Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Interesting interview with Dr Mike Yeadon

Options
24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 39,516 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    speckle wrote: »
    Mike Yeadon has recently retired but has worked for decades within science as you can see from his bio and is absolutely a respected expert no matter if you disagree with his views on covid. And should at least be heard and not silenced.

    Nah, absolute bollíx, he is one of these clowns who think it's all a scam, dangerous fúcking muppetery like that needs to be stamped out and called out, it will only lead to people getting sick and potentially worse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    And as an aside covid is technically an infectious disease but as it grew into a global pandemic many different experts are needed with all their advice in their specialitys put together... virologists,immunoligists, infectious disease .. epidemiologists.. biochemists.. intesivenists...respiratory and cardiac specialists...public health...pathologists..pharmacologists etc etc
    It is taking a village to sort this out... there is no one singular covid expert... a covidologists.. well maybe not yet...

    Excuse the spelling an awful lot of ologists


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭Caraibh


    Boggles wrote: »
    Nah, absolute bollíx, he is one of these clowns who think it's all a scam, dangerous fúcking muppetery like that needs to be stamped out and called out, it will only lead to people getting sick and potentially worse.

    Can you explain the following on www.gov.uk:

    "As of March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK."

    The above has not been revised since March.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    speckle wrote: »
    Mike Yeadon as a scientist may not be what the average person thinks an immunologist might be ie. a hospital specialist immunologist that deals with patients.
    Please see the below as many bio medical degrees including bio chemistry etc are accepted by the British society for immunology.

    I know in Ireland when I was at university there was no stand alone degree in immunology that I remember and less than 5 specialists in this country in all the hospitals put together but many more researching it in academia or working in the pharma industry with a variety of undergrad degrees as starting points in their careers. In fact the waiting list was up to 4 years to get an appointment via public health.

    https://www.immunology.org/careers/studying-immunology-undergraduate-level

    They link to here were his first class hons degree would sit as a bio chemist and toxiologist.

    https://careers.ibms.org/discover-biomedical-science/what-is-biomedical-science/

    Like many sciences the more the science evolves pathways are divided into more specialist areas with some over lap.

    Mike Yeadon has recently retired but has worked for decades within science as you can see from his bio and is absolutely a respected expert no matter if you disagree with his views on covid. And should at least be heard and not silenced.

    I dont think there would be room enough in the thread title to list all his titles and expertise but you could try it might actually be more impressive?

    There is no standard degree in Quantum Mechanics either. Generally studied as part of a BSc. During college I did a quantum mechanics module but am certainly not Richard Feynman or can I claim to have an understanding of anything but the very basics.

    None of Yeadons experience is in immunology, and any claim of expertise in immunology is not based in anything


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Caraibh wrote: »
    Yes, but some factchecker tried to argue that what he said wasn't actually what he said, if you can believe it. This is how ridiculous this whole thing has become.

    Some people check their sources. It appears the Dr Hodgkindon is CEO of a company called malpractice check. Ambulance chasers headed by a doctor as opposed to a lawyer it seems


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Caraibh wrote: »
    Can you explain the following on www.gov.uk:

    "As of March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK."

    The above has not been revised since March.

    This sh*te has been in circulation since March among those deliberately spreading misinformation

    Check your bullsh*t before you post it

    https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-hcid/


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,150 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Some people check their sources. It appears the Dr Hodgkindon is CEO of a company called malpractice check. Ambulance chasers headed by a doctor as opposed to a lawyer it seems

    Hodgkinson is "President" of a organisation that hasn't existed in over 25 years. The thumbnail is the first piece of shìte in the vid before you hit play :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    This sh*te has been in circulation since March among those deliberately spreading misinformation

    Check your bullsh*t before you post it

    https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-hcid/
    I would let people read that fact check in full as I think it is not what you say eithet.

    Covid-19 may not be a “high consequence infectious disease”, but it is a real emergency
    29 May 2020
    What was claimed

    The UK government no longer considers Covid-19 to be a “high consequence infectious disease”.
    Our verdict

    This is true, because it no longer meets the criteria for an HCID. This doesn’t mean that it is no longer considered dangerous.

    Several Facebook posts have shared a screenshot from a UK government website, which says that Covid-19 is no longer considered a “high consequence infectious diseases” [sic]. Some readers have also asked us whether this is true.

    Despite the misprinted “s”, which might typically be a red flag indicating a fake website, this screenshot does come from the UK government (although the typo has since been corrected). It is also true that Public Health England no longer considers Covid-19 a high consequence infectious disease (HCID).

    Some Facebook comments say that if Covid-19 is not considered a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) then the current lockdown is based on a “hoax”. This is a misunderstanding of what the HCID label means.
    What is an HCID?

    Covid-19 was first classified as an HCID in the UK on 16 January 2020, when it was still known as the “Wuhan novel coronavirus”. HCIDs are serious diseases that sometimes arrive in the UK from other countries, and have the potential to spread domestically. As a result, the NHS and other European health services have made plans to identify and respond to them.

    According to the UK government’s definition, an HCID has several features. Among them are the fact that it “typically has a high case-fatality rate” and is “often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly”. There are currently 16 diseases listed as HCIDs, including Ebola, SARS, MERS, monkeypox, plague and four severe strains of bird flu.

    The case fatality rate for these diseases—meaning the proportion of confirmed cases who then die—is high. For Ebola it is about 50%, SARS about 15%, and monkeypox up to 11%. Even a small outbreak of these diseases could potentially kill many people.

    For example, if roughly half the population (out of 66 million in the UK) caught a disease with a 1% case fatality rate, it would result in 300,000 deaths. For comparison, 541,589 deaths were recorded across the UK in 2018 from all causes.
    Why was Covid-19 declassified as an HCID?

    Explaining why Covid-19 is no longer an HCID, the UK government says: “Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.”

    The note says that the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, a group of independent experts that advises the government, also believed that “COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID”.

    This does not mean the current Covid-19 outbreak is not a serious public health emergency, however. Even though the risk of dying from the disease is low for most people, it has been shown that the disease can spread quickly to a large number of people, and therefore cause a large number of deaths in total.
    How dangerous is Covid-19?

    In January 2020, when Covid-19 was a very new disease, it was not known what proportion of the people who caught it would die.

    At the time, it was possible that Covid-19 might have proven to be a disease with a high case fatality rate, like the other HCIDs. This was when Covid-19 (or the “Wuhan novel coronavirus”) was added to the HCID list.

    Covid-19 is still a new disease, but a great deal was learned about it between January and March. The case fatality rate remains a matter of debate among scientists, and will vary in different places, according to the quality of care available, the underlying health of the population, and many other factors.

    However, several estimates in March put the rate a little above 1%, based on data from mainland China and from the Diamond Princess cruise ship. It is important to remember that this represents only the proportion of confirmed cases which result in the patient dying. If there are many unconfirmed Covid-19 deaths the proportion will be higher. If there are many unconfirmed Covid-19 cases, the proportion will be lower.

    In any event, Covid-19 does now appear to have a much lower case fatality rate than the other diseases on the HCID list. It is also now much easier to identify, with greater testing capacity than there was in January.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    speckle wrote: »
    I would let people read that fact check in full as I think it is not what you say eithet.

    Covid-19 may not be a “high consequence infectious disease”, but it is a real emergency
    29 May 2020
    What was claimed

    The UK government no longer considers Covid-19 to be a “high consequence infectious disease”.
    Our verdict

    This is true, because it no longer meets the criteria for an HCID. This doesn’t mean that it is no longer considered dangerous.

    Several Facebook posts have shared a screenshot from a UK government website, which says that Covid-19 is no longer considered a “high consequence infectious diseases” [sic]. Some readers have also asked us whether this is true.

    Despite the misprinted “s”, which might typically be a red flag indicating a fake website, this screenshot does come from the UK government (although the typo has since been corrected). It is also true that Public Health England no longer considers Covid-19 a high consequence infectious disease (HCID).

    Some Facebook comments say that if Covid-19 is not considered a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) then the current lockdown is based on a “hoax”. This is a misunderstanding of what the HCID label means.
    What is an HCID?

    Covid-19 was first classified as an HCID in the UK on 16 January 2020, when it was still known as the “Wuhan novel coronavirus”. HCIDs are serious diseases that sometimes arrive in the UK from other countries, and have the potential to spread domestically. As a result, the NHS and other European health services have made plans to identify and respond to them.

    According to the UK government’s definition, an HCID has several features. Among them are the fact that it “typically has a high case-fatality rate” and is “often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly”. There are currently 16 diseases listed as HCIDs, including Ebola, SARS, MERS, monkeypox, plague and four severe strains of bird flu.

    The case fatality rate for these diseases—meaning the proportion of confirmed cases who then die—is high. For Ebola it is about 50%, SARS about 15%, and monkeypox up to 11%. Even a small outbreak of these diseases could potentially kill many people.

    For example, if roughly half the population (out of 66 million in the UK) caught a disease with a 1% case fatality rate, it would result in 300,000 deaths. For comparison, 541,589 deaths were recorded across the UK in 2018 from all causes.
    Why was Covid-19 declassified as an HCID?

    Explaining why Covid-19 is no longer an HCID, the UK government says: “Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.”

    The note says that the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, a group of independent experts that advises the government, also believed that “COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID”.

    This does not mean the current Covid-19 outbreak is not a serious public health emergency, however. Even though the risk of dying from the disease is low for most people, it has been shown that the disease can spread quickly to a large number of people, and therefore cause a large number of deaths in total.
    How dangerous is Covid-19?

    In January 2020, when Covid-19 was a very new disease, it was not known what proportion of the people who caught it would die.

    At the time, it was possible that Covid-19 might have proven to be a disease with a high case fatality rate, like the other HCIDs. This was when Covid-19 (or the “Wuhan novel coronavirus”) was added to the HCID list.

    Covid-19 is still a new disease, but a great deal was learned about it between January and March. The case fatality rate remains a matter of debate among scientists, and will vary in different places, according to the quality of care available, the underlying health of the population, and many other factors.

    However, several estimates in March put the rate a little above 1%, based on data from mainland China and from the Diamond Princess cruise ship. It is important to remember that this represents only the proportion of confirmed cases which result in the patient dying. If there are many unconfirmed Covid-19 deaths the proportion will be higher. If there are many unconfirmed Covid-19 cases, the proportion will be lower.

    In any event, Covid-19 does now appear to have a much lower case fatality rate than the other diseases on the HCID list. It is also now much easier to identify, with greater testing capacity than there was in January.

    People who post that selective interpretation as in the earlier post are either engaged in deliberate misrepresentation or are ignorant patsys of those propagandists spreading the misrepresentation. So Covid is not Ebola, fair enough , but the talk track being peddled is designed to deliberately downplay through complete misrepresentation. Worse than blatant lying for me


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    Which is why I posted the whole fact check so neither extremes can misintreprate it and everyone else can read it and make up their own minds.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    Panthro wrote: »


    Interesting listen to a Dr Hodkinson talking at Edmonton city Council.


    "Masks are utterly useless " ....followed shortly after by......... "They are not even worn effectively most of the time"

    When he is contradicting himself then he cannot expect the rest of us to pay much heed to him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,684 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    "Masks are utterly useless " ....followed shortly after by......... "They are not even worn effectively most of the time"

    When he is contradicting himself then he cannot expect the rest of us to pay much heed to him.

    Ah tbf, you don't have to stray too far down the shopping aisle before you come across some gnome with their nose peeking out over the mask!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭Caraibh


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Hodgkinson is "President" of a organisation that hasn't existed in over 25 years. The thumbnail is the first piece of shìte in the vid before you hit play :pac:

    His credentials:

    General practitioner in the UK and Canada
    Staff pathologist at the Misericordia Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta
    Pathologist with the Medical Examiner’s Office in Edmonton determining the cause of death
    Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Alberta
    President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians
    Chairman of a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa
    CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta

    Are you suggesting he is another doctor who can be added to the list of thousands of doctors and scientists who disagree with WHO and who, as a result, now know nothing?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭Caraibh


    This sh*te has been in circulation since March among those deliberately spreading misinformation

    Check your bullsh*t before you post it

    https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-hcid/

    Your fact check doesn't change the fact that it's no longer considered a high consequence infectious disease. When did I say it wasn't serious? I simply pointed out that it's not considered to be a high consequence infectious disease in Britain. I don't know what the misinformation is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,150 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Caraibh wrote: »
    His credentials:

    General practitioner in the UK and Canada
    Staff pathologist at the Misericordia Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta
    Pathologist with the Medical Examiner’s Office in Edmonton determining the cause of death
    Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Alberta
    President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians
    Chairman of a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa
    CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta

    Are you suggesting he is another doctor who can be added to the list of thousands of doctors and scientists who disagree with WHO and who, as a result, now know nothing?

    He may aswell call himself President of Hogwarts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭Caraibh


    pjohnson wrote: »
    He may aswell call himself President of Hogwarts.

    And his other qualifications since you don't think much of that particular one?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Caraibh wrote: »
    And his other qualifications since you don't think much of that particular one?

    Look what is job is now - crank for hire basically. You want rebuttal evidence or "medical" opinion for you claim, for the right price Roger will provide

    https://westernmedical.ca/our-services/

    Any none of this qualifies him in any way in infectious diseases, epidemiology or immunology.

    People really should check their sources. I am sure you may be able to find suitability qualified people to support this case, however the parade of charlatans that are generally rolled out are just too easy to refute


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,516 ✭✭✭✭Boggles



    People really should check their sources.

    The sources are grifters peddling lies to weak minds for money.

    I doubt the ability to fact check is there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭Caraibh


    Look what is job is now - crank for hire basically. You want rebuttal evidence or "medical" opinion for you claim, for the right price Roger will provide

    https://westernmedical.ca/our-services/

    Any none of this qualifies him in any way in infectious diseases, epidemiology or immunology.

    People really should check their sources. I am sure you may be able to find suitability qualified people to support this case, however the parade of charlatans that are generally rolled out are just too easy to refute

    And his other qualifications? Not his current job. Are his other qualifications impressive?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Boggles wrote: »
    The sources are grifters peddling lies to weak minds for money.

    I doubt the ability to fact check is there.

    In this case its true, but there are some eminently qualified people with positions that are not aligned with the prevailing view. They may be wrong but dismissing their opinions outright actually gives credence to those spreading the theories of the Dr. Nick Rivieras who are coming out of the woodwork. Instead you focus on the body of well thought out opinion that refutes their point. Then when you do call out the grifters for that they are, the weak minded cant just say "well you call everyone a loon"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,516 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    In this case its true, but there are some eminently qualified people with positions that are not aligned with the prevailing view. They may be wrong but dismissing their opinions outright actually gives credence to those spreading the theories of the Dr. Nick Rivieras who are coming out of the woodwork. Instead you focus on the body of well thought out opinion that refutes their point. Then when you do call out the grifters for that they are, the weak minded cant just say "well you call everyone a loon"

    Nah, that grace period is well and truly past. Time to call out the dangerous charlatans for what they are.

    And TBH short of putting some straw down in a room and pointing, no amount of reality will change the weak minded at this stage.

    I have yet to see a conspiracy theorist turn around and go, "you know I have been talking absolute scutter thanks raind."

    You think that is a "unique" account you are conversing with?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,035 ✭✭✭Elmer Blooker


    In this case its true, but there are some eminently qualified people with positions that are not aligned with the prevailing view. They may be wrong but dismissing their opinions outright actually gives credence to those spreading the theories of the Dr. Nick Rivieras who are coming out of the woodwork. Instead you focus on the body of well thought out opinion that refutes their point. Then when you do call out the grifters for that they are, the weak minded cant just say "well you call everyone a loon"
    I wonder why I immediately thought of the former German Democratic Republic when I read the bit I've highlighted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,098 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Former Top Pfizer Scientist Michael Yeadon Claims COVID Vaccines May Cause Infertility In Women

    https://christiansfortruth.com/former-top-pfizer-scientist-michael-yeadon-claims-covid-vaccines-may-cause-infertility-in-women/

    Now before anyone decides to play the man not the ball, debunk the story not Mike.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,516 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Former Top Pfizer Scientist Michael Yeadon Claims COVID Vaccines May Cause Infertility In Women

    https://christiansfortruth.com/former-top-pfizer-scientist-michael-yeadon-claims-covid-vaccines-may-cause-infertility-in-women/

    Now before anyone decides to play the man not the ball, debunk the story not Mike.

    Raind.

    I rest my case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭Caraibh


    Boggles wrote: »
    The sources are grifters peddling lies to weak minds for money.

    I doubt the ability to fact check is there.

    https://www.youtube.com/

    I read the other day that fact checkers are being sued in Germany by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg as part of a defamation lawsuit. The fact checkers, according to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, accused Dr Wodarg of lying when he said that the PCR tests were unreliable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭the kelt


    Boggles wrote: »
    Nah, that grace period is well and truly past. Time to call out the dangerous charlatans for what they are.

    And TBH short of putting some straw down in a room and pointing, no amount of reality will change the weak minded at this stage.

    I have yet to see a conspiracy theorist turn around and go, "you know I have been talking absolute scutter thanks raind."

    You think that is a "unique" account you are conversing with?

    The point Raind is making you are missing though.

    Sure there are some conspiracy wacky theories out there but the view amongst some that anything thats not totally aligned with the prevailing view should be just dismissed straight away even if it does come from eminently qualified people isnt helpful and gives credence to the more wacky views.

    When alternative views are proven to be correct those that dismissed them make them and others more relevant. Not everything alternatiuve view comes from a loon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,516 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    the kelt wrote: »
    The point Raind is making you are missing though.

    Sure there are some conspiracy wacky theories out there but the view amongst some that anything thats not totally aligned with the prevailing view should be just dismissed straight away even if it does come from eminently qualified people isnt helpful and gives credence to the more wacky views.

    When alternative views are proven to be correct those that dismissed them make them and others more relevant. Not everything alternatiuve view comes from a loon.

    I'm not missing any point thanks, it's not the first time I have this debate with Raind.

    The ship has sailed, I don't care how qualified one loon may be, if he / she is spouting absolute dangerous nonsense that in all likelyhood will get people sick or worse, then at this stage of the pandemic starving of them of oxygen is the prudent route.

    Bringing that dribble into the mainstream would be counter productive.

    But like I said, you think a robust debate will change their minds and they will stop spouting nonsense?

    No, that hasn't happened or won't happen at this stage.

    I said 6 months ago, the next port is to undermine the vaccines, it has started.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭the kelt


    Boggles wrote: »
    I'm not missing any point thanks, it's not the first time I have this debate with Raind.

    The ship has sailed, I don't care how qualified one loon may be, if he / she is spouting absolute dangerous nonsense that in all likelyhood will get people sick or worse, then at this stage of the pandemic starving of them of oxygen is the prudent route.

    Bringing that dribble into the mainstream would be counter productive.

    But like I said, you think a robust debate will change their minds and they will stop spouting nonsense?

    No, that hasn't happened or won't happen at this stage.

    I said 6 months ago, the next port is to undermine the vaccines, it has started.

    So any alternative view no matter how small that view is or different is once it goes against the narrative the person stating it is a loon?

    Fair enough!


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,516 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    the kelt wrote: »
    So any alternative view no matter how small that view is or different is once it goes against the narrative the person stating it is a loon?

    Fair enough!

    No, obviously not. You just contrarily went extreme.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I wonder why I immediately thought of the former German Democratic Republic when I read the bit I've highlighted.

    Because that's what people see when they look for conspiracy.

    In the GDR the actual scenario was, the Central committed decided what was in the interests of the Party , and the prevailing view was only considered when that aligned with the Party interest. Otherwise all views whether in the majority or the dissenting view were suppressed


Advertisement