When scientists were snitches - Ryan Imgrund

When Scientists become Snitches – Ryan Imgrund

CH1 Podcast Andrew Rouchotas EP025 – When Scientists become Snitches – Ryan Imgrund

Ryan Imgrund is a Canadian Biostatistician who snitched on, and attacked Canadian MPP Randy Hillier for defying COVID lockdown measures.

Ryan works within data models, predicting death numbers based on variables like case infections, case infection rates and death rates. He aggressively pushes lock down measures, and completely ignores the more complex variables involved in calculating loss of life. Deaths associated from poverty and homelessness which are driven by lockdowns completely escape Ryans mathematical models – essentially as effectively irrelevant. Loss of life associated with Mental Health and Depression concerns, from things like suicide and drug overdoses, fly right over his head. Ryan will aggressively promote lockdowns and is quick to shame folks who do not adhere to his modelling. He even goes so far as to assign a number of dead bodies someone is responsible for, if they dare not comply to his asinine mathematical models and his demands to enforce the most authoritarian of lock down measures.

Ryan will completely ignore 50,000 of the worlds leading subject matter experts – from Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, etc – who have signed The Great Barrington Declaration. All of whom completely disagree with Ryans modelling and conclusions. Ryan ignores the actual real world data. For example, the state of Florida, with the largest percentage of long term care population anywhere. Florida, without lock downs or mandatory masking, having a COVID death rate inline with Canada without suffering any of the secondary loss of life and economic devastation lockdowns generate. While states like NY or CA, who have had the most extreme lockdown measures ever seen, and for over 9 months at this point, are experiencing soaring infection and death rates.

Ryan won’t ask why Canada is not performing anti-body testing. He also won’t ask why the World Health Organization (WHO) changed the definition of “herd immunity”, after almost a full century of a globally, mutually agreed to definition – the very same day that COVID vaccines were announced as available.

What Ryan will do however, is shame and attack anyone in non-compliance with his narrow minded and nonsensical perspective. He viciously attacks those in non-compliance, and demands they are severely punished and shamed. He aggressively attacked MPP Randy Hillier for daring to celebrate Christmas with his family, calling for a $100,000 fine, along with other despotic sanctions against the honourable Mr Hillier.

Ryan Imgrund is a snitch and a coward, and today I expose him for the nonsensical media whore scientist he is, and for the horrific human being he has become.

Help me protect the efforts of Mr Hillier and expose Ryan for what he is.

For those of you who typically read my content, but don’t listen to the podcasts (which is perfectly fine and I thank you for your time and your support) – do yourself a favour today – even if this is the only podcast of mine you ever listen to, please listen to this podcast !!!!!

CH1 Podcast Andrew Rouchotas – EP025 – When scientists become snitches

Podcast available on all of your favourite podcast platforms (iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, etc). You can also listen to the podcast in your browser directly from the CH1.ca platform.

Ryan Imgrund is a Canadian Biostatistician who snitched on, and attacked Canadian MPP Randy Hillier for defying COVID…

Posted by CH1.ca on Wednesday, December 30, 2020
Join the discussion on Facebook

Podcast Notes

Ryan Imgrund Snitch Scientist
Ryan Imgrund Snitch Scientist
Ryan Imgrund Snitch Scientist
Ryan Imgrund Snitch Scientist
Ryan Imgrund
Ryan Imgrund
WHO changes the definition of “Herd Immunity”
WHO changes the definition of “Herd Immunity”

50,000 of the worlds leading subject matter experts sign The Great Barrington Declaration, which explicitly oppose our governments public health policies – https://gbdeclaration.org/

Studies Demonstrating that asymptomatic transmission is basically non-existent – 1) https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomatic-spread-revisited/ 2) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w 3) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102

Canadian Anti-Body Testing Policies – http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/testing/antibody-testing

WPF Global Starvation re COVID Lockdowns – https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-chief-warns-grave-dangers-economic-impact-coronavirus-millions-are-pushed-further-hunger

Scientific Evidence clearing demonstrating the lack of scientific efficacy with respect to masking in order to prevent contamination 

Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”

Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”

Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”

Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”

Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”

Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.

Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.”Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”

Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”

Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”