Not Your Demographic

Assertions so counter intuitive and nonsensical - they must be true!

Cogent insights by Benjamin Scherrey

Prev Next


UPDATE April 28th, 2020: YouTube has removed the original video for "Violation of Community Standards"! Holy crap this is the most disgusting thing ever. There has never been a more data driven analysis of this pandemic published by people on the front lines than what these guys produced. I have some specific critiques of some of their points but their conclusions are properly falsifiable and supported strongly by the evidence - it's good science - not science-tism. THAT gets banned on YouTube. Google should be ashamed! Whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"? Clearly they've switched to "Be Evil!"

Original follows here:

Doctors reporting what the data is reporting and how this should inform our policies. What's clear is that the data is VERY clear that our current policies are wrong and need to be adjusted.

The reporter here is argumentative and clearly has an agenda that he's disappointed that the doctor's report didn't confirm.

He compares Wuhan-virus stats to those of regular flu and asks why we're reacting at such an extreme level when the data is showing they aren't largely different. He also points out 2nd & 3rd order effects. Suicides, child molestation, spousal abuse, alcoholism, depression and other permanent life altering impacts are way up.

He notes that sheltering in place and isolating actually hurts our immune system. He predicts diseases will spike when we come out of shelter in place and the loss of our health care workers due to economic impact will magnify this impact.

The reporter than confronts the doctors and asks if they know more than Dr. Fauci and the top immunologists (he's imagining that the health policy people would argue against this data - which they won't). Both doctors are saying that they don't disagree with what we did when this first presented but now, with real data, we have to revisit our policies. The reporter than claims (falsely) that people are drawing different conclusions from the same data.

The doctor points out the lack of consistency for these policies. It confirms my saying as a security consultant - the only thing worse than no security is a false sense of security. The doctors say it's time to get back to work and it's time to test more people. He makes it clear that a lot of the Wuhan-virus deaths are NOT actually caused by the virus. Doctors are being pressured to add "Covid" to their death reports all around the country - likely from the hospital administration. They recommend to quarantine the ill and at-risk - not healthy people and that isolating the healthy is unprecedented and does not make sense as a way to address this virus. Asked if we should reopen the doctors say absolutely yes - that they're out and not wearing masks.

Quote: "Big businesses are open - little businesses are not. That's not science."

They validating a self-testing device that provides a test result in 3 minutes. They point out that the media's promotion of fear is actually causing people to not get tested and is making the situation worse. Bottom line - lock down vs no lock down has no significant difference in outcomes regarding deaths.

The point the doctors are making is that the initial response to a new virus was not unreasonable. But what they're arguing for is that now that we have real data, we should learn from it. The reporters seem to be arguing against learning.

Doctor Dan points out (10 minutes 30 seconds into the 2nd video) that the only people with a different opinion are people who are not in the business and are still getting a paycheck and suggest that if they were furloughed that they likely would have a different opinion. People who use the word "safe" really mean "control".

Here's the first video hosted somewhere other than YouTube:

Here's the new copy of the video hosted (now taken down by YouTubs again):

Here's the original version of the video taken down after millions of views:

Original version of 2nd video still remains.

Prev Next