A surgeon speaks out, re the covid farce

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
1

Ahmad K Malik is a long qualified consultant trauma and orthopaedic surgeon.

He’s written two intelligent articles for Conservative Woman (a site that has nothing to do with the Tory party) putting himself above the parapet with all that entails in the distopia that Britain and the west generally are sliding rapidly into, you could do worse than read them at your leisure.

part 1
conservativewoman.co.uk/cov … rofession/

part 2
conservativewoman.co.uk/cov … on-part-2/

Should give some an hour or two of fun :neutral_face: finding reasons to attack the author.

2

No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

3

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

Bearing in mind that you’d view nothing, that opposes or challenges the CCP backed government narrative, of natural zoonotic virus and safe and effective ‘vaccine’, as ‘accurate’.
It’s now an entrenched argument between the
perpetrators and supporters of this horrendous scam v it’s opponents.
The latter aren’t buying the lies that the former are selling us.
You know like natural zoonotic virus and safe and effective vaccine v bioengineered chimera pretext for a coerced gene therapy medication coup, for whatever nefarious reason, over a naive public.

4

Carryfast:
You know like natural zoonotic virus and safe and effective vaccine v bioengineered chimera pretext for a coerced gene therapy medication coup, for whatever nefarious reason, over a naive public.

Wow! That’s some good stuff you’re smoking, can you get me some? :laughing:

5

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

So fullfact [emoji849] are saying that he shouldn’t say that vaccinated are more likely to get COVID?
Not because they can prove that the vaccinated are less likely to catch COVID, but simply because it is “misleading” (in their opinion [emoji849])

6

stu675:

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

So fullfact [emoji849] are saying that he shouldn’t say that vaccinated are more likely to get COVID?
Not because they can prove that the vaccinated are less likely to catch COVID, but simply because it is “misleading” (in their opinion [emoji849])

Very confusing.
They are saying that his statements are not supported by the facts.

He could say that God exists because of…X and Y therefore God.

If it is shown that there is no X and Y, then clearly the statement is false.

That does not disprove the existence of God. It does disprove the initial statement.

And failure to disprove the existence of God, is not proof that she exists.

Put it another way.
He is talking provable nonsense. He is taking figures and misinterpreting them. That is shown.
He is pretending to speak with scientific veracity. He isn`t, provably so.

7

Juddian:
Ahmad K Malik
He’s written two intelligent articles for Conservative Woman (a site that has nothing you could do worse than read them at your leisure.

Admittedly not free to read, but for anyone interested in an author debunking myths in the scientific world, and whose arguments are not found to be questionable by his peers:

amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Be … 000728487X

EDIT: Goldacre’s book deals with disgraced former doctor, Andrew Wakefield, he of the MMR scandal shame.

I’m not saying that Mailk is as bad as Wakefield, but just to illustrates the importance of peer review in understanding what makes for good science - Malik having quoted a non-peer reviewed piece in support of his arguments, which makes his arguments, by default, questionable.

8

Franglais:

stu675:

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

So fullfact [emoji849] are saying that he shouldn’t say that vaccinated are more likely to get COVID?
Not because they can prove that the vaccinated are less likely to catch COVID, but simply because it is “misleading” (in their opinion [emoji849])

Very confusing.
They are saying that his statements are not supported by the facts.

He could say that God exists because of…X and Y therefore God.

If it is shown that there is no X and Y, then clearly the statement is false.

That does not disprove the existence of God. It does disprove the initial statement.

And failure to disprove the existence of God, is not proof that she exists.

Put it another way.
He is talking provable nonsense. He is taking figures and misinterpreting them. That is shown.
He is pretending to speak with scientific veracity. He isn`t, provably so.

It’s not provable nonsense and they have not disproved X and Y.

It’s all down to the population of unvaccinated. The population of vaccinated is known and the number of cases is known for vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you take a reasonable estimate of the population of unvaccinated people you come to the conclusion that the vaccinated are more likely to catch COVID. Fullfact are saying that the unvaccinated population is unknown, and cannot be estimated therefore his hypothesis is unproven, not that it is untrue.

9

Zac_A:

Carryfast:
You know like natural zoonotic virus and safe and effective vaccine v bioengineered chimera pretext for a coerced gene therapy medication coup, for whatever nefarious reason, over a naive public.

Wow! That’s some good stuff you’re smoking, can you get me some? :laughing:

You obviously believe a radical Communist Party narrative as to the origin of the anything but natural ‘virus’ and obviously the government’s narrative regarding the safe and effective anything but vaccine.
Good luck with that unquestioning belief comrade.

10

stu675:

Franglais:

stu675:

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

So fullfact [emoji849] are saying that he shouldn’t say that vaccinated are more likely to get COVID?
Not because they can prove that the vaccinated are less likely to catch COVID, but simply because it is “misleading” (in their opinion [emoji849])

Very confusing.
They are saying that his statements are not supported by the facts.

He could say that God exists because of…X and Y therefore God.

If it is shown that there is no X and Y, then clearly the statement is false.

That does not disprove the existence of God. It does disprove the initial statement.

And failure to disprove the existence of God, is not proof that she exists.

Put it another way.
He is talking provable nonsense. He is taking figures and misinterpreting them. That is shown.
He is pretending to speak with scientific veracity. He isn`t, provably so.

It’s not provable nonsense and they have not disproved X and Y.

It’s all down to the population of unvaccinated. The population of vaccinated is known and the number of cases is known for vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you take a reasonable estimate of the population of unvaccinated people you come to the conclusion that the vaccinated are more likely to catch COVID. Fullfact are saying that the unvaccinated population is unknown, and cannot be estimated therefore his hypothesis is unproven, not that it is untrue.

Unless all of the known population figures and records kept of the type and amount of shots of the gene therapy administered and to who, are all bent or fictititious, then full fact are obviously just full of lies.

11

stu675:

Franglais:

stu675:

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

So fullfact [emoji849] are saying that he shouldn’t say that vaccinated are more likely to get COVID?
Not because they can prove that the vaccinated are less likely to catch COVID, but simply because it is “misleading” (in their opinion [emoji849])

Very confusing.
They are saying that his statements are not supported by the facts.

He could say that God exists because of…X and Y therefore God.

If it is shown that there is no X and Y, then clearly the statement is false.

That does not disprove the existence of God. It does disprove the initial statement.

And failure to disprove the existence of God, is not proof that she exists.

Put it another way.
He is talking provable nonsense. He is taking figures and misinterpreting them. That is shown.
He is pretending to speak with scientific veracity. He isn`t, provably so.

It’s not provablenonsense and they have not disproved X and Y.

It’s all down to the population of unvaccinated. The population of vaccinated is known and the number of cases is known for vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you take a reasonable estimate of the population of unvaccinated people you come to the conclusion that the vaccinated are more likely to catch COVID. Fullfact are saying that the unvaccinated population is unknown, and cannot be estimated therefore his hypothesis is unproven, not that it is untrue.

If someone makes a statement based on zero evidence, I maintain that is nonsensical. It follows no logical path, it is based on nothing, and is therefore nonsense.
What he was stating was “based” on data that specifically warned against jumping to the conclusions he jumped to. That proves the nonsense of his stance.
It is nonsense to make those claims.

To the substance of his claims.
There has been a Cochrane study that shows his claims are wrong.
“Authors’ conclusions:
Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform”
cochrane.org/CD015477/EMERG … ing-covid-
19#:~:text=%E2%80%93%20Most%20vaccines%20reduce%2C%20or%20probably,and%20severe%20COVID%2D19%20disease.

So, it is provably nonsense to draw conclusions form data that specifically warns against that, and, the conclusions themselves are proven wrong.

12

Franglais:

stu675:

Franglais:

stu675:

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

So fullfact [emoji849] are saying that he shouldn’t say that vaccinated are more likely to get COVID?
Not because they can prove that the vaccinated are less likely to catch COVID, but simply because it is “misleading” (in their opinion [emoji849])

Very confusing.
They are saying that his statements are not supported by the facts.

He could say that God exists because of…X and Y therefore God.

If it is shown that there is no X and Y, then clearly the statement is false.

That does not disprove the existence of God. It does disprove the initial statement.

And failure to disprove the existence of God, is not proof that she exists.

Put it another way.
He is talking provable nonsense. He is taking figures and misinterpreting them. That is shown.
He is pretending to speak with scientific veracity. He isn`t, provably so.

It’s not provablenonsense and they have not disproved X and Y.

It’s all down to the population of unvaccinated. The population of vaccinated is known and the number of cases is known for vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you take a reasonable estimate of the population of unvaccinated people you come to the conclusion that the vaccinated are more likely to catch COVID. Fullfact are saying that the unvaccinated population is unknown, and cannot be estimated therefore his hypothesis is unproven, not that it is untrue.

If someone makes a statement based on zero evidence, I maintain that is nonsensical. It follows no logical path, it is based on nothing, and is therefore nonsense.
What he was stating was “based” on data that specifically warned against jumping to the conclusions he jumped to. That proves the nonsense of his stance.
It is nonsense to make those claims.

To the substance of his claims.
There has been a Cochrane study that shows his claims are wrong.
“Authors’ conclusions:
Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform”
cochrane.org/CD015477/EMERG … ing-covid-
19#:~:text=%E2%80%93%20Most%20vaccines%20reduce%2C%20or%20probably,and%20severe%20COVID%2D19%20disease.

So, it is provably nonsense to draw conclusions form data that specifically warns against that, and, the conclusions themselves are proven wrong.

So let me get this right? you are publicly stating that any estimate of the total UK population is “nonsense”?
That that is an unknowable figure?

13

stu675:
So let me get this right? you are publicly stating that any estimate of the total UK population is “nonsense”?
That that is an unknowable figure?

? No

14

Carryfast:

Zac_A:

Carryfast:
You know like natural zoonotic virus and safe and effective vaccine v bioengineered chimera pretext for a coerced gene therapy medication coup, for whatever nefarious reason, over a naive public.

Wow! That’s some good stuff you’re smoking, can you get me some? :laughing:

You obviously believe a radical Communist Party narrative as to the origin of the anything but natural ‘virus’ and obviously the government’s narrative regarding the safe and effective anything but vaccine.
Good luck with that unquestioning belief comrade.

Really good stuff you’re smoking… Not that it matters but I’m about as far from a communist as you can get. But then, your pan-dimensional version of reality is always very different than mine, and most other people on these boards.

15

Franglais:

stu675:
So let me get this right? you are publicly stating that any estimate of the total UK population is “nonsense”?
That that is an unknowable figure?

? No

Great. So you have 4 numbers that you know. Cases with and without jabs and the relative population of those groups. And they can’t prove that jabs reduce the chance of becoming a case, that leaves a reasonable supposition that jabs increase the chance of catching COVID.

16

stu675:

Franglais:

stu675:
So let me get this right? you are publicly stating that any estimate of the total UK population is “nonsense”?
That that is an unknowable figure?

? No

Great. So you have 4 numbers that you know. Cases with and without jabs and the relative population of those groups. And they can’t prove that jabs reduce the chance of becoming a case, that leaves a reasonable supposition that jabs increase the chance of catching COVID.

The Cochrane Study shows that any such assumption is wrong.

FullFact also show (follow all the underlined links) the reason why Malik was wrong to make any such assumptions in the first place.
I won`t repeat here what they have done better than I could.

After following those links and that trail of evidence consider this too:
The data used by Malik says do not draw such conclusions from this set.
Yet he simultaneously cited the data and chose to ignore part of it!
Hardly ethical/honest/sensible at all IMHO.

17

Carryfast:

Zac_A:

Carryfast:
You know like natural zoonotic virus and safe and effective vaccine v bioengineered chimera pretext for a coerced gene therapy medication coup, for whatever nefarious reason, over a naive public.

Wow! That’s some good stuff you’re smoking, can you get me some? :laughing:

You obviously believe a radical Communist Party narrative as to the origin of the anything but natural ‘virus’ and obviously the government’s narrative regarding the safe and effective anything but vaccine.
Good luck with that unquestioning belief comrade.

Nothing to do with “radical communism” (can you defime what that is?) Its medical not politics.

18

Franglais:

stu675:
So let me get this right? you are publicly stating that any estimate of the total UK population is “nonsense”?
That that is an unknowable figure?

? No

I don’t know where “total UK population” came into it, we have census date to answer that question, probably best to stick to looking at the Key Messages of that Cochrane report:

Key messages

– Most vaccines reduce, or probably reduce, the number of people who get COVID-19 disease and severe COVID-19 disease.

Makes sense

– Many vaccines likely increase number of people experiencing events such as fever or headache compared to placebo (sham vaccine that contains no medicine but looks identical to the vaccine being tested). This is expected because these events are mainly due to the body’s response to the vaccine; they are usually mild and short-term.

Yes, any parent knows that when their kids get a vaccine they often feel a bit off afterwards

– Many vaccines have little or no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events compared to placebo.

That bit is worthy of further reading

– There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the vaccine and placebo in terms of death because the numbers of deaths were low in the trials.

Of course, any trial or experiment has it’s limitations, so these authors aren’t going to stick their necks out unnecessarily

– Most trials assessed vaccine efficacy over a short time, and did not evaluate efficacy to the COVID variants of concern.

Again basically the same message that the trials are limited in scope, and they didn’t look at the variants that were of most concern health-wise, so (sensibly) they’re not going to try extrapolating data too far.

19

Franglais:
No need to “attack the Dr.”

What he has written previously on Covid is far from reliable or accurate.
fullfact.org/online/gb-news-sur … -vaccines/

Only the Liberal Left of politics come to the defence of a serious public concern like this eh?

Hear another truth, proven truth?

Let’s shoot it down in flames, de-bunk it, report it as “mis-information”, back up the liars, and do anything BAR “Sit up and bloody well listen” to an actual doctor trying to un-do the harm deliberately done by others in the same profession - Motive? - “Narrative”.

“Proof” has clearly died.
This can only end up with one set of “Truth deniers” hoping that their enemies perish before the backlash comes and gets them…

Maybe the most prosperous citizens of the future - will be those who do their own research, and stop taking the word of those in authority as anything but the “organized lies” that “Word” has always been…

“In the Beginning - was the Word.”

There is a serious attempt in place to rig the Turkish election, as the West want Erdogan gone, and replaced by their Center Left pick to unlock the Turkish NATO personnel that Erdogan has thus far refused to deploy against Russian targets in the Black Sea…

Erdogan is a serious political player though. He’s already “Disappeared” around 2500 of his own past jucidary that tried to stop him a decade ago
I don’t hold much faith in a few renegade actors trying to insert the DNC vote Rig in Turkey, but having said that,
already we see Election Night turn into Election WEEK - have we not?

What’s the betting that Erdogan is intended to “Just lose”, by 51% to the other guy to 49 point something percent to Erdogan…?
Didn’t work in Belarus - antidote is to disallow all votes coming in from overseas, thus dis-enfranchising the cheaters outright.

Keir Starmer wants to inplement the same DNC Vote Rig by his own admission:
give the vote to non-uk citizens, and make up any winning election results you like from then on…
It’ll be impossible for the Non-Right to win an election ever again IF we accept this attempted outrage! :astonished: :open_mouth:

No way am I voting Labour at the next election! :frowning: