Discrepancy Analysis
How to find out if you are being deceived.
Here is a simple 3 step process to apply when faced with any situation where you might be misled.
I call it "discrepancy analysis". This is a thought process I used throughout my career in the emergency department. In the ER it is critical to get to the source of a patient’s illness. Time to diagnosis can often mean the difference between life and death. For example a patient thought to have a heart attack as the cause of their chest pain may have a persistent cough. The discrepancy of a cough with a diagnosis of heart attack may be the clue that reveals a pulmonary embolus (blood clots in the lung) as the cause of chest pain, not a heart attack. Resolving discrepancies in the emergency department was my daily routine. Discrepancies between a patient’s description of illness and their findings on physical examination; discrepancies between a patient’s blood tests and their clinical condition, and discrepancies between a patient’s expected course of recovery and reality. This was the backdrop of my emergency practice - finding discrepancies and resolving them to make accurate diagnoses or to catch misdiagnoses before they caused harm.
What I found when hospital administrators ended my medical career, after I used ivermectin to cure 3 patients of COVID-19 pneumonia, was that discrepancy analysis can be applied anywhere. Whenever there is a subject who may be trying to deceive you, be it a person, a government or a news organization, the process of discrepancy analysis can help you get to the bottom of a problem.
1) Discrepancies of speech: Does an individual say one thing one day, and something else the next?
If there is a discrepancy, then the next step is assessing if it is intentional. What is the motive for that discrepancy? is there a reason?
For example: A politician seeking support from two opposing groups might have a discrepancy of speech. Two different positions for two different groups on two different days, where the motive is to get votes from both sides during an election.
2) Discrepancies of Action: Does an individual say one thing but do another?
For example: A doctor who recommends an injection or treatment, but will not take the same for himself or his family.
3) Discrepancies of Reality: Sometimes speech and action are consistent, but there is a discrepancy with reality.
For example: A health director claiming there is an extremely deadly worldwide pandemic, taking actions consistent with that claim, but reality not supporting their position.
Any time there is a discrepancy of speech, a discrepancy in action, or a discrepancy with reality, then there might be a problem. Intent is a key factor to assess if there is a minor problem, such as forgetfulness, or a major problem such as an intent to harm. Depending on the discrepancy, the consequences may affect individuals, communities or an entire nation.
Let's apply discrepancy analysis to a real world situation that happened to me 15 months ago.
This is a 2 hour and 9 minute interview I had on November 9th, 2021 with Dr. Robert Malone.
(Taken from https://www.facebook.com/noblesavagesmedia/videos/197953235732634?comment_id=198580862336538)
9:45 Dr. Malone: "I work closely with government."
10:43 Dr. Malone: "I was alerted by a CIA officer..."
40:30 Dr. Nagase: Backstory.
45:30 Dr. Nagase: Cancer and reverse transcriptase
47:03 Dr. Malone: drops off call
57.53 Dr. Malone: comes back cautioning against speculating about reverse transcriptase.
58:30 Dr. Malone: "We're under intense pressure... we have to be super careful about our messaging and what we're stating...not useful to speculate about things like integration (of DNA from reverse transcribed RNA) “
There is a discrepancy between my concern about reverse transcriptase and Robert Malone's assertion that its effect is "not clinically significant". My concern was genetic alteration of children. Dr. Malone's concern was the freedom community's messaging to the world.
Reality (albeit not a definitive one as the study was not done on human children ) was published on February 25th, 2022 in this article.
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm
What do you think?
These are helpful heuristics and I found myself employing a similar approach during the earliest period of the 'pandemic'. It is why I thought all the politicians and public health 'experts' who were found to be continually breaking lockdowns rule so important. So this is supposed to be the deadliest and horrifying viral wave of all time, and you're telling everyone to stay home and disrupt all societal processes -- but actually you're out gallivanting and
1. cheating on your wife (Matt Hancock, UK health secretary at the time)
2. cheating on someone else's wife (Neil Ferguson, UK fake health prophet who said UK will have 500k deaths from covid and that's with a vaccine, and who said we need to stay locked down)
3. going to restaurants secretly ("French Laundry") when you're telling everyone to stay home and shutting down businesses and schools (Gavin Newsom, California)
and so on.
It was more than mere hypocrisy. It just kept happening, and it was happening to the people who are supposedly the most clued in to the 'dangers' we were exposed, and had 'the most to lose' because it's just so important to have people like Newsom, Hancock, Ferguson, and the other fools at the helm.
Again we saw this everywhere. The other notable example was the secret festivities of Boris Johnson and his buddies in the UK.
When this is happening to the people who are executing the biggest transformation of society, who are constantly shaming the populace for doing things like going to the beach, then it is as you say, a MAJOR discrepancy, and it is no mere puritan policing on our part. Given the supposed stakes ("covid is a threat to everyone), it is obvious the complete divergence between public speech and private action reveals the emptiness of their perspective. Consider how people, especially the 'elites', would have acted, if there was a real crisis where the mere breathing of air was a significant threat. They certainly wouldn't be engaging in trivial trysts that could put them at risk.
By the way, there is a discussion group which had focused on collecting these instances, if you ever need references for future posts. It is called "LockdownHypocrites". Here are 2 archival snapshots, one from a year ago and one from today.
https://archive.is/BL7ph
https://archive.is/ENVB7
Also, I never saw that interview with you and Dr. Malone before.
It reminds me, did you ever happen to see the following paper? If not, I think it would be of great interest, because it focuses on the DNA/reverse-transcription question regarding the mRNA vaccines. Coincidentally, the abstract I will quote from also mentions a big discrepancy, our current theme.
>mRNA Vaccines: Why Is the Biology of Retroposition Ignored?
Tomislav Domazet-Lošo. Genes (Basel). 2022 May; 13(5): 719.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9141755/
Abstract excerpt:
"Here, I discuss the pervasive claim that mRNA-based vaccines cannot alter genomes. Surprisingly, this notion is widely stated in the mRNA vaccine literature but never supported by referencing any primary scientific papers that would specifically address this question. This discrepancy becomes even more puzzling if one considers previous work on the molecular and evolutionary aspects of retroposition in murine and human populations that clearly documents the frequent integration of mRNA molecules into genomes, including clinical contexts. By performing basic comparisons, I show that the sequence features of mRNA vaccines meet all known requirements for retroposition using L1 elements—the most abundant autonomously active retrotransposons in the human genome. In fact, many factors associated with mRNA vaccines increase the possibility of their L1-mediated retroposition. I conclude that is unfounded to a priori assume that mRNA-based therapeutics do not impact genomes and that the route to genome integration of vaccine mRNAs via endogenous L1 retroelements is easily conceivable."
Hi Dr. Nagase. I’ve just discovered you, by way of Sage Hana, and just subscribed. I’ve always been amazed by people who seem to have an innate ability to analyze an extremely complex issue and, more importantly, to convey it to others in an understandable and logical way. I look forward to reading past articles and many more in the future. Thank you