Further to last Saturday’s posting, as well as Leo Hohmann’s Behind the Vaccine Veil: Doctor Cites Whistle-blowers Inside CDC….. about the most highly cited physician on early treatment of CV-19, Dr Peter McCullough, published on 21 June there’s another item of the ‘Summer Solstice’ I’ve been wanting to quote.
It’s about the so-called ‘scientist’ – more-likely, charlatan – who’s prone to making very misleading assumptions which fool ignorant politicians. Taking Telegraph headlines in chronological order this time:
Matt Ridley continues (emphases mine),
‘This keeps happening. In April the modellers assumed a 30 per cent effectiveness for the vaccine at preventing the spread of the virus. This was described as “a pessimistic view – but it is plausible, it’s not extreme”, by Professor Graham Medley, chairman of the SPI-M sub-group of Sage. It turns out it was far from plausible. At the end of March the BBC’s favourite modeller, Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson, was forecasting that by June 21, even with “optimistic” assumptions, less than half of Britain would be protected against severe disease by vaccination. The true figure is over 80 per cent of those aged 18 and over that have been vaccinated at least once.
‘This is the same Professor Ferguson who told us in the 1990s that thousands might die of mad-cow disease. The correct number, as it turned out, was 178.’
These HUGE repetitive mistakes beg the question, ‘Who’s the real mad cow?’
“Nearly two decades ago, Professor Philip Thomas of Bristol University got the death toll from mad-cow disease right – “a few hundred”, he said – and was pilloried for his optimism. He told an inquiry that “the Government’s continued inability to give proper consideration to the spectrum of scientific opinion… must be a cause for major concern. It is clear that those tasked with devising policy – ministers and civil servants – need to adopt a more critical attitude to the scientific advice they are offered, even when that advice comes from one of their advisory bodies.” That warning was ignored.’
This and all previous information gave rise to the editorial shown in the first part of this posting, viz: