It’s Probably Nothing

It's Probably Nothing Safe and Effective Wuhan Flu 130 Comments

Grab a beverage

The Daily Sceptic- Vaccinated Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show

The UKHSA has at long last published raw data on hospitalisation rates by vaccine status, for those infected with Covid as well as those that aren’t. The results are very concerning, showing significantly higher A&E admission rates in the vaccinated for reasons other than Covid, and much less difference in admission rates for symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated than suggested by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness published by the UKHSA.

130 Replies to “It’s Probably Nothing”

  1. A reasonable explanation is that:

    1. The elderly make up most hospitalizations at all times.
    2. A very high percentage of the elderly are vaccinated, typically above 95%, depending on how you define “vaccinated.”

    Thus we get the phenomenon that a high percentage of non-COVID hospitalizations are vaccinated. The author of the piece offers other explanations as well.

    1. 95 percent vaccination rate in the oldies, vs 85 percent vaccination rate overall. What you say could account for some of the difference, but not a five fold difference.

      1. Probably not, but there’s no need to guess. Public health experts know the rate of hospitalization by age (preCOVID), and the vaccination rate by age. With those two pieces of information, one can calculate what the multiplier should be.

        1. One can definitely conclude these vaccines were rushed, and this is the biggest clinical trial ever. If they have debatable efficacy, and the strong likelihood of many negative side effects, they should not have been approved.

          1. They were faced with a devastating and extraordinarily infectious epidemic, one that not only had the potential to kill millions, but leave many more millions with lasting damage to their organs.

            It was a risky decision, but I think the right one.

          2. “They were faced with a devastating and extraordinarily infectious epidemic”
            100% wrong.
            Stop wasting my time with my time wasting.

          3. It was a risky decision, but I think the right one.

            100 % wrong again.

            You have no issues saying that to the dead and injured from the death and disease vax.

            They are guilty of crimes against humanity, killers of our loved ones is actually what they are.

          5. *
            DON’T WORRY… THE LIBERALS WILL CHOOSE FOR YOU

            “Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca says he will add the COVID-19 vaccination
            to the list of mandatory immunizations for school children if elected premier.”

            *

          6. Absolutely DEAD WRONG Killer Marmot. Dead wrong. They were NOT faced with “a devastating and extraordinarily infectious epidemic, one that not only had the potential to kill millions, but leave many more millions with lasting damage to their organs.” That assumption came solely from the models used for computer projections, models not based on any real data, only worst case assumptions. In fact, there was data by the end of March 2020 that this was largely deadly to the elderly and the sickly and many experts were already calling out the computer models as faulty and overly deadly. Government chose not to listen to experts and to accept the words of the computer modelling types. Furthermore there was strong evidence at least for Pfizer from the very beginning of their submission to the FDA on the third trial that the vaccines were not safe and the efficacy was grossly overestimated. Many experts world over were sounding the alarm. Again government chose to ignore this counter data. Not only did they ignore it, but they went on a campaign to deliberately and savagely suppress any opinion not in line with their extreme danger/extreme efficacy scenario. They are responsible for what has happened because of malicious negligence and stunning incompetence.

        3. KM

          “..They were faced with a devastating and extraordinarily infectious epidemic, one that not only had the potential to kill millions, but leave many more millions with lasting damage to their organs…”

          UTTER BULLSHIT.
          99.94% overall Survival rate from the Virus itself.
          And I don’t care how “old” you wanna go with that.

          I also note that you give ZERO time to the huge spike in Myocarditis among 18-40 yr males, Zero commentary on massive amounts of pregnancy – birthing issues etc etc…among many other SEVERE Adverse reactions incl. DEATH…?? Why.? gonna tell me that none of that has occurred.??

          & ALL of it DUE 100% to PFIZER/Biontech BIO WEAPON

          All i see is you keep harping on the 80+ yr old crowd being the only ones seemingly dying and implying as such they woulda died anyway without the vax.

          Go ply your horseshit elsewhere Rodent.

          1. Steakman: The owner of this has blog asked for a reasonable level of courtesy. It’s up to you, but I suggest that you take her advice.

          2. “The owner of this has blog asked for a reasonable level of courtesy.”

            That call for courtesy extends beyond language. Quit insulting the sentient on this board with BS hypotheses & narratives attempting to disguise the manifold shortfalls of the “vaxxes”.

          3. “The owner of this has blog asked for a reasonable level of courtesy. It’s up to you, but I suggest that you take her advice.”

            Who is threatening who?

            Bullies are masters at threatening and holding others responsible for their own shortcomings when they can’t argue their Media Programmed Official Governmental Approved Science Dogma and all they have is to use their go to threat cards to silence their opposition.

            Dr. Byram Bridle talks about debates, science, blood, truckers, and Canada

            https://rumble.com/vv4b44-dr.-byram-bridle-talks-about-debates-science-blood-truckers-and-canada.html

          4. Freeman: “Who is threatening who?”

            How on earth could I threaten anyone? I have nothing to threaten them with.

            I am outnumbered here ten to one, and I’m the bully? Give your head a shake.

          5. Dumb Biker:

            I make my point through argument and by citing research papers and information sources. I (mostly) avoid personal insults.

            If you find that insulting then you’re in for a tough life, cause there’s not much consensus on anything.

          6. You threatened Steakman that he was breaking rules because your feelings were offended

            Do you require to fill a Hurt Feelings Report?

            I shake my head at how someone could be completely blind to the massive depopulation war that has started with the first Covid 19 injection:

            Our Media

            Our Institutions

            Our Government

            Are still injecting our loved ones with these diseased filled syringes with bonus early sudden deaths

            You give your head a shake and Wake Up

            Your apologizing for and accepting murder can’t you see that?

          7. Freeman:

            My feelings weren’t offended. I’ve been insulted a lot worse than that and it never bothered me. But do you or don’t you think the blog owner’s requests should be respected? Serious question.

            The rest of your post is simply bizarre.

          8. “I make my point through argument and by citing research papers and information sources.”

            Arguments without foundation because the research papers you cite are based on erroneous data & false assumptions in the first place. And, “information sources”? The ones that follow a prescribed narrative with forgone conclusions? Those “information sources”? That’s what’s insulting to those of us who actually think.

            And, there’s no such thing a “consensus” in science.

          10. Dumb Biker:

            You have to decide on what basis you make decisions. Do you follow the best available research and data? Or do you put your trust in opinions off of the internet, often accompanied by specious analysis of statistics. Or do you believe whatever aligns with your political beliefs — in short, what you want to be true?

            None seems completely trustworthy, but the first seems to vastly more reliable.

          11. Freeman:

            Don’t know if I have a soul. But I most definitely have a brain, which is why I give preference to the best medical research and data when deciding what seems to be true.

            I recommend it. It’s not perfect, but it can prevent a lot of mistakes. It’s certainly better than knee-jerk cynicism, which is a poor star to navigate from.

          12. “Do you follow the best available research and data?”

            You tend to cite many gov’t-funded and -based studies. The very same gov’ts who have been lying to the people about covid, “vaxxes”, etc., from minute one. You consider it sound research while, for the most of us, it set off alarm bells. Now that the lies are being exposed, our suspicions are confirmed, yet you still think it’s the gold standard. It’s not. It’s shit. It’s more of the same lies that have been promulgated by the bastards since day one. They’re merely fine tuning the lies to support the narrative.

            Why do you suppose so many gov’t Covid reporting sites no longer include certain data? Because that data no longer supported the narrative. It revealed the lies. Oops. Mustn’t fracture the narrative…

            There’s a ton of solid information to be drawn upon from the intertoobs, if you know where to look and how to read the data. And, it has nothing to do with confirmation bias. If anyone can actually present solid data that supports a particular position, my POV can change. So far, nothing you have presented has done that. Not to worry, though. Neither has anyone else on this particular topic.

          13. Dumb Biker:

            Virtually every medical research paper is funded partially or indirectly by the government. That’s how it works these days.

            It’s not optimum, but it still works quite well, and is the best we’ve got. It does not mean that researchers are automatically biased. Most researchers are honest to a fault, and regularly use double-blind controlled experiments to avoid bias. The do-it-yourselfers on the internet are not a sound substitute.

            We’re in a bizarre situation where an anthropology lecturer ranting on the internet is given more credibility than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers, and it’s nuts.

          14. Most researchers are honest to a fault

            You don’t…you don’t know very many researchers, do you?

          15. “…but it still works quite well, and is the best we’ve got.”

            It doesn’t necessarily &, if the last two years is any kind of an indicator of the best medical research available, we are well & truly fcuked. I know most are biased, at least as far as Covid is concerned, because medications with a proven history of hundreds of millions of safe doses were thrown over for an experimental jab of questionable heritage & still in the midst of trials. Millions of people died because of that choice and who knows how many more will kick from complications arriving from getting the “vaxx”.

            “Most researchers are honest to a fault…”

            Not Covid researchers. QED.

            “We’re in a bizarre situation where an anthropology lecturer ranting on the internet is given more credibility than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers, and it’s nuts.”

            It’s not bizarre at all. I’m a big fan of Richard Feynman. One of my favorite quotes of his: “Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, is it reasonable?”

            Little of what’s been published on Covid has been tainted with actual “reason” and fact. Most of it has been narrative, propaganda & outright lies. That’s why anyone with two working brain cells to rub together can have more credibility than, say, Fauci. Or Tam. Or Hinshaw. Or any of the other liars on the gov’t side of things. Damn little coming from any of them has sounded reasonable.

            In addition, credentials don’t impress me. Consequently, when someone on these boards rubs everyone’s nose in them (like you & like a certain economist here) I call bullshit pretty quick.

        4. KM, the overwhelming majority of deaths, are in the +75 age bracket. There is no contesting that data.

          Just like the flu.

          Average age of death in BC is 82. Average age of a dead Covid patient??????

          82

          This was NEVER the Black Plague, Ebola, AIDS, or a combination of all three. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.

          YOUR FEAR does not equal FACTS, no matter how hard you try

          1. DanBC:

            I’m not sure I follow your point about age, but I can assure you I have no fear. I do, however, prefer informed choices.

            In regards to facts, I notice I cite far more references here than my critics.

          2. “I do, however, prefer informed choices.”
            Translation: You prefer to be told what to do by your “betters”.
            I suspected the vax from the word go, because of the coercive measures used, and now more and more data is slowly coming out to support my position, data that would be called a “conspiracy theory” or “misinformation” a mere 60 days ago.
            Normal humans use their eyes, ears and their own judgment to make decisions, not a bunch of “experts” who are tied to the industry selling the products in question.
            When some “expert” tells me that an orange is in fact a watermelon, and then does a deep dive into “genetics” to prove it, I still know that oranges are not watermelons.

          3. “Normal humans use their eyes, ears and their own judgment to make decisions, not a bunch of “experts” who are tied to the industry selling the products in question.”

            Your eyes, ears, and judgment are not up to the task. The pandemic is too large and complex for any one person. Like it or not, it takes an army of experts to figure this thing out.

            But it is fascinating hearing the thought processes of people who have cast science aside and plowed ahead based on their own hunches and every remnant of evidence they can find on the internet, no matter its source. They just KNOW the truth.

      2. Do covid jabs kill more people than they save. YES. Go to Principia Scientific and read the article titled as just that. The rodent is a lunatic.

          1. KM – The evidence that COVID vaccines kill people is poor at best.

            False…

            Guest: Dr. Joshua Guetzkow – Senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Institute of Criminology at The Hebrew University

            About adverse events after the Booster:

            Israeli Ministry of Health conducted a survey of about two thousand people 3-4 weeks after they received the third (booster)shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, asking them about the adverse events they experienced following vaccination. The results are absolutely devastating.

            About the fact that the probability of stillbirth, abortion or miscarriage is 1.36 times higher in vaccinated people.

            About the demonization of the unvaccinated: across 21 countries, the antipathy people felt against the unvaccinated is 2.5 times higher on average than it is against migrants from the Middle East

            https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigative-Committee:5/Session-103-Dr.-Joshua-Guetzkow–Odysee-final:1

          2. Freeman: Do you mean this survey from the Israeli Ministry of Health?

            https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/09022022-02

            Doesn’t seem particularly damning.

            In regards to your senior lecturer in sociology and anthropology, I have no particular reason to put faith in him. Has he published a research paper on COVID I can read?

          3. When you are analyzing and quoting data that changes any and all adverse reactions in days 1-14 (1-21 in BC and Sask) into COVID in the unvaccinated then your data is contaminated and your conclusions are faulty. Many of us with an epidemiology background have strongly questioned the use of this days 1-14 exemption.

    2. Yeah, you keep banging that drum…..here is a little something for you to consider. If you look at the UK vaccine surveillance reports from January 1, 2022 up to Week 13 (the last week that the UK provided their hospitalization and Covid death rate by age group and vax status….I wonder why), this is what you find. Tell me if you see a trend. And don’t try to tell me that the trend exists because of more vaccine uptake because in fact, since January 1, 2022, the vaccine doses administered has fallen very significantly.

      Percent of all Covid deaths in “fully vaccinated and boosted”
      Week 1 0%
      Week 2 0%
      Week 3 32.26%
      Week 4 39.68%
      Week 5 46.54%
      Week 6 53.46%
      Week 7 59.14%
      Week 8 63.90%
      Week 9 68.33%
      Week 10 70.74%
      Week 11 71.58%
      Week 12 71.55%
      Week 13 72.62%

      Percent of all Covid deaths in unvaccinated
      Week 1 27.99%
      Week 2 29.11%
      Week 3 26.07%
      Week 4 21.78%
      Week 5 18.28%
      Week 6 15.24%
      Week 7 13.02%
      Week 8 11.45%
      Week 9 10.03%
      Week 10 9.72%
      Week 11 9.79%
      Week 12 9.69%
      Week 13 9.98%

      The vaccines have failed. They exhibit negative efficacy even without considering the potential for long term unknown effects and damage to immune systems. Right now, we are seeing statistical exercises trying to kick dirt over the truth because both Pfizer and Moderna as well as public “health” agencies that ignored the problems with these experimental drugs are complicit in this abomination.

      1. Don’t forget the Media and Employers that mercilessly pushed the jabs on families and employees. They shoulder a large portion of responsibility for the extreme coercion applied to increase jab compliance.

        1. Covid, and “treatments” by jab in the UK, are several months ahead of Canaderp/UAss. The UK is a predicator, and always has been, for what is coming in North America.
          Burying your head in the sand is not a strategy.
          The jabbed are in for a horrible future. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
          Oh, and quoting official gubermint propaganda, is almost always a losing argument.

        2. Government sourdes are the last place I trust after the last two years. They pushed and indeed coerced the Vax on the general public, if it turns out it is faulty, and was never properly tested but pushed through for a variety (none of them acceptable) reasons, then they have a lot, A LOT to answer for, at the cost of their jobs and possibly their lives. They are not a credible source, as they have a vested interest in things falling only one way.

          1. “Government sourdes are the last place I trust after the last two years.”

            Okay, then what is your source of information? Blogs off of the internet? You’re gut feelings? How do you draw conclusions?

        3. Again I say Canada and the USA change any adverse reaction or illness days 1-14 (1-21 in BC and Sask) to COVID in the unvaccinated. The data from the USA and Canada is compromised. Many experts in epidemiology have called out this two to three week exemption. Until the Canadian and the US government comes clean on this one fact, nothing and I mean nothing they publish can be trusted. It’s garbage in, garbage out.

      3. Wow — excellent confirmation that the vaxes are not as advertised. It is hard to argue with those stats.

    3. Sure, it’s like the good ole days where just old people died. That is probably why they wrote the paper, to tell us nothing to see here.

      I am sure that the untested, mass application, of new technology had nothing to do with it. No sireee, nothing at all. Never happened before.

    4. KM is unreal.
      Data shows vaxxed more likely to die.
      KM says a “reasonable” interpretation of the data is “vaxxed less likely to die”

      Ya can’t make this kinda stuff up!

      1. Show more your evidence. Cause I’ve cited quite a few references above.

        1. The evidence is generated by the BC and UK health authorities, as you well know, you disingenuous rodent.
          Yeah, Pfizer and its cronies say its 100% safe and effective, but UK and BC data say otherwise, and when you are presented with data from the UK and BC health authorities demonstrating that you’re more likely to die if vaxxed, you say that a “reasonable” interpretation of this data is in fact the opposite of what it shows. You really are a piece of work.

          You would make a fine replacement for Jen Psaki.

          1. HiHo: I pointed out yesterday how the conclusion drawn from that one graphic makes little sense. Not even the BC health authorities draw that conclusion, and it’s their data.

          2. Yeah, data showing that the vast majority of fatalities are among the vaxxed actually means that the majority of fatalities are among the unvaxxed.
            I think you suffer from an extreme form of cognitive dissonance, if not downright mental retardation.

          3. Nobody says that vaccines are 100% safe and effective, cause there’s no such thing as a 100% safe and effective vaccine. That’s just making it up wholesale.

          4. Actually, they did say 100% safe and effective, and their posts and articles have been archived.
            Your credibility gap just grew by a mile.

          5. Well I’m sure SOMEBODY said 100%, but no medical researcher unless they’re high on locoweed. The way vaccines work preclude them from being 100% effective in all people.

            Seriously, it’s a dumb point that has nothing to do with whether vaccines are beneficial.

        2. Sure, keep citing your propaganda. YOUR problem, is the data has continually trended in the direction, where anyone jabbed should be getting more and more concerned about their health, and life expectancy.

          And you keep ignoring the obvious, but hey, its your risk, not mine.

          Ever ask yourself why gubermints across this country keep omitting critical data points from their releases, and reducing the data they print? Maybe, maybe, the reason is the DATA is counter to the official spin propaganda.

          Clearly the jabbed are getting sick, hospitalized and yes DYING, no matter how many shots they get, in fact, the more shots, the more likely they will die.

          The jabs are a massive failure, on that point alone. Fauxci, Tammy, Bonnie the Nazi, all promised that the jab would PREVENT illness, transmission and yes, DEATH as well.

          Did they lie, are they grossly incompetent, or are eminently corrupt and soulless?

          1. DanBC: I don’t cite propaganda. I cite data sources and scientific papers and give links to them. What do you do?

          3. “Marmot you cite only contaminated and biased data.”

            If your definition of “contaminated and biased data” is “produces results I don’t want to hear” then I suppose you’re right.

  2. In somewhat related news, whats his name the Ontario Liberal leader wants to poison kids. He announced today that if premier, he will make China virus vaccinations part of the mandatory list for school children.

    1. I just read about that. I can’t believe Liberals would be to stupid as to make a controversial and untested vaccine mandatory for children. Well, that should seal their fate as Doug cruises to victory.

        1. It’s exactly that. I was looking forward to going to the polls and declining my ballot, as I believe that is tracked separately and makes a stronger statement than defacing the ballot.

          But the liberals – fascist and totalitarian, whether federal or provincial – may force me to pinch my nose and vote for F^3 regardless.

          Gun confiscation. Mandatory vaccines for young children. Why don’t they just take off the masks and put on their armbands.

          Pyrrhic indeed.

          mhb23re

    2. And so like all the other vaccines on the “mandatory list”, just ignore it. Flood the system with exemptions and let the whole gong show collapse.

  3. Yeah, they are looking at the wrong statistic. They should look at the percentage of hospitalizations compared to years prior to the application of the “vaccine.” Age is, basically, irrelevant in that comparison.

    Regardless, I’m more interested in the pediatric hepatitis outbreak in over 20 countries worldwide. The commonality seems rather slim to none….unless ;D

    1. LindaL, go to Principia Scientific and read the article titles, Do covid jabs kill more people than they save? I don’t do links. The site is easily available.

      1. Depends on what your definition of “work” is.
        For the Davos fiends, they’re probably working exactly as designed.

      2. That’s what I think. There really is not substantial evidence that the Covid vaccines do much to prevent illness and death. Also, with recent stats, they are looking worse and worse.

    3. There may be truth in that. I still think vegans are compromising their natural defenses…and the gluten free fad negates added prebiotics. Additionally, there is something to be said for psychological outlook on life and how it affects you physically. Do you know a hardcore liberal who isn’t absolutely miserable? IMO, unvaccinated are more of an individual (as opposed to a hive mentality)…allowing them to make common sense decisions in everyday life based on their own well being. That’s not a dig on anyone here who got the “vaccination.” Most were forced by work policy or erroneous information. But, it’s the truth.

      Additionally, a lot of the unvaccinated live in rural areas, or suburbs as opposed to city life. I’ve done both, and can assure you that living in a city (such as NYC) carries a lot of detriments to health not the least of which is sitting at a desk all day as opposed to physical labor.

      1. I think it goes deeper:
        Urban dwellers are accustomed to being told how to behave by some authority.
        Where and when to park their cars, how to queue up at a bus stop, when and where they can smoke a cigarette, when and where they can cross the street, etc.
        Rural dwellers, on the other hand, use their own senses and judgment to decide these things.
        IMHO, cities are like giant hamster habitats that humans lock themselves into.

  6. When someone is trying to coerce you into injecting something, the best policy is to resist to the best of your ability.
    If the jabs worked as advertised, they wouldn’t need the coercion, or the massive subsidies, etc.
    However, in order for them to work, their has to be a credible threat for them to work against, and even that was lacking.

    Lastly, we all know that polio, measles and small pox were 5 times more likely among those vaccinated against them, right? That’s how vaccines work, right?
    Some people, if you show them an apple, will say its a banana, and when you say, “No, its an apple”, they’ll pull some paper by some “expert” explaining that an apple is indeed a banana.
    Its the argument from authority logical fallacy on steroids, loved by statists everywhere.

    1. HI HO..

      “..Lastly, we all know that polio, measles and small pox were 5 times more likely among those vaccinated against them, right? That’s how vaccines work, right…?”

      Good one LOL..!!

  7. According to Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst, US life insurance and US funeral service companies are also finding higher rates of non-covid deaths since the mass vaccination program. Life insurance companies are reporting excess non-covid deaths in their group life policies (employer health plans) even in the younger age groups, 19-49 year olds.

    Correlation is not necessarily causation but ignoring correlation altogether is not proper science either.

  8. The lead author of a pre-print study in the Lancet examining all-cause mortality in the Covid vaccine trials has said that her work shows a “potential danger signal” for heart-related deaths connected to the mRNA vaccines that “warrants further scrutinisation”.

    Speaking to UnHerd‘s Freddie Sayers, Professor Christine Stabell-Benn from the University of Southern Denmark added that there is “major pushback” to her efforts to investigate the effects of vaccines on all-cause mortality and many regulators and companies simply don’t want to know.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489

    2. I read the paper. The words “danger”, “signal”, “warrants”, and “scrutinization” do not appear. What are you quoting?

      1. You can read

        What about comprehension?

        Look it up yourself

        See below or above your reply for what to search for

        Speaking to UnHerd‘s Freddie Sayers, Professor Christine Stabell-Benn from the University of Southern Denmark added that there is “major pushback” to her efforts to investigate the effects of vaccines on all-cause mortality and many regulators and companies simply don’t want to know.

          2. So the research paper itself doesn’t say those things, but rather some article did that you hadn’t cited and linked to, and futher is behind a paywall.

            That’s so pathetic.

          3. Comprehension is not your forte Eh?

            It’s not behind a paywall

            Watch the video at the link I provided you KM

            Why do you keep on lying?

            You have a agenda or should I use the word job?

            How much are they paying you to mislead your fellow humanity?

            So you sold your soul?

          4. No, I refused to sell my soul.

            Instead of buying into views that I wanted to hear — that I wanted to be true — I examined the scientific research and data. I followed the trail of credible evidence. I didn’t listen to the siren call of conspiracy nuts ranting on the internet.

  9. 2 yrs of COVID – & their VAX summed up perfectly:

    “…They somehow managed to Demonize
    Coughs, Sniffles and having no Symptoms at all..

    But Normalized, Blood Clots, Strokes
    Myocarditis, Neurological Disorders
    And “Died Suddenly…”

    Safe n effective eh KM.??

    1. You are aware that COVID itself can cause mycarditis, and at much higher rates than is seen from vaccination, right?

      https://www.beaumont.org/health-wellness/blogs/myocarditis-risk-associated-with-covid-19-infection#:~:text=Simply%20put%2C%20COVID%2D19%20can,found%20in%20a%20typical%20population.

      “Simply put, COVID-19 can result in dangerous and lasting heart damage and that is triggering much higher rates of myocarditis than are normally found in a typical population.”

      1. The reports of myocarditis in young males spiked after covid vaccinations in 2021, not during covid infections in 2020. The spike in myocarditis after the second dose of vaccine was even higher in young men and teen boys.

          1. “The risk of myocarditis due to COVID is about 1000 times that:” —
            No. Those are cases among people hospitalized. . . not of everyone who gets Covid.

          3. KM

            Acclaimed vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, sits down for his second groundbreaking interview with Del to explain why the intense pressure mass vaccination is putting on the Covid-19 virus will likely drive it to become catastrophically deadly

            THE VANDEN BOSSCHE WARNING 5/7/22
            https://www.bitchute.com/video/KV9mq0zhRgG2/

      3. Cherry picking again KM.

        Go get your 10th shot, the next shot finish it off!

          2. Government officials can say some asinine things. That’s why I recommend you never take their word for anything.

            Instead I recommend you listen to the actual medical researchers.

          3. April 2, 2021, CDC director Rochelle Walensky said “vaccinated people do not carry the virus”
            You lie like a rug.

          4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

            The myocarditis issue is in dispute but in young males the balance of evidence points to the vaccine causing heart inflammation at a higher rate than covid infection. In older groups it is harder to see because of underlying health issues and comorbidities. That’s why looking at all cause mortality and excess deaths is important.

            In addition, more autopsies should have been done on older vaccinated people to look for blood clots, heart inflammation, organ damage. That would have been good science as some German pathologist were asking for from their government and health agencies.

          5. “Instead I recommend you listen to the actual medical researchers.”

            Which medical researchers? The ones funded and/or employed by gov’ts with a vested interest in a predetermined outcome? Ones that, shockingly, follow a particular narrative? And, these researchers, are they the same ones who change their minds on a daily basis as to whether masks are good or masks are bad, the ones who can’t find consensus on whether a state should be locked down or not, how many jabs are required, stating the pandemic is over one day & not the next, etc., etc., etc.?

            Those medical researchers?

      4. But most people are not going to get Covid or a case with such damaging side effects. With everyone maneuvered into getting vaxed (for no obvious reason since it does not prevent transmission) young people end up taking a risk with each dose of the vaccine. And it’s not just heart issues they risk, but the myriad of other negative side effects. All for an experimental vaccine with roughly 1% absolute effectiveness. Not worth taking the risk especially for young people.

        1. Hell, the IFR is/was 0.26%. The fu-king vaxxes do nothing except harm people. Young people were at just about zero risk as they always are. Covid is a freaking fraud. Show me the autopsies of the dead. No one will because there is no freaking covid. Man I am so tired of the stupid people believing that shit and in any way supporting the lies.

      5. Bull sh;t COVID itself can cause mycarditis,

        It is not a vax

        It is a depopulation weapon period

        It is Evil

        1. With all due respect, that is a little unhinged. Anyone reading this thread is not going to find you persuasive.

          1. Guess what?
            If they use coercive measures to get you to take it, its evil.
            Pretty sure you don’t care one whit about adverse effects, so I figure you’re evil too.

          2. Yes we know anyone who has a different opinion than yours KM is beneath you.

            Enjoy the fall…

      6. Well anyone who gets myocarditis in days 1-14 (1-21 in Sask and BC) is automatically converted to be myocarditis due to COVID in an unvaccinated. Furthermore anyone who gets myocarditis post 28 days in Manitoba (I don’t know how it works in other provinces) is classified as myocarditis unrelated to the vaccine. It’s idopathic. If they previously have had a documented case of COVID at any time in their past it is assumed that the myocarditis is due to previous COVID infection. So in reality there is only a 14 day window in which government acknowledges myocarditis related to the vaccine. So it’s no friggin wonder they are saying the risk of myocarditis is much higher for the disease than for the jab. More garbage data in garbage result out.

  10. It doesn’t matter how many times you shake your beads and rattles they won’t drive the covid demons out of you unless everyone else shakes their beads and rattles too.
    And not just one time, you all have to shake the beads and rattles many times.
    Three or four times, maybe as many as ten times.

    And the people who don’t shake their beads and rattles can pass the demons on to those who do shake their beads and rattles.
    So they are the bad guys.
    And racists.

    I wonder if I can get on an airplane in Canada if I shake beads and rattles?

    1. +++Stan. That would be as accurate as anything surrounding the “covid” fraud.

  11. As the number of “vaccinated” would be at least 5 x the number of unvaxxed wouldn’t one expect that the number of “vaccinated” hospitalized for non-covid illness to be proportionate, i.e., 5 times the number of vaxxed hospitalized for non-covid issues.

    Am I missing something.

    1. Should have read:

      i.e., 5 times the number of UN-vaxxed hospitalized for non-covid issues.

      Am I missing something.

  12. Canadian “conservative” blogs are among the most thin-skinned outfits out there.
    About on par with Youtube, but, unlike youtube, its usually people and not some algorithm making the decisions.

  13. Bravo Killer Marmot…….

    It is tough debating those who consider Dr. Malone or Gert Vanden Bossche to be reliable sources of information.

    Francisco loves stirring the pot……so to speak.

    While Francisco did reference a Nature article recently….. I have yet to read anything from Nature posted here on Covid 19….

    1. The girl of the wide open spaces puts in an appearance, with the sole purpose of a few ad-hominems.
      Wide open space between her ears, and no doubt other appendages.

      1. You gone from vacuous and annoying to paranoid and vile. Up your game, HiHo.

    2. “It is tough debating those who consider Dr. Malone or Gert Vanden Bossche to be reliable sources of information.”

      So present some empirical evidence of your own to refute their claims. If their arguments are that full of holes, it should be a breeze to debunk them.

    3. “I have yet to read anything from Nature posted here on Covid 19….”

      The notoriously leftist Nature? The same one that believes in AGW? Is that the echo chamber you speak of?

      1. The Nature article is far more credible than anything you’ve cited, which is nothing.

        If you reject the main findings of the science then you are left wallowing in loony and poorly supported speculation pulled from the internet, whose only redeeming quality is that you like their conclusions. Not a great foundation to stand on.

        1. What Nature article? Without even reading it I can guarantee you that it will have a leftist slant on it. Just like any MotherCorpse or WaPo article. And, because you’ve posted a couple links to articles that confirm your bias, suddenly you’re following “the science” and no one else is? ROTFLMAO…

          I LOL’d above when you quipped that most researchers are honest. When their livelihood is on the line, you can rest assured that they’ll find in favour of whatever their paymasters desire. AGW confirmed that years ago, in spades.

          1. Fine. Cite your own articles. Instead of smearing and dismissing, back up your views with something substantial.

          2. Again, what Nature article?

            And, I have zero issues calling bullshit on anything published by known supporters of a particular narrative or slant. Years ago Nature had a decent reputation in the world of research. Enter AGW around 20 years ago or so & that all took a dive. Anyone who cites Nature as some sort of moral authority may as well be citing MotherCorpse. I don’t need to debunk them. They’ve already done it to themselves. Absolutely everything they publish is already under question.

          3. If you are a person that would never believe a scientist that is being paid by a oil company that Global Warming is a myth why would you ever believe anything Dr. Fisman says about Covid vaccines?

            In 2022 science is more about who is paying for the research then actual results.

            ”Dr. Fisman admits that he accepts direct compensation from multiple COVID-19 vaccine agencies including Pfizer and AstraZeneca.” Courtesy of True North news. This is all you need to know about anything this individual says.

            Ralph Behrens is a medical doctor in British Columbia. He is an affiliate of the Canadian Society for Science and Ethics in Medicine in collaboration with Healthcare Workers United.

            A recent article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission” has garnered much medical and societal attention.

            The article uses unproven and subjective mathematical models in an attempt to simulate one’s COVID-19 infection risk across various patterns of interactions with both vaccinated and vaccine-free individuals.

            The author concludes that individuals who avoid vaccination contribute to negative health consequences for others. “The risk of infection [is] markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all [population interaction] assumptions.”

            Such an assertion is incorrect and blatantly biased, as we will demonstrate.

            This article is fraught with egregious misassumptions and glaring omissions. This deceptive study:

            ● Uses problematic mathematical modeling as a surrogate for real-world data

            ● Overestimates vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection

            ● Overestimates the risk of transmission (secondary attack rate)

            ● Underestimates the percentage of the unvaccinated population with effective and robust natural immunity

            ● Does not account for the waning immunity provided by vaccines

            ● Is published by a lead author whose conflicts of interest are multiple and significant as it pertains to COVID-19 vaccines.

            https://tnc.news/2022/05/04/guest-op-ed-bc-doctor-refutes-study-claiming-unvaccinated-pose-risk-to-vaccinated/

  14. Killer Marmot, you keep defending government and presenting literature based on government data but I have not once heard you address the days 1-14 (1-21 in Sask and BC) adjustments. Until you address that directly anything you say is nonsense, IMHO.

    1. I didn’t present data from B.C. or Saskatchewan. Only Ontario and Washington State.

      And no, it’s not incumbent upon me to address every issue anybody brings up.

      1. I specifically said Canada and the USA. Last time I checked Ontario and Washington State were in Canada and the USA. If you won’t address it, you have zero credibility IMHO.

        1. I wasn’t about to gain credibility in your eyes anyway, was I? So nothing lost.

          1. I don’t know about that. I keep hoping someone somewhere sometimes will actually try to tackle this huge glaring discrepancy. But like all those who shill for government, you choose to simply ignore this giant elephant in the room. It’s about the same as Bill Clinton saying I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

          2. A reasonable approach is to not use such data to draw conclusions on, but focus on datasets that don’t have that problem. There are many provinces and states, and they all seem to publish COVID statistics.

          3. Right. Just ignore the missing data & feast your eyes on what we have deemed to be safe for prole consumption. Like I noted above, why have a number of provinces & states changed what data they post? Because all that data was revealing the lies. Solution? Hide or eliminate the problem data &, squirrel!

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation