Well that Prof has really showed himself up. "Excellent article" that he hasn't seen. Although the media circus will have moved on, I think we can still do a lot of undermining of people's trust in it, retrospectively if [when] the report surfaces and is ripped apart...
He read the article, he linked it in his tweet. I guess that’s enough to pass as scientific inquiry nowadays. Who needs the actual data, a local rag summed it up nicely, all based on a press release. SCIENCE!
Prof. Adrian Esterman. This is who he is: Government-funded media (ABC Australia) pushed the divisive narrative using Professors as spokespeople, particularly around Christmas time. They said that unvaccinated people should not be mixed with, should not be in your home. “Should I invite an unvaccinated family member or friend to a gathering?…Professor (Adrian) Esterman says he would not take the risk…I would say, look, we’ve been friends for 20 years, but unless you have been vaccinated I am not willing to have you in my home.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-04/covid-transmission-risk-unvaccinated-christmas/100673262
Ask him to declare his COI with regards to pharma and research funding and media contracts and he will block you. It is standard for scientists to declare COI.
I interviewed Prof Esterman for something else last week. My impression of him is that he is a genuine believer in a self-reinforcing academic bubble. I don't imagine he was being calculated about it. This is speculation, but I imagine he saw a headline that mirrored the research he is exposed to, skimmed the news article, thought it sounded on point, and posted. I'm not excusing that. I'm just saying that it seems to me that he really, truly believes the things he is saying.
The other is high trust in legacy institutions. People really struggle to believe that institutions like the TGA, the government, etc are corrupt or would flat out lie. For example, Prof Esterman told me that he didn't think pharma had any influence over what gets published in high impact journals. For real. This was based on his experience as an editor of several journals. I do think that people who wouldn't engage in psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour struggle to imagine that others would. I relate to that.
"he didn't think pharma had any influence over what gets published in high impact journals." Many scientists have good working relationships with industry that have no bearing on publication results. It is alarming however that people cannot see beyond their own experiences to conceive of other scenarios. This is a massive failure in logic. "I do not see it, therefore it does not exist!"
It would be fair to say that widespread cognitive dissonance in attitudes to the efficacy & safety of the mRNA injectables has taken hold over the last two years. This results from the refusal of so many to consider the growing body of evidence that indicates that these injectables are dangerous. One spin-off of this is that some people are now questioning the previously accepted definition of the ‘Dunning–Kruger Effect’. The normal definition of Dunning-Kruger until now has been roughly as follows:
“The Dunning–Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge”.
The whole Pandemic/Injectables crisis of the last three years has exposed the horrendous extent to which widespread social delusion can take place when under the influence of sophisticated official propaganda campaigns that stoke fear and panic, and seek to create social division and stigmatisation. Group think and herd behaviour then follow – seemingly irrespective of academic credentials.
In view of this, there have been suggestions that the Dunning-Kruger Effect should not be restricted to just “people with low ability, etc”. It seems that it can apply to persons anywhere on the intelligence spectrum. In the past, this phenomenon sometimes manifested in situations where, say, Nobel Prize winners in some narrow field of endeavour, are treated by the public - and the media in particular - as ‘experts in anything’. The result is that their oracular opinions are sought, and given, on topics way outside their normal field of expertise. Thus flattered, the individuals think that they are entitled to have their opinions accepted, on the basis that they have been anointed as ‘Public Experts’. This happens all the time in the Climate Change controversies.
My point being, why would Dunning-Kruger not also apply to people in the higher intellectual echelons, especially if they have been captured by the forces of group think and their own embedded cognitive bias, not to mention the ‘sunk-cost’ fallacy. This would explain the phenomenon of Prof Esterman believing his own B/S.
I know this is rather unscientific, but I am in contact with a lot of unvaccinated people...none of them are sick. The vaccinated people I know have lots of maladies. Maybe it's due to the vaccine, or maybe they were sick to begin with and felt more vulnerable so wanted to get jabbed...but the jabbed are all ages and the young ones should not be as sick as they currently are. Also, it's summer and there are so many respiratory issues at the moment. Winter will be tough for the vaccinated.
Therein lies our problem. Academics are compromised by mealy mouths like this guy. He uses his credentials to push whatever he’s told. The fact people still out there faith in these compromised minds baffles me.
I believe we have quite a few professors and experts of his ink here, although, admittedly they're not as "visible" of late. Corrupted, stupid, arrogant.
Pertinent to the topic of the arrogance of the intellectual class is a 2001 film called ‘Conspiracy’. The movie has a stellar cast and brilliantly dramatises the infamous ‘Wannsee Conference’ that took place in January 1942 in which top officials of the Nazi State discuss the coordination policies needed to carry out the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”. The name of the conference derives from its location – a villa in the upmarket Wannsee lakes area on the outskirts of Berlin – now a museum to the events that took place there. The film is based on the only surviving copy of the minutes of the meeting – which one obsessive member did not destroy as he was ordered to.
I can recommend the film as worth seeing for the high quality of the acting and the direction – it is powerful - and is available on DVD. Curiously, despite the visual and thematic impact of the film, it received little recognition. It appears to have received minimal marketing publicity – possibly because of the dark nature of the subject matter – or was it a little embarrassing to the ‘intellectual classes’? Read on…
What really struck me is that all the attendees of the Wannsee Conference were highly educated men – a significant number holding PhDs. None of them could be described as belonging to the ‘Deplorable’ classes of society.
The New Yorker magazine has a short review of the film at the link below, but I could not help noticing that the author of the New Yorker article just could not help himself. He makes an attempt to associate the Trump Administration with the personalities who attended the Wannsee Conference!!
Perhaps the biggest danger we face in Western countries is the near total ideological corruption of the corporate media, which has been at the forefront in vigorously stoking fear, social division, and outright deception. A pox on all their houses!
I get what you saying but, I guess, what I have problem with understanding is: why someone in this position has no second thoughts in giving credence publicly to data that has potentially far reaching consequences for many.
Not feeling himself responsible what comes out of his mouth?
It's 23 Feb 2023 for goodness sake, if anything, wouldn't you expect
at the very least, someone who feels within his academic status to speak out, to do due diligence?
I would very respectfully write to the WA Premier at the beginning of 2020, forwarding papers about covid, lockdowns etc. No sledging. Gradually I realised that I wasn't getting any automated responses in return. I tried another email and got the automated responses. They had blocked me. I wasn't abusing anyone - simply providing information from the literature that covid was actually not as deadly as they were making it out to be and they shouldn't be responding as they were.
I've done work in data analysis, and one of the key questions when working with a new client is, “What is the source of the data?” Who or what generates it, what format is it in, how big is it, is it clean (without gaps, or weird characters, or non-breaking spaces), does it include assumptions, and so on. But if you can’t even get hold of the data in the first place, that’s another matter entirely.
So.... cherry-picked time window, cherry-picked cohorts, and cherry-picked endpoints. Got it! No mention of status shenanigans but I guess we can expect some of that too?
I'm guessing they're also ignoring the reality that there is going to be a substantial number of "unvaccinated" that aren't going to show up in any data sets because they've never been sick enough to seek medical attention.
Firstly I want to thank you for all your efforts. I have emailed a letter to the leader, health minister and minister for transport of all the major parties federally and in my state of WA. I sent them to the news agencies of the ABC, The Aus and SMH. The letter/email linked to eight videos that have scientists speaking about their findings. Do you know of any repository of this type of video that can be deployed along with the supporting evidence for Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
No it is not! Rebekah is being too polite. The only way this exercise in deception by the South Australian Government and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) can be described is that it is an Orchestrated Litany of Lies. It has one objective - that of grossly deceiving the public. It looks like this Prof Esterman is in it up to his armpits. He has publicly lent his name and reputation to an analysis that he claims that he has not read! What sort of professional standard is that?
Professor Esterman – how about explaining why the mortality rate for the ‘vaccinated’ in South Australia is now running significantly in excess of the expected long term trend?
It’s been an orchestrated litany of lies since day one.
The biggest story ever and the MSM as gutless and cowardly as ever like our Government just keep repeating ‘ get another booster it’s safe and effective, as people drop all over the place from strokes and heart attacks etc.
Well done Rebekah, we need more journalists like you 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Well that Prof has really showed himself up. "Excellent article" that he hasn't seen. Although the media circus will have moved on, I think we can still do a lot of undermining of people's trust in it, retrospectively if [when] the report surfaces and is ripped apart...
He read the article, he linked it in his tweet. I guess that’s enough to pass as scientific inquiry nowadays. Who needs the actual data, a local rag summed it up nicely, all based on a press release. SCIENCE!
Prof. Adrian Esterman. This is who he is: Government-funded media (ABC Australia) pushed the divisive narrative using Professors as spokespeople, particularly around Christmas time. They said that unvaccinated people should not be mixed with, should not be in your home. “Should I invite an unvaccinated family member or friend to a gathering?…Professor (Adrian) Esterman says he would not take the risk…I would say, look, we’ve been friends for 20 years, but unless you have been vaccinated I am not willing to have you in my home.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-04/covid-transmission-risk-unvaccinated-christmas/100673262
Ask him to declare his COI with regards to pharma and research funding and media contracts and he will block you. It is standard for scientists to declare COI.
context: https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/australian-genocide-in-progress
Edit: and ask them to define what "vaccinated" is.
I interviewed Prof Esterman for something else last week. My impression of him is that he is a genuine believer in a self-reinforcing academic bubble. I don't imagine he was being calculated about it. This is speculation, but I imagine he saw a headline that mirrored the research he is exposed to, skimmed the news article, thought it sounded on point, and posted. I'm not excusing that. I'm just saying that it seems to me that he really, truly believes the things he is saying.
Absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the insight. Yes, true believers are incredibly dangerous. The personal stakes are high for them.
This is one line of explanation:
https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-hold-stupid-beliefs
The other is high trust in legacy institutions. People really struggle to believe that institutions like the TGA, the government, etc are corrupt or would flat out lie. For example, Prof Esterman told me that he didn't think pharma had any influence over what gets published in high impact journals. For real. This was based on his experience as an editor of several journals. I do think that people who wouldn't engage in psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour struggle to imagine that others would. I relate to that.
"he didn't think pharma had any influence over what gets published in high impact journals." Many scientists have good working relationships with industry that have no bearing on publication results. It is alarming however that people cannot see beyond their own experiences to conceive of other scenarios. This is a massive failure in logic. "I do not see it, therefore it does not exist!"
It would be fair to say that widespread cognitive dissonance in attitudes to the efficacy & safety of the mRNA injectables has taken hold over the last two years. This results from the refusal of so many to consider the growing body of evidence that indicates that these injectables are dangerous. One spin-off of this is that some people are now questioning the previously accepted definition of the ‘Dunning–Kruger Effect’. The normal definition of Dunning-Kruger until now has been roughly as follows:
“The Dunning–Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge”.
The whole Pandemic/Injectables crisis of the last three years has exposed the horrendous extent to which widespread social delusion can take place when under the influence of sophisticated official propaganda campaigns that stoke fear and panic, and seek to create social division and stigmatisation. Group think and herd behaviour then follow – seemingly irrespective of academic credentials.
In view of this, there have been suggestions that the Dunning-Kruger Effect should not be restricted to just “people with low ability, etc”. It seems that it can apply to persons anywhere on the intelligence spectrum. In the past, this phenomenon sometimes manifested in situations where, say, Nobel Prize winners in some narrow field of endeavour, are treated by the public - and the media in particular - as ‘experts in anything’. The result is that their oracular opinions are sought, and given, on topics way outside their normal field of expertise. Thus flattered, the individuals think that they are entitled to have their opinions accepted, on the basis that they have been anointed as ‘Public Experts’. This happens all the time in the Climate Change controversies.
My point being, why would Dunning-Kruger not also apply to people in the higher intellectual echelons, especially if they have been captured by the forces of group think and their own embedded cognitive bias, not to mention the ‘sunk-cost’ fallacy. This would explain the phenomenon of Prof Esterman believing his own B/S.
SA just trotting out the same narrative, every year. Their vaxx seems to be getting better with age, like a Barossa Valley Shiraz.
Last year unvaxxed were 3x more likely to die, this year it's 5x.
Guess 3x wasn't scary enough, maybe they just go by the number of recommended jabs i.e. 3 jabs was 3x as good now 5 jabs is 5x as good.
N jabs = N x as good.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-12/sa-health-data-shows-covid-unvaccinated-at-higher-risk-of-death/100983874
I know this is rather unscientific, but I am in contact with a lot of unvaccinated people...none of them are sick. The vaccinated people I know have lots of maladies. Maybe it's due to the vaccine, or maybe they were sick to begin with and felt more vulnerable so wanted to get jabbed...but the jabbed are all ages and the young ones should not be as sick as they currently are. Also, it's summer and there are so many respiratory issues at the moment. Winter will be tough for the vaccinated.
Therein lies our problem. Academics are compromised by mealy mouths like this guy. He uses his credentials to push whatever he’s told. The fact people still out there faith in these compromised minds baffles me.
That is not excuse, as you said, There is wellbeing of many at stake here.
I believe we have quite a few professors and experts of his ink here, although, admittedly they're not as "visible" of late. Corrupted, stupid, arrogant.
I speculate that it's his intelligence and lack of corruption that makes him unable to see the obvious:
https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-hold-stupid-beliefs
If you are someone who doesn't do bad things, it can be hard to imagine that other people would.
Pertinent to the topic of the arrogance of the intellectual class is a 2001 film called ‘Conspiracy’. The movie has a stellar cast and brilliantly dramatises the infamous ‘Wannsee Conference’ that took place in January 1942 in which top officials of the Nazi State discuss the coordination policies needed to carry out the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”. The name of the conference derives from its location – a villa in the upmarket Wannsee lakes area on the outskirts of Berlin – now a museum to the events that took place there. The film is based on the only surviving copy of the minutes of the meeting – which one obsessive member did not destroy as he was ordered to.
I can recommend the film as worth seeing for the high quality of the acting and the direction – it is powerful - and is available on DVD. Curiously, despite the visual and thematic impact of the film, it received little recognition. It appears to have received minimal marketing publicity – possibly because of the dark nature of the subject matter – or was it a little embarrassing to the ‘intellectual classes’? Read on…
What really struck me is that all the attendees of the Wannsee Conference were highly educated men – a significant number holding PhDs. None of them could be described as belonging to the ‘Deplorable’ classes of society.
The New Yorker magazine has a short review of the film at the link below, but I could not help noticing that the author of the New Yorker article just could not help himself. He makes an attempt to associate the Trump Administration with the personalities who attended the Wannsee Conference!!
Perhaps the biggest danger we face in Western countries is the near total ideological corruption of the corporate media, which has been at the forefront in vigorously stoking fear, social division, and outright deception. A pox on all their houses!
https://www.newyorker.com/recommends/watch/conspiracy-a-withering-study-of-nazis-in-a-room
I get what you saying but, I guess, what I have problem with understanding is: why someone in this position has no second thoughts in giving credence publicly to data that has potentially far reaching consequences for many.
Not feeling himself responsible what comes out of his mouth?
It's 23 Feb 2023 for goodness sake, if anything, wouldn't you expect
at the very least, someone who feels within his academic status to speak out, to do due diligence?
Yes you would expect that.
Did you mean ilk?
I mean ink is appropriate, given the hydra tentacle like behaviour of these compartmentalized morons.
😂😂 I sure did, idk how I missed that, thanks. Maybe subconsciously wanted to make you laugh lol Love your alternative explanation!
I used to sledge Esterman specifically via emails. He was not game to respond.
To my surprise, Prof Collignon did a few times! He also responded to another email address until he realised it was from the same refugee!
I would very respectfully write to the WA Premier at the beginning of 2020, forwarding papers about covid, lockdowns etc. No sledging. Gradually I realised that I wasn't getting any automated responses in return. I tried another email and got the automated responses. They had blocked me. I wasn't abusing anyone - simply providing information from the literature that covid was actually not as deadly as they were making it out to be and they shouldn't be responding as they were.
Same with me.
95% of emails were screens and links. All proper. When they were clearly ignored, I screened some more pointed remarks.
Not once was I rude to them.
From the start, I provided them with 5 reasons why I was sending them stuff - one of which was for the record.
Did you see my article about why we appealed to local councils knowing we would lose? https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/genocide-denial-now-occurring-in
Not. Thanks. I will send it off my mailing list of Fed and State leaders; AMA, and "experts".
To let them know ...
I'm sure they are already reading it...the clicks don't lie! But this article is even more important in my opinion - Australia doing Level 4 gain of function research on shore and no one seems to care. https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/australias-gain-of-function-research
Here's the actual government report if you want to send that and ask them why the hell they are doing this: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-04/NHMRC-Gain-of-Function-Research-Review-Report-March-2022.pdf
Good on you for following up. I shouldn't be surprised any more but somehow I still am..........he hadn't even read it....
I've done work in data analysis, and one of the key questions when working with a new client is, “What is the source of the data?” Who or what generates it, what format is it in, how big is it, is it clean (without gaps, or weird characters, or non-breaking spaces), does it include assumptions, and so on. But if you can’t even get hold of the data in the first place, that’s another matter entirely.
Which of the following statements are true?
A/ We’re all in this together.
B/ Two weeks to flatten the curve.
C/ Vaccines are safe and effective.
D/ “the most potent virus we’ve had probably on earth; it’s a shocker.” (Brad Hazzard)
E/ It’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
F/ None of the above.
F / None of the above
"speed of bureaucracy" - ROFL
Sad that people are so loose with the truth..
Must have been taking lessons from McCoward, when his mouth opens lies dribble out.
Apparently up to the 5th jab now, I wonder who will make it through to the 10th?, FWIU they bought 10 for each man woman and child in this country.
I will gleefully send it to the SA Health Minister; who, surprisingly, autoreplied to every email I sent!
So.... cherry-picked time window, cherry-picked cohorts, and cherry-picked endpoints. Got it! No mention of status shenanigans but I guess we can expect some of that too?
Bingo, you win!
I'm guessing they're also ignoring the reality that there is going to be a substantial number of "unvaccinated" that aren't going to show up in any data sets because they've never been sick enough to seek medical attention.
Or just stay home quietly when sick.
I've had flu twice and a head cold once over the past 3 years. Never been tested.
My fully up to date friend is sick every 3 months and tests every time!
The so called report at the bottom of this headline perhaps should be an FOI request to the SA Government, no?
I believe someone in SA is onto it.
See my comment on the refusal of an FOI request in SA for deaths within 28 days of vaccination.
Firstly I want to thank you for all your efforts. I have emailed a letter to the leader, health minister and minister for transport of all the major parties federally and in my state of WA. I sent them to the news agencies of the ABC, The Aus and SMH. The letter/email linked to eight videos that have scientists speaking about their findings. Do you know of any repository of this type of video that can be deployed along with the supporting evidence for Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Repository?
I'm not sure what you mean?
https://c19ivm.org/meta.html
https://c19hcq.org/meta.html
Quoting Rebekah:
“This is a supreme PR and Marketing strategy.”
No it is not! Rebekah is being too polite. The only way this exercise in deception by the South Australian Government and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) can be described is that it is an Orchestrated Litany of Lies. It has one objective - that of grossly deceiving the public. It looks like this Prof Esterman is in it up to his armpits. He has publicly lent his name and reputation to an analysis that he claims that he has not read! What sort of professional standard is that?
Professor Esterman – how about explaining why the mortality rate for the ‘vaccinated’ in South Australia is now running significantly in excess of the expected long term trend?
It’s been an orchestrated litany of lies since day one.
The biggest story ever and the MSM as gutless and cowardly as ever like our Government just keep repeating ‘ get another booster it’s safe and effective, as people drop all over the place from strokes and heart attacks etc.
What a great work Rebekah, thank you! Truly unbelievable that this can still be happening!