Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Apr 20
10:09
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Sep 11
I am going to watch the full broadcast as these doctors seemed fully switched on and were prepared to be honest.
Show More
Dr. Dan W. Erickson MD is a male neuromusculoskeletal medicine specialist in Bakersfield, CA with over 16 years of experience. Dr. Erickson graduated in 2004. He is licensed to practice by the state board in California (20A9426).
Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine Specialist
A doctor of neuromusculoskeletal medicine is a specialist in osteopathic medicine whose expertise is in the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal and related neurological medical problems. Neuromusculoskeletal osteopathic doctors provide treatment through a variety of holistic, noninvasive approaches including, but not limited to, stretching, applying pressure to body parts, and manipulating joints.
Emergency Physician
Quite clearly has no expertise in the subject and therefore cannot be taken seriously.
Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine Specialist
A doctor of neuromusculoskeletal medicine is a specialist in osteopathic medicine whose expertise is in the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal and related neurological medical problems. Neuromusculoskeletal osteopathic doctors provide treatment through a variety of holistic, noninvasive approaches including, but not limited to, stretching, applying pressure to body parts, and manipulating joints.
Emergency Physician
Quite clearly has no expertise in the subject and therefore cannot be taken seriously.
He is presenting data. I would suggest he is far better qualified to express data than the clowns we stick up on a podium every night ? But hey i could be wrong !!
Fascinating .. full broadcast here . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfLVxx_lBLU
I would recommend anyone trying to form their own opinion from their own research watch this in full and see how the doctors combat the questions as well.
I would recommend anyone trying to form their own opinion from their own research watch this in full and see how the doctors combat the questions as well.
Anthony Stephen Fauci is an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. Since January 2020, he has been one of the lead members of the Trump Administration's White House Coronavirus Task Force addressing the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. Fauci is widely seen to be one of the most trusted medical figures in the country.
Fauci is widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on infectious diseases. As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served American public health in various capacities for over 50 years, and has been an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan. He has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiencies, both as a scientist and as the head of the NIAID at the NIH.
I think when compared, the claims of Erickson can be readily dismissed against the expertise of Fauci.
Fauci is widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on infectious diseases. As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served American public health in various capacities for over 50 years, and has been an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan. He has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiencies, both as a scientist and as the head of the NIAID at the NIH.
I think when compared, the claims of Erickson can be readily dismissed against the expertise of Fauci.
Every1 can have an opinion. Respect yours but i personally think he is driving this in the wrong direction.
Pt 2 of the broadcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6j7o1pLBw
Pt 2 of the broadcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6j7o1pLBw
In this instance i prefer the opinion of guys working in the front line and examining their own data and comparing it with the official numbers.
They have no agenda..... Does Fauci ?
FWIW.. I thought they were very open , very honest and i understood their reasoning. Watch it and see what you think
They have no agenda..... Does Fauci ?
FWIW.. I thought they were very open , very honest and i understood their reasoning. Watch it and see what you think
In addition i would strongly recommend you take a close look at the last 2 or 3 minutes of the 2nd part.. This is where it is likely to go.. They can see it and are trying their best to offer an exit route based on the available data to avoid it.
In the name of being fair here is the counter argument from the public health dept https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhxAIOhCPHQ.
I know who i would trust more
I know who i would trust more
He makes alot of interesting points.
But two things jumped out to me when talked of death rates.
His own blind sample had 5.3% of the his local California population infected which is interesting.
But he uses much higher figures when extrapolating total cases in other states and countries. The data is not blind as people in places like UK are only tested is suspected. They are not blind. Therefore I suspect he is potentially over estimating the number of cases which would make the death rate seem lower.
Secondly he uses current estimated cases divided by total deaths so far. The issue with this is some cases are still in ICU. So the death numbers would go up even if no new people are infected. You cannot take 'deaths so far'/'total cases so far' to get death rate. You need something like 'deaths so far'/'total cases 3 weeks ago'. Again this lowers the death rate using his method.
Aside from those queries over his extremely low death rates his points on deaths and issues from other cases and it being 5.3% infected on his blind tests are very interesting.
We urgently need more blind tests in the population to see who has it and blind AB tests (through blood that we know works) so can get this data.
I suspect everywhere more people have had it than we think.
But two things jumped out to me when talked of death rates.
His own blind sample had 5.3% of the his local California population infected which is interesting.
But he uses much higher figures when extrapolating total cases in other states and countries. The data is not blind as people in places like UK are only tested is suspected. They are not blind. Therefore I suspect he is potentially over estimating the number of cases which would make the death rate seem lower.
Secondly he uses current estimated cases divided by total deaths so far. The issue with this is some cases are still in ICU. So the death numbers would go up even if no new people are infected. You cannot take 'deaths so far'/'total cases so far' to get death rate. You need something like 'deaths so far'/'total cases 3 weeks ago'. Again this lowers the death rate using his method.
Aside from those queries over his extremely low death rates his points on deaths and issues from other cases and it being 5.3% infected on his blind tests are very interesting.
We urgently need more blind tests in the population to see who has it and blind AB tests (through blood that we know works) so can get this data.
I suspect everywhere more people have had it than we think.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539