Fcuk Msuk @winstonsmith1972

Hier kun je me op mastodon vinden. @197winstonsmith@mastodon.social mastodon.social

Ephimenco, migratie is niet ‘de olifant in de kamer’ trouw.nl/opinie/lezer-b… Mooie reactie op een walgelijke column in #Trouw

Lees dit artikel op Trouw trouw.nl/ts-b73855f0/

De labbekakkende VVD, die vrijwel onafgebroken aan de macht was, sinds de eerste waarschuwingen, maar steeds niets uitvoerde, is de oorzaak van de tekorten aan water, stroom en woningen. #energiecrisis Migranten kunnen dit probleem juist oplossen! trouw.nl/opinie/lezer-b…

‘We hebben geen tekort aan water, stroom of huizen door migratie; we hebben een tekort aan visie, lef en rechtvaardige verdeling. Ephimenco’s column is een intellectuele capitulatie van een columnist die weigert naar de bron van het lek te kijken.’ trouw.nl/ts-b73855f0/

Lezer Brendan Thesingh: Ephimenco, migratie is niet ‘de olifant in de kamer’ trouw.nl/ts-b73855f0/

Goede reactie op die drek van Sylvain Ephimenco in Trouw is dat, van Brendan Thesing: “Het koppelen van deze crises aan migratie is niet alleen een xenofobe reflex, het is bovenal intellectueel lui en feitelijk onjuist.” archive.ph/65dAw 1/3

“De analyse van Ephimenco is niet dapper omdat hij een taboe doorbreekt; zij is laf omdat zij de macht ontziet.” trouw.nl/opinie/lezer-b…

Lezer Brendan Thesingh: Ephimenco, migratie is niet ‘de olifant in de kamer’ | Trouw trouw.nl/opinie/lezer-b…

Lezer Brendan Thesingh: Ephimenco, migratie is niet ‘de olifant in de kamer’ | Trouw trouw.nl/opinie/lezer-b…

Het account van Trouw is niet langer actief op X. Lees een toelichting op dit besluit in deze brief van de hoofdredactie trouw.nl/opinie/lezersi…

A few people have sent me a study from the Netherlands (" Post-COVID-19 condition in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 in autumn 2023 in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study with pre- and post-infection data") that claims to show that almost no one developed Long COVID during the fall wave of 2023. Obviously, this doesn't align with anecdotes. At this point, I've dropped out of the Stanford Long COVID clinic, but when I went for my last appointment earlier this month, they told me that they're still getting a steady stream of new patients. It's no surprise, then, that this study suffers from numerous methodological flaws. A few I found: 1. Their method of classifying someone as "uninfected" is deeply flawed. They used an antibody test that is known to lose its effectiveness quickly, or even give false negatives. 2. But their method of classifying someone as "infected" was even worse. They used self-reported at home tests. People who had asymptomatic cases (which can still give you Long COVID symptoms) or who chose not to test at all (something dangerous lunatic and FDA bureaucrat Vinay Prasad has advocated) wouldn't show up in their infected group. These two things taken together mean that it's highly probable many people in their control group actually had COVID, and therefore, it's no surprise that if you compare the two groups, you don't see much difference. 3. You can actually see strong evidence for this directly in their data: Their "uninfected" participants had higher rates of headaches, sore throat, fever, runny nose, and abdominal pain compared to the COVID "infected" group. This flat out doesn't make any sense. 4. They more or less arbitrarily made up their own system for defining if someone had Long COVID. They used a questionnaire that had not been validated, and then created point scale cut off points more or less on a whim. If you want to see how bad this methodology is, you can notice that some of the people in their "uninfected" control actually reported having Long COVID. Again, this doesn't make any sense. 5. The cohort they used is not a representative sample. They targeted older individuals (60-85). It's challenging to distinguish Long COVID in this group given their age. 6. To make their data work, they threw out participants who couldn't be matched. Of course, these participants tended to be younger, adding to the selection issues. 7. Their methodology required the patients regularly follow up. The study authors admit the people sickest with Long COVID would, naturally, be less likely to follow up (they could be bed-bound, housebound, living in a dark room, etc. not filling out surveys). 8. There were a bunch of weird little mathematical quirks they called out - lacking computation power to correct for repeat measurements. Inability to match groups by number of positive tests. Issues with the number and types of vaccines people took. When anecdotes conflict with data, the anecdotes are usually right.

@drseanmullen @rivm Thx Sean, Inaction is the focus of Dutch govt; coping, postponing and hoping. Long COVID not addressed. Failure (excess deaths, long COVID, costs) one of the highest in the world. Illustrated by Marion "Long COVID is no longer a risk" Koopmans. 👀 ⬇️ x.com/i/status/20256…

@drseanmullen @rivm Thanks for highlighting this study. It's the latest example of the kind of the kind of policy-based science RIVM regularly produces in order to justify the choice to let Covid rip in the Netherlands all the way back in 2020 in pursuit of 'herd immunity' via mass infection.

Nine of 11 authors of a new Lancet paper are from the Dutch National Health Institute (@RIVM). They now claim the prevalence of “Post-COVID-19 Condition (PCC)” — aka Long Covid — after 2023 is less than 1 percent. Sounds reassuring, right? It’s not. Here’s why 👇 1️⃣ They changed the definition. PCC in this study means any one of 25 “new” mild symptoms crossing a survey threshold. It ignores worsening of existing symptoms, fatigue crashes, or loss of function. That’s like redefining “heart disease” as “any new chest twinge that lasts 3 months.” 2️⃣ Even with that watered-down test, people infected in autumn 2023 still showed: +7.2 % mild and +0.6 % severe self-attributed long-term symptoms at 3 months +3.2 % mild and +0.3 % severe at 6 months Then they call that “low.” 3️⃣ This design hides risk. •Older, healthier, highly-vaccinated volunteers (not the full population) •“Uninfected” controls defined by self-report + antibody rise that often misses infection •People reinfected later were censored out — the very group most likely to get Long Covid “Fourteen days prior to a (new) positive test in either individual, or on the date preceding evidence of seroconversion … follow-up for both members of the pair was censored.” So: •If either person in a matched pair got reinfected, •Both were removed from subsequent follow-up beyond that date. Translation: every bias points downward. 4️⃣ Confidence intervals still allow ≈ 1–2 % true excess risk. At a national scale, that’s thousands of new cases per wave. 5️⃣ What happens next? RIVM is already using this to justify inaction after the latest outbreak. That’s not science. That’s spin. 6️⃣ Lower average risk ≠ zero risk. Keep: 💨 Clean air standards 🧾 Paid sick leave 🏥 Long Covid clinics 📊 Surveillance that tracks function, cardiovascular / immune damage, and return-to-work 📄 The Lancet Regional Health – Europe (2025) sciencedirect.com/science/articl… @TheWHN — where’s the international community on this? #LongCovid #CleanAir #PublicHealth #ScienceMatters #RIVM #COVIDisNotOver

@FM_Szijjarto No one takes your pathetic false flag operation seriously

@BowesChay He works for the global military industrial complex.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, New York.

Het is alweer raak bij Zaandam met ongeluk en file.