A shockingly dishonest article by COVID propagandist
@galexybrane claiming:
• IFR only 0.15%
• U.S excess mortality in 2017 greater than 2020
• Covid deaths overreported ("with" not "from" nonsense)
• PCR conspiracy nonsense
• "Lockdown deaths" nonsensehttps://twitter.com/tabletmag/status/1409511910530183171 …
-
Show this thread
-
I could spend hours debunking the entire disgraceful piece, the deceptive cherry-picked dishonesty by omission (not mentioning how child mortality & suicides dropped, how missed cancer treatments occurred worldwide, regardless of policy, etc) but this isn't worthy of my time.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
@numbers_truth is she accurate when she claims excess deaths in 2017 were greater than 2020?@greg_travis &@AtomsksSanakan was she telling the truth about the .15 IFR?@GidMK how about her PCR claims? This might be a good one for you to debunk. I'm simply tired of these tropes4 replies 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @thereal_truther @numbers_truth and
At a very basic level, the studies cited there generally do not support the assertions made. As one tiny example, the IFR for the US from the study that is cited is 0.3-0.4%, not 0.15%
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @thereal_truther and
The PCR thing is a piece of bizarre debunked pseudoscience with no factual basis whatsoever - presumably this is a conspiracist website of some sort?
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @thereal_truther and
Would you please point me to a debunk of the PCR thing?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @friesdan @thereal_truther and
Health Nerd Retweeted ɪᴀɴ ᴍ. ᴍᴀᴄᴋᴀʏ, ᴘʜᴅ 🦠 🤧 🧬 🥼 🦟 🧻 🧙♂️
@MackayIM wrote a good one a while back specific to the Drosten stuffhttps://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1336499850586718208?s=20 …Health Nerd added,
ɪᴀɴ ᴍ. ᴍᴀᴄᴋᴀʏ, ᴘʜᴅ 🦠 🤧 🧬 🥼 🦟 🧻 🧙♂️Verified account @MackayIMThat website opinion attack piece on the Corman/Drosten RT-rPCR tests has a few confused & sometimes very wrong comments. I'll preface this thread with a *presumption* I'm making - these authors haven't worked on or with this test themselves. And that matters a lot if true.Show this thread3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @thereal_truther and
The main criticism of Drosten I remember from hearing
@Kevin_McKernan talk about it was a lack of control for swab/sample size - which would come from comparing human genetic material signal to the viral signal. Not addressed here - A shame there's a communication block.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Let me put it this way - the argument is a bit of a nothing regardless, because Drosten was just one paper anyway. We developed several tests locally in Australia. It's a complete non-sequitur spread by disingenuous denialists
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @thereal_truther and
I know it doesn't apply in the US either, where I am. But my understanding is that a significant percentage of the European tests were based on Drosten, and lacked this control. Is that incorrect?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @friesdan @thereal_truther and
No idea, haven't checked every country in the world. Sounds like nonsense though, especially given that most of the objections raised about Drosten's paper were factually mistaken
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.