priori position on vaccinations is an entirely faith based anti-scientific position. Anybody who declares themselves pro or anti-vaxx as a matter of principle is not endorsing science, but faith, in both cases. Vaccines can fail or succeed: testing does require years.

Anybody who calls a mRNA genetic editing intervention a vaccination is also not endorsing science, but marketing for human gene editing. Science always requires precision on all levels, including terminology.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1358547889400795139.html