1. Alexander asks a very good question which requires a thread to answer.
2. When #COVID19 first struck in 2020 we applied causal probabilistic models to better understand & explain the data (it's what we do) & were influenced only by academic findings. In fact, we initially concluded that widespread random testing was needed theconversation.com/coronavirus-co…
3. We published articles in peer reviewed journals about this and related issues on infection and fatality rates that were not considered 'contraversial' doi.org/10.1080/136698…
4. However, in autumn 2020 it became clear there was a political agenda behind the data that was presented publicly and also that the widespread testing (something we'd recommended) was problematic because of flaws in the PCR test: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2020/10/why-we…
5. The massive increase in testing and equating positive test results with 'cases' was used to support lockdowns - for which there was clearly no quantitative evidence to support probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2020/10/time-t…
6. At that point 'personal liberties' did indeed become the more important issue, especially as the removal of civil liberties was being driven by flawed data probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/as-lon…
7. I was also extremely concerned by obvious misuse of data in mass propaganda
8. So the academic issues have merged with the personal liberties issues and the latter have got worse with the move towards vaccine passports (the efficacy of which again there is no supporting evidence). probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/import…
9. And at the same time, by simply highlighting inconsistencies in the 'offical narrative' I've been subjected to adademic censorship and attempts to discredit me and my colleagues personally (in the coming days there will be an important update on this). probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-ba…
10. Finally I've come to the conclusion that we cannot trust any of the 'official' statistics driving the Covid19 narrative

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Prof Norman Fenton

Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @profnfenton

15 Sep
3. But the conclusions of such studies are also confounded by failing to consider non-Covid deaths; this overestimate the safety of the vaccine if there were serious adverse reactions. In fact multiple confounding factors will overestimate vaccine effectiveness.
4. One factor is how/whether a person is classified as a Covid ‘case’, Covid ‘hospitalization’ & Covid ‘death’. These can differ between vacc & unvaccinated. The unvaccinated who die ‘with’ as opposed to ‘from’ Covid are more likely to be classified as Covid deaths.
5. Another critical factor is how/whether a person is classified as ‘vaccinated’. Any person testing positive for Covid or dying of any cause within 14 days of their second dose is now classified by the CDC as ‘unvaccinated’
Read 14 tweets
8 Sep
1. This letter in the latest issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics is a summary of our analysis. Even after removing the contraversial Elgazzar study the results still support ivermectin being an effective treatment for #Covid_19. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
2. There are also letters on the same subject by Bryant et al ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Read 5 tweets
18 Aug
1. We've updated our Bayesian meta-analysis of the effectiveness of #ivermectin in treating #COVID19 to take acount of concerns about veracity of certain studies (notably Elgazzar). Summary with link to full paper: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/07/iverme…
2. It evaluates sensitivity of the conclusions to any single study by removing one study at a time. In the worst cas (Elgazzar removed) results remain robust, for both severe and mild/moderate Covid-19. Ivermectin reduces mortality. Full paper: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
3. (should be "worst case" not "worst cas"!!) So it supports the conclusions of @PierreKory @BIRDGroupUK etc
Read 4 tweets
2 Aug
1. Here's confirmation email from .@SpursOfficial that starting Saturday they're party to the Government's removal of our civil liberties. Image
2. Moreover, the plan is for the Club to implement full medical apartheid starting September - when ONLY proof of vaccination (i.e. vaccine passport) will enable entry.
3. While it's disappointing that .@THSTOfficial, who are supposed to stand up for fans' rights, are supporting current restrictions (and even asking for more, like masking) I welcome their statement opposing the vaccine passports: thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst…
Read 5 tweets
25 Jun
1. Some people are looking at today's Public Health England report and concluding the Case Fatality Rate for Delta positive cases is 6.5 times higher for vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. But this is an instance of Simpson's paradox as shown by this table
2. Colleague .@MartinNeil9 pointed this out. In both age categories the rate among vaccinated is lower but when aggregated vaccinated is higher. It's because a much greater proportion in the older group are vaccinated compared younger group & most deaths occur in the former
3. It's worth noting, however, that in the <50 age group there's little difference in fatality rate between vaccinated & unvaccinated. Also, worth noting the concerns I've raised generally about all studies into risk/benefits of Covid-19 vaccines here: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-al…
Read 8 tweets
26 May
1. It's 16 days since we submitted a 250-word response to .@TheLancet pointing out the potentially serious limitation in the article they published (5 May) on Pfizer vaccine effectiveness. Response is still 'with editor'.
2. This is the response we wrote:
3. One caveat I should add is that I no longer believe ANY conclusions that are based on results of PCR testing are credible (and yes - this applies to conclusions in our own work where we relied on PCR test results).
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!