A retired neurosurgeon tells the truth about the Covid pandemic

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Adding on the above comment.
The CFR is not a good indicator eventhough it describes the ratio of deaths to the actual confirmed cases.

The IFR is the most important from all and much harder to estimate as it describes the ratio of deaths to the total number of infected individuals.
The use of statistics play an importany role in determining the IFR. Surveillance and seroprevalence data mainly.

Seroprevalence is the analysis of blood borne factors of disease in blood bank samples.

For diseases that aren't blood borne, these factors would not be particularly clear indicators.

Also, how much seroprevalence data do we have from 1918 or even the following decade of the 1920's?

In 1918, they couldn't genotype a pathogen. They definitely couldn't see a virus under an optical microscope. Electron microscopy and X-ray crystallography were half a century in the future. And there's no way that they could preserve biological samples from then, so that we could assay them with modern technology.

The only way they could define a disease at the time, was symptomatically - which gets back to actual cases under clinical care.

They could count cases by symptoms, and death of a patient is fairly obvious.

They usually did keep quite meticulous notes about hospitalized patients in 1918, but Florence Nightingale hadn't even been born then, so it was nowhere near as systematic or rigorous as modern medicine.

That is why CFR is a good measure and IFR is a guess, especially so for the 1918 flu.

Here goes again a refuted argument!

CFR isn't good at all.
IFR is what you are looking for. Which is much harder to estimate.

So, how many cases, worldwide, were there of the 1918 flu?

Even the death estimates from the 1918 flu over three years (something fairly easy to identify) vary from 17 million to 100 million. That's a big discrepancy. Now apply the same sort of error ratios to the estimated range of infection. Even as an estimate, it is fairly dubious.

What it does show is that both the numerator and the denominator in IFR estimates are wildly inaccurate. And therefore not a trust-able value.

But we do have a far more accurate and trust-able number in the CFR. Especially when most of the people who died from the 1918 flu, who had it seriously enough to cause death, would have been hospitalized. Ditto for COVID-19 patients.

I understand that for epidemiology, under modern conditions, IFR is important. But how much mathematical epidemiology existed in 1918?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Adding on the above comment.
The CFR is not a good indicator eventhough it describes the ratio of deaths to the actual confirmed cases.

The IFR is the most important from all and much harder to estimate as it describes the ratio of deaths to the total number of infected individuals.
The use of statistics play an importany role in determining the IFR. Surveillance and seroprevalence data mainly.

Seroprevalence is the analysis of blood borne factors of disease in blood bank samples.

For diseases that aren't blood borne, these factors would not be particularly clear indicators.

Also, how much seroprevalence data do we have from 1918 or even the following decade of the 1920's?

In 1918, they couldn't genotype a pathogen. They definitely couldn't see a virus under an optical microscope. Electron microscopy and X-ray crystallography were half a century in the future. And there's no way that they could preserve biological samples from then, so that we could assay them with modern technology.

The only way they could define a disease at the time, was symptomatically - which gets back to actual cases under clinical care.

They could count cases by symptoms, and death of a patient is fairly obvious.

They usually did keep quite meticulous notes about hospitalized patients in 1918, but Florence Nightingale hadn't even been born then, so it was nowhere near as systematic or rigorous as modern medicine.

That is why CFR is a good measure and IFR is a guess, especially so for the 1918 flu.

Here goes again a refuted argument!

CFR isn't good at all.
IFR is what you are looking for. Which is much harder to estimate.

So, how many cases, worldwide, were there of the 1918 flu?

Even the death estimates from the 1918 flu over three years (something fairly easy to identify) vary from 17 million to 100 million. That's a big discrepancy. Now apply the same sort of error ratios to the estimated range of infection. Even as an estimate, it is fairly dubious.

What it does show is that both the numerator and the denominator in IFR estimates are wildly inaccurate. And therefore not a trust-able value.

But we do have a far more accurate and trust-able number in the CFR. Especially when most of the people who died from the 1918 flu, who had it seriously enough to cause death, would have been hospitalized. Ditto for COVID-19 patients.

I understand that for epidemiology, under modern conditions, IFR is important. But how much mathematical epidemiology existed in 1918?

That's not what is used in epidemiology though regardless of your opinion. The CFR is a poor representation of how infectious and virulent a disease is.

The Spanish Flu has a good estimated IFR which is at least 10%

www.cdc.gov...


The estimation is given by the CDC and it's the most acceptable one.

50 million died and 500 million infected.

originally posted by: Thrumbo
a reply to: ColeYounger

6.5 million people died from covid-19 globally,

The majority - probably the vast majority - were murdered by the deliberately inadequate and imposed covid protocols, not the virus or even pr their co-morbidities.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

somehow these people dont understand 50 million is MORE than 6.5 million.....

Somehow, some people don't understand that most people who died from diseases - whether classified as a pandemic, or not - prior to modern times did so due to complications arising from extremely poor sanitary conditions, not from the bug itself.

*sighs*

they read a webpage they dont understand, without thinking about any of the information what so ever.

Agreed - and all of the studies relied on to define and push the agendas of 'the establishment' are totally bogus, especially those funded by big pharma and/or the medical establishment.

This is basically how so many people got shot up with a untested drug and are now a guinea pig in a world wide experiment.

Yup...

I don't know how I missed this when it was originally released...

I gotta say that this guy has put forth one of the most inclusive and complete indictments of the medical establishment I have ever seen. He lays the case out in a way that would make any prosecuting attorney proud.

Bravo!