Tag Archives: Frits Rosendaal

Pure gold

Yes, we all have these moments, moments of gold and in this whatever I think does not really matter. Yet the approach I have had towards the media is one of distrust, a deep level of distrust and that gave me the idea I am writing down now. It is an approach I have used on numerous occasions in the past, but I never voiced the approach before and for a player making something like Gotham 21 it might be a game changer. I reckon they have not considered this approach before. The older saying that drove it was ‘With MANOVA you take all; the data you put it in a bucket and stir until you get something”, I decided to define the bucket and the spoon. 

In this example we have a story and it is seen on BBC, the NY Times and the Times. The foundation of the story is the same for everyone of them, yet these news agents add rumours and gossip, often with statements like ‘An unnamed source revealed to us’, or ‘an unnamed source with direct knowledge of the matter mentioned’, there are a dime a dozen of examples. Yet there is a complication (isn’t there always). The added dimensions are that these nine rumours have the option of coming from the same or similar sources, the stage is that we need to start figuring out who the stakeholders are, the stakeholders are the ones whispering and adding the rumours. They have THEIR agenda, an agenda that is often unknown to the reporter. A stakeholder is often introduced by a producer, an editor or a news bigwig, they do it like you are doing them a favour, or that it is part of the treasure, but in the end it is Pyrite, fools gold. 

Yet the foundation of the intelligence services has for the longest time never been about disseminating these sources, at times they were the source. Yet with industrials wielding their needs in different ways the stage changes, it gets a little crowded and any issue with 2-3 stakeholders implies that non of them get the treasure, it merely wields into their direction. And that is where the problem lies, we need to figure out these stakeholders and we need to do it a lot faster than we realise. 

So as we consider whether we do or do not do this, consider a news item I handed to you all a short time ago ‘Dutch LUMC has shown that in over 40% of the covid speed tests a false negative is given’, now consider that beside the Dutch news, almost no one picked up on that, not in opposition (which might have been valid), not in support, nothing. A test that affected at present 103 million people and killed well over 2 million. Is it interesting that no one took notice?

The stakeholders are out there and when they really mess with news that affects us, we need to label the players, it is in our best interest to know that, I will let you ponder the severity and the interest you might have. But when you are hit, do not complain when it impacts you, you had the option of choice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Perspective

We all need it, you, me and all around us, it is essential to set a stage where we are able to set dimensionality of what we know, what we think we know and how it relates to everything around us. There are to benefits, the first is the ‘blinker’ effect. In the old days (and ever today) horses were given blinkers as to not get alarmed by what was happening around them, we too need blinkers. If we take in everything around us we might get anxiety. Now, we do not need actual blinkers, we day dream, we focus, we set the view to what we (at times) need to see. Some focus too much and get this tunnel view where the larger image would have been useful, but that is not always the case, it is at times arbitrary.

How about an example. There is talk of Google search leaving Australia, so here we see ‘A Google exit could open door for publisher deals with smaller players: ACCC’, a quote by Competition tsar Rod Sims, my somewhat less diplomatic view is “Is this Sims out of his fucking mind?”, you see the media has almost no credibility left, if you need an example of that, consider the news (by Dutch NOS) on December 25th (at https://nos.nl/artikel/2362024-leids-onderzoek-veel-gebruikte-sneltest-minder-betrouwbaar-dan-gedacht.html), I wrote about it in ‘The lull of writing’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/28/the-lull-of-writing/), in that time, which media format gave us any information? In light of todays news (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/what-we-know-about-the-new-zealand-northland-case-20210125-p56wre.html) a month after the Dutch situation we are given all kinds of filtered information, including a new South African version, with the added “but there’s no evidence to suggest an increase in disease severity or fatality rates”, and there we have it, no mention of ‘False Negatives’ at all, something that was out for a month from reliable sources mind you. In addition, we see the NewScientist giving us ‘Covid-19 news: UK variant may be 30 per cent more deadly’ (at https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-uk-variant-may-be-30-per-cent-more-deadly) and here I accept that one source does not validate the second part, yet Sky News gives us that it ‘may be’ more deadly, which indicates that there is no proof, and other sources do not gives us anything, not even any form of opposition of the two elements, which could be valid, but the news is no longer about informing us, but giving us filtered information (which is their shareholders, stake holders and advertisers version of censorship), as such are we confronted by censorship or scenesoreship? I let you decide, yet the stage that the media gives us in opposition to Google, all whilst they have little to no credibility at present (well most of them anyway) leaves us out in the open wondering why we pay for that level of news anyway, are the shareholders and advertisers not paying them? So whilst Bloomberg gives us ‘Australia Says ‘Inevitable’ Google Will Have to Pay for News’ (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-24/australia-says-inevitable-google-others-have-to-pay-for-news) people like Australia’s Treasurer Josh Frydenberg better realise that they are now walking with a target on their backs, you see, they might hide behind “it’s “inevitable” that Google and other tech behemoths will have to eventually pay for using media content”, all whilst that pussy refused (read: was unable) to overhaul tax laws, tax laws that impact all (including Apple, Netflix and Amazon), and in that setting, we will hold HIM accountable for filtered content, all whilst these news players give us links on Twitter, Facebook and Google Search that leads to advertisements to pay for reading their news, these advertisements are in the news sections, so where do we get OUR money back? So whilst we see “Frydenberg said Australia could either be a “world leader” in pushing for the code or wait to follow others in passing similar legislation”, or Australia becomes option 3, namely irrelevant. A nation with 25 million people is not that relevant, especially when it is as isolated as Australia is. And in that light, when Google moves out, what will Australia do when it realises that there are cogs to digital advertisement and commerce falls down and down, rely on the yellow pages, or a yellow solution (Chinese e-advertisement options). The news dug its own hole, it catered to Murdoch frenzy who pushed towards glossy pages, which is nice in the UK where there are 25 different newspapers on every corner, that is not the setting in Australia, so when the Australian Epoch Times overtakes any of the Australian papers, I will be howling with laughter, these people dug their own graves, relying on entertainment TV (channel 7, channel 9) to give us the filtered information (read: Australian news) all whilst the people were never considered in the first place. 

Now, there will be peope out there that my perspective is wrong, and I am fine with that, so the best thing to do is to investigate, the news that BBC, Reuters and Al Jazeera gives all, whilst we take a look at local newspapers and see what information is missing, as well as from their online versions. I saw the start well before 2012, but in November 2012 the news agents filtered out what gamers needed to know, there we see the larger issue. Trivialising a setting with ‘there is a memo’ whilst the terms of service are a legal setting between consumer and industrial, the memo was not, any meeting could destroy the memo, it could not diminish any agreed terms of service and 30 million gamers were about to get hit, the filtered information bringers left that out, and they have been leaving things out for a decade, the ‘False Negative’ issue as reported  by Frits Rosendaal from the Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC) gave us this a month ago, and it impacts a lot more people than 30 million people, so where was this news? If you do not read Dutch you might not know this and you all needed to know this, which is opposing the view of Shareholders, stake holders and advertisers. So why do we pay for filtered information?

It is a stage of perspective, I will let you decide whether a false negative in a corona viral issue could affect you, your mum or nana. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

The lull of writing

We all have it, a small gap, a gap, which is not the same as a writing block, something I have been smitten with in the past as well. This lull was intentional, you see, I found information tht changes the game, it explains a few matters and sets a different premise. I found it two days ago and I waited to see who would pick it up, and would you believe NO ONE HAS. The apparent setting is one that requires scrutiny, the two sources are high end sources, one is a (what some would call) an Ivy League university that is as renowned as John Hopkins medical school is, the Dutch NOS has had a long term high level journalistic side that equals the New York Times and the Washington Post. They give us ‘Leids onderzoek: veel gebruikte sneltest minder betrouwbaar dan gedacht’ (at https://nos.nl/artikel/2362024-leids-onderzoek-veel-gebruikte-sneltest-minder-betrouwbaar-dan-gedacht.html), the title translates to ‘Leiden research: frequently used rapid test less reliable than expected’, it gives us “Een sneltest die in Nederland dagelijks duizenden keren wordt gebruikt mist 40 procent van de coronagevallen, komt naar voren uit onderzoek van het Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC)”, which translated gives us “a quicktest that is used thousands of times in the Netherlands misses 40% of the corona cases, this is found by the Leiden University Medical Cantre”, this is a dire setting indeed, and one that is kept from the people and the media, I wonder why. The micro biologist Maurine Leversteijn-Van Hall gives us “people are going home thinking that a negative result implies that they are free of COVID-19 this is incorrect”, I was shocked to learn this and the fact that these two renowned sources give us this, is a worry, the fact that others are not asking questions and have not given its people any information is a larger worry still, the fact that they blatantly copy one another on the setting of the tits of a Kardashian or how its hanging with Ryan Reynolds, it it sinking in that the media setting is largely facilitating to shareholder, stake holder and advertiser?

So when we are given the carefully phrased denial ““Abbott’s Panbio antigen rapid test is a proven and accurate test,” the manufacturer argues. “We are not aware of this investigation and the researchers have not contacted us.”” The additional ““But we do not find that 90 percent sensitivity”, says lead researcher Frits Rosendaal, professor of epidemiology at the LUMC. “We conduct independent research and never contact producers about it.” Is added worry still.

The fact that this is not out in the English speaking open after 2 days is food for thought, and even as many do not have the multi linguistic skills I have is not their fault, the fact that the media is not all over this is a clear failing of the larger media. So whilst the larger media is all over ‘Japan’s Shinzo Abe apologises over ‘cherry blossom’ scandal’, the fact that they are not all over the Dutch findings of. Failing quick test in light of the 4,045 new dearly departed of the Coronavirus in the last 24 hours is a large worry, a worry we might happily ignore, if it was not for the fact that 81 million people either have, or had the virus. A stage we are so willing to ignore, so when the numbers go out there and the vaccine, is equally failing, will you start to take things seriously? Will the media wake up, or will they flame it in need for digital click coins?

I will leave it up to you to make up your mind, yet consider that the NOS article, after you pass it through the Google Translate will leave you with a lot of questions, I wonder who will give you the answers, when you realise that the media is not the party earning your trust (well most of them anyway), where will you find the stage where you can make up your mind?

I apologise or leaving you with many questions and no real answers, I am not a medic, I will not give advice where you need answers to clear and concise questions, this is up to people who are educated in the knowledge of Medicine, yet consider that two sources, one in journalism (NOS) and one in medicine (Leiden Medical University) give us a serious failing of 40% and no one is picking that up, why is that? Not merely not picking it up, but also not openly opposing the findings, it is a worry and a clear question mark. 

I wish I could tell you more, but I could not wait any longer to inform you, and hopefully we see more in the coming days, even though I remain doubtful of it and it is another clear example on how shareholders, stake holders and advertisers seem to have a pressure point on the media.

I will leave you to make up your own mind. 

4 Comments

Filed under Media, Science