COVID-19 Research, Drug trials and Pathophysiology

I said Canadian numbers were lower than Swedish ones, not that they are more accurate. Canadian numbers were collected by unionized nurses and doctors working at government hospitals. They had no financial incentive to increase the number of covid deaths.

British Columbia schools were closed in April and May of 2020. Afterwards, they were open. People were never locked down. Borders to the U.S. were closed for travel before the vaccines when Trump was President. Biden opened them early in his Presidency for the vaccinated. In Canada, some major sporting events were carried on without fans, along with restaurants and bars. Some Canadian provinces slowed travel to other provinces before the vaccines.

After 2022, Canada stopped counting covid caused deaths and started counting those dying with covid along with those who died from covid, thus increasing the covid death numbers.

 

Spare me. If you say the canadian numbers are better then you mean that it is a true statement. Hence the numbers are accurate. You should know better than to write that sentence.

 

I can see this is all getting away from you.

 

The more time that passes, the worse the Chinese look.

• 
  How China shut down attempts to uncover COVID-19 origins

BEIJING (AP) — The hunt for the origins of COVID-19 has gone dark in China, the victim of political infighting after a series of stalled and thwarted attempts to find the source of the virus that killed millions and paralyzed the world for months.

The Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus from the first weeks of the outbreak, despite statements supporting open scientific inquiry, an Associated Press investigation found. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country.

The investigation drew on thousands of pages of undisclosed emails and documents and dozens of interviews that showed the freeze began far earlier than previously known and involved political and scientific infighting in China as much as international finger-pointing. . . .

 

Holy Carp this article this is nonsense propaganda .. the "sin of omission" on hyperbolic steroids. Not .. .. say it isn't so "The China Virus"

Trying to blame China for Covid .. shutting down investigation into Covid Origins .. as if the gain of function research being conducted on "Corona virus" as this is one of two labs in the world authorized for research on "Corona virus" was only being conducted by Chinese .. When in reality is more like 20 nations in the world were conducting this kind of Research .. including the US .. but every big Pharma nation as well .. these folks being deeply involved in the research that created Covid --- if indeed this research came from Wuhan -- which is now the consensus case.

The Chinese assisting in blocking and stonewalling this investigation .. - Doing what Biden and the Fauci crew did - (and other involved nations) and labeled the "Lab Leak" as conspiracy .. shutting down investigation in that direction .. and no surprise that China helped .. being quite happy to support the West Efforts at population control .. mirroring China's efforts with the same problem .. good buddies on that front I guess .. Right Jack !?

U understand now ..the propaganda Right ! .. yes friend .. it exists in the west .. heh heh .. "don't buy the lie"

 

The Canadian numbers are fine .. depending on what is being claimed .. Lang puts up this number of deaths tally for example .. which we can accept as correct .. more unjabbed died than jabbed. (not saying hanky panky in the Can numbers was not possible .. although what there was seems much better than the wonky US numbers .. but this is another story and does not matter for this point)

So OK had more unjabbed die than jabbed using weighted average. The problem .. is that Lang then goes and uses that stat .. say 2 times greater chance of dying.. and claims this applies to the population as a whole .. when it doesn't . Lang doesn't know what the numbers mean .. and refuses to ""get it" despite numerous attempts a explaining..

So here goes again .. The statistic only applies to those that Died - that demographic .. those that fit that demographic. For example .. In the beginning Covid did not even infect children .. never mind dying from the thing . and so no .. the chance of a normal child dying from covid was statistically Zero .. and taking the Jab did not double that chance .. but even if we did double the number .. it is still statistically zero. F-ALL x 2 is still F-ALL

There is simply no reason any child should have been Jabbed .. and it works out the same for every other person who is not .. (Old Sick Obese and near death with 3 + comorbidities and severely compromised immune system) .. and if that was you .. it is probably a good idea to take the Jab .. the risk of harm is not greater than the benefit .. as opposed to everyone else .. where the risk of harm from the Jab is far greater than harm prevented by the Jab .. which is none.

Statistically -- regardless of the data in Lang's link --- the risk of harm from the Jab is off the charts higher than any benefit for a "normal" person "Normal" defined as someone not in the above category .. -- having not just one of the factors but all of them at the same time .. Just because you are old doesn't mean you should have taken the Jab ..

Turns out this "Safe and Effective" experimental treatment .. was neither .. in terms of Safety was 100 times more dangerous than previous vaccines .. such as Swine Flu which had an SAR of 1 in 100,000 Severe Adverse Reaction.. was taken off the market as too dangerous.

Turns out this mRNA treatment .. --- Using Pfizer and Moderna's own Phase III clinical Trial data .. has an SAR of 1 in 800. And if it is a male 16-30 .. with a 300% higher chance of myocharditis than ave .. the risk for this poor soul is ~ 1 in 300 ..

Now Jab 3 times a year like a good little lad .. for 10 years = 30 jabs = 1 in 10 chance of an SAR.

-- What Lang .. not Deer in Headlights yet again ? .. what got away from you ... such that you are pestering another poster with the same false conclusions I schooled you on so many times ..

what ? --- where is the Rub .. what are we missing Lang .. The Gov't lied to you .. and it sucks I know . especially the healthcare institution lying .. and the mainstream media .. particularly on the Blue Cancel Crew Side .. complete with brown shirt propaganda tactics .. that was the worst .. and most scary thing.. Do you still buy "The Big Lie" friend ?! don't do it .. listen to the Scientist and Subject Matter Expert .. who has crucified your positions so many times it does not appear to hurt anymore .. ?

 

I said the unvaccinated 20% (15% if you don't include children under five) did 47% of the dying from covid.

Very few children under five were vaccinated in Canada.

Your position is not supported by the evidence.

Another claim unsupported claim.

Where's your evidence?

For 50+, you were probably better off getting the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine.

Once again, no support. Numbers without a source.

Are you okay? The boosters are every six months, not four. Where do you get your "facts?"

A scientist would doesn't document his claims.

Now you claim to know about Canada.

 

I know a ton about Canada .. but what does that have to do with your blistering failure to comprehend the data from Canada you posted.
What part of .. it doesn't matter what the stats were 20% 50% 150% ? they only apply to the dead .. do you not understand. ?

What evidence .. evidence for what ? what is the position you want evidence for ? other than you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about .. which has already been demonstrated. .. what numbers without a source ? you were given the source for the Pfizer -Moderna Phase III clinical trials a bunch of times .. what claim did I not document.

Its a post of complete nonsense some had more than 3 Jabs in a year .. but what difference does it make to the numbers of any significance whether it is 2 or 3 jabs a year.. in terms of risk of harm ... as if 1 in 10 is different than 1 in 15 by any statistical measure of safety .. Both are ragingly unsafe.

What part of "The Gov't Lied to you" is not sinking in .. the Jab was not safe.. and who said children under 5 were Jabbed in great numbers . what a nonsense comment .. I said they didn't die Lang .. what part of the nonsense you speak and what was said doesn't add up ? Do you understand Lang .. children did not die .. vaxed ..or unvaxed from Covid in significant numbers .. are you having trouble understanding ? So that children didn't need the Jab..

What part not just children .. but everybody else in the population except (old-near death- many comorb - inmmune compromized) did not die from covid in significant numbers .. is not ringing any bells. ? and what part of your 20%, 50%, 150% only applies to the above nearly dead demographic .. do you not understand ?

Please respond with "I understand or I do not understand" for each time you are questioned.