Using facts (not computer models), this doctor discloses the fear-mongering of Fauci/Birx/Gates and our MSM
He also compares places that had lockdowns with places that did not,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1096&v=BTLii-e_UtY&feature=emb_logo
... and look at all the damage the Fauci/Gates narrative did to worldwide economies, to working people, to families
The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.
COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.”
Thanks Gunter and Larry,
This is very interesting because there were 3+ studies done by "reputable" sources that found the exact same thing and they got widespread positive press coverage for a couple of weeks.....not censuring(but later one of them is being questioned because of potential false positives).
The one below was supposedly conducted with supposedly reliable tests developed by researchers in New York, independent of those in CA.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html
One of every five New York City residents tested positive for antibodies to the coronavirus, according to preliminary results described by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Thursday that suggested that the virus had spread far more widely than known.
If the pattern holds, the results from random testing of 3,000 people raised the tantalizing prospect that many New Yorkers — as many as 2.7 million, the governor said — who never knew they had been infected had already encountered the virus, and survived. Mr. Cuomo also said that such wide infection might mean that the death rate was far lower than believed.
While the reliability of some early antibody tests has been widely questioned, researchers in New York have worked in recent weeks to develop and validate their own antibody tests, with federal approval. State officials believe that accurate antibody testing is seen as a critical tool to help determine when and how to begin restarting the economy, and sending people back to work.
“The testing also can tell you the infection rate in the population — where it’s higher, where it’s lower — to inform you on a reopening strategy,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Then when you start reopening, you can watch that infection rate to see if it’s going up and if it’s going up, slow down.”
The testing in New York is among several efforts by public health officials around the country to determine how many people may have been already exposed to the virus, beyond those who have tested positive. The results appear to conform with research from Northeastern University that indicated that the coronavirus was circulating by early February in the New York area and other major cities.
In California, a pair of studies using antibody testing found rates of exposure as high as 4 percent in Santa Clara County and 5 percent in Los Angeles County — higher than those indicated by infection tests, though not nearly as high as found in New York.
In New York City, about 21 percent tested positive for coronavirus antibodies during the state survey.
metmike: This is why they are blasting the study: "These confidence intervals concerned statisticians like Gelman, given that the 1.5% of study participants tested positive for antibodies. If the antibody tests had a specificity of 98.5% — which falls within the confidence interval based on both the in-house and manufacturer’s trials — all of the 50 positive tests might have been false positives, according to Gelman."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Some scientists have pointed to similar prevalence results that have emerged from a Los Angeles County seroprevalence study as support that the math done in the Santa Clara County study was accurate. The sister study was run by USC researchers in conjunction with the Stanford researchers, who estimated that COVID-19 had infected 2.8 to 5.6% of the county."
Spence cautioned against using the results from the Los Angeles study before seeing a technical document or a preprint. The results from the study were initially released as a press release. Spence said that in addition to the press release, a technical document was published later on RedState.com, a conservative blog, but was later taken down.
“All of this is highly unusual, to put it mildly,” Spence wrote in an email to The Daily.
Los Angeles study co-author Neeraj Sood, University of Southern California Vice Dean for Faculty Affairs & Research confirmed that an “unauthorized copy” of the study had been posted at RedState.
Gelman wrote on his blog that if the Santa Clara County results were accurate and could be extrapolated across states, New York City could also expect to have 5.4 million people with antibodies. Extrapolating from a state antibody survey, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said on Thursday that he anticipates 1 in 5 New York City residents — and up to 2.7 million residents statewide — have COVID-19 antibodies.
Regardless of whether or not the Stanford researchers stumbled upon the correct prevalence rate, Gelman said the statistical criticisms were based on “avoidable errors” and repeated that he thought the authors should issue an apology."
metmike: So we have 3 studies all showing the rate was MUCH higher than we every imagined and the same thing that these 2 censured doctors were claiming using their tests. And their tests were NOT inferior to the other CA study tests as far as I can tell. I just checked again and these doctors conducted over 5,000 tests. Wow! That's even more than some of these other ones.
metmike: OK, make that 4 studies showing the same thing, this study was smaller:
Widespread testing on the Navy’s coronavirus-stricken aircraft carrier has revealed a majority of the confirmed cases are asymptomatic — showing how the bug can spread by “stealth” among the young and otherwise-healthy, according to officials.
The results on the USS Theodore Roosevelt could raise policy questions around how to safely reopen the country, officials said.
“It has revealed a new dynamic of this virus: that it can be carried by normal, healthy people who have no idea whatsoever that they are carrying it,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said during a Thursday appearance on NBC’s “Today.”
About 94% of the 4,800-member crew has now been tested for the virus.
A total of 60% of 600 confirmed sick sailors aboard the boat have not shown any symptoms yet, the Navy found. The service didn’t speculate as to how many of those patients could later fall ill.
Tests in the US have primarily been reserved for more severely ill patients, making it difficult to gauge the number of sick asymptomatic cases still out there.
“With regard to COVID-19, we’re learning that stealth in the form of asymptomatic transmission is this adversary’s secret power,” said Rear Admiral Bruce Gillingham, surgeon general of the Navy.
So we have 4 studies showing exactly what these 2 doctors more than 5,000 tests showed and ZERO studies that contradict them.
https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/debunking-bakersfield-doctors-covid-spread-conclusions/
They dressed in scrubs. They sounded scientific. And last week’s message from two Bakersfield doctors was exactly what many stuck-at-home Americans wanted to hear: COVID-19 is no worse than influenza, its death rates are low and we should all go back to work and school.
Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who own urgent care centers in the region, had called a press conference to release their conclusions about the results of 5,213 COVID-19 tests they had conducted at their centers and testing site. They claimed the results showed that the virus had spread further in the area, undetected, and thus wasn’t all that dangerous.
But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing.
The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” And most credible studies of COVID-19 death rates in reality are far higher than the ones the doctors presented.
“They’ve used methods that are ludicrous to get results that are completely implausible,” Bergstrom said.
metmike: I totally get that the % of people coming to be tested by them were/are not an accurate sampling of the general population because alot of them will suspect they may have the coronavirus(or been exposed to it) but that's the situation that they had to work with and even if it did boost the ratio of positives to negatives, it's doesn't completely make their results invalid............especially considering every other study showing the same thing with more random test subjects.
Here's the only place where I could find a major difference between them and those other entities that got the same results:
But already the Bakersfield doctors — who tout their support of President Donald Trump and refuse to wear masks in public — had become heroes on social platforms and conservative media outlets, with some commenters calling them “brave.” Others who support continuing to shelter-in-place described the doctors as self-promoters whose chain of urgent care centers would benefit from reopening. Non-COVID medical visits have plummeted during the pandemic, endangering the practices of many doctors.
“As struggling business owners, their economic frustration is understandable. But it can’t be mistaken for science. People trust doctors,” Michigan emergency room doctor Rob Davidson wrote on Twitter. “When they tell Fox viewers to ignore recommendations from real experts, many will believe them…The impact of rejecting science-proven recommendations in exchange for these erroneous ideas would overwhelm health systems and cost lives. While re-opening the economy might be good for their Urgent Care Centers (sic), it would kill medical personnel on the actual front lines.”
metmike: I could have missed something but clearly to me, unlike the other sources that just gave us the data, these sources gave us the data along with some politics(the wrong type) and interpretation of what it means, along with some advice to go along with that.
They are medical doctors, not quacks and were/are using legitimate tests/testing. Unfortunately, I am not able to view their video to form an opinion. I don't understand why they are not allowed to share their scientific results, using everything the other sources did to get the results.
Science is not determined by popularity and does not favor one political party or conform to what human agenda's are or what human rules about it state(especially when the humans are scratching the surface discovering new things about it). They could be right, just like the other studies.
Maybe they are wrong too and the other studies are all wrong. So just who is smart enough to know with confidence that they and all the other studies are wrong and what do they base it on with ZERO studies contradicting them?
So, in essence they are not being censured for being wrong. They are being censured because they MIGHT be wrong and they are not falling in line with presenting their MIGHT be wrong information using the correct political/medical protocol.
1. Conflict of interest:
"As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health."
2. Dr. Erickson is an osteopath, not an MD.
https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-daniel-erickson-xv88l
3. I trust Dr. Fauci, who is an actual epidemiologist, has been doing this since Reagan's admin. and who's trusted more than just about anyone else, way more than these jokers. Even Trump trusts him and knows he's top notch!
This discussion reminds me of this forum’s “Climate Emergency” debates.
On one side, you have the UN “scientists” who guess how terrible the weather will be In 20 years, and their guesses and computer models have been wrong for 30 years. On the other side, you have our metmike, who gives us scientific data and facts to prove how wrong they are.
In this case, you have Dr Fauci, the #1 corona expert in the US. So far, Dr Fauci’s “guesses” have turned out to be wrong. On March 15, he predicted up to 1,700,000 corona deaths. Then he lowered his guess to 200,000 deaths, and eventually he dropped it to 60,000 (finally, he is getting close). Somewhere in between he wrote in a medical journal that the Covid19 is “not much worse than a bad flu”
On the other side, you have the 2 doctors, who are not making guesses…. They used a study published by a German University, which was later confirmed independently by 2 US universities…studies based on scientific data analysis and simple math. And they presented a completely different picture.
Sure, an association of US medical professionals jumped to the defense of Dr Fauci and called the 2 doctors “quacks”. But are they really quacks? Are USC, Stanford, and that German university quacks?
I would trust them more than any of Dr Fauci’s predictions.
I must admit, Dr Fauci has an impeccable resume… and he is indeed the foremost Corona expert in the US. For several years, his team conducted research on various corona viruses… until 2015, when a moratorium brought all his corona research to an end. I believe, Dr Fauci was instrumental in the US government then giving the infamous Wuhan lab in China a 3.7 mill grant to continue research on the corona.
Coming to think of it…. in January 2017, Dr Fauci did made a remarkably correct prophecy… he said that “Donald Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency”
Please note… he didn’t say “Hey, we should prepare for an infectious disease outbreak, at some time in the future. We don’t know when, it could be 5 years from now, it could be 25 years, but it could happen and we should prepare for it”.
No he didn’t say that. He boldly stated that there will be a surprise outbreak during Trump’s presidency
"There will be...." !!!!!
How could he be so certain? How did he know????? ....3 years ago????
Great discussion we have going on this Gunter, thanks!
I like Fauci a great deal because he is constantly feeding up with profoundly relevant information and explaining things better than anybody can with elite expertise.
Yes, he was not concerned that much until early March and was really wrong(I was following it closely since mid-January and had the exact same position that he did).
Then he was wrong in the opposite direction for a month after that(forecast way too many deaths) and, I feel probably is reacting to feeling like he should have had us better prepared initially and will error on the side of possibly extreme and too much caution now...........but we don't want to lose his expertise and opinions. When he says things, they always makes really good sense, even if he is giving too much weight to one thing and not enough to another.
We have the same one with a few other points going on simultaneously here:
You Tube censorship
6 responses |
Started by wglassfo - April 28, 2020, 12:44 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/51328/
Also, breaking news to give us even more optimism:
Equities: up sharply, despite worse than expected GDP, due to possible Corona treatment/early vaccine
Started by WxFollower - April 29, 2020, 1:40 p.m.