These statistics are based off of faulty data to begin with...PCR cases counted in the U.S. used a cycle rate of 40+, which results in a 97% false positive result.
And within 1 hour of Biden being sworn in the WHO issued a statement telling Dr's etc to lower the CT rate to 28. The inventor of the test himself said anything over 35 CT's and you will most likely get back all or nearly all false positives. The UK CT rate was around 45, of course they were doing it as a scare tactic to up the numbers. The same with death certificates, one guy was killed in a motorcycle accident but his death certificate said CV killed him!
The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association (BMA). The BMJ has editorial freedom from the BMA.[1] It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988, and then changed to The BMJ in 2014.[2] The journal is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a subsidiary of the British Medical Association (BMA). The editor-in-chief of The BMJ is Fiona Godlee, who was appointed in February 2005.[3]
Gaslighting. There is no value to peer review if what they are reviewing is hypothetical. Seems to me you're attempting to legitimise this dodgy research.
These statistics are based off of faulty data to begin with...PCR cases counted in the U.S. used a cycle rate of 40+, which results in a 97% false positive result.
And within 1 hour of Biden being sworn in the WHO issued a statement telling Dr's etc to lower the CT rate to 28. The inventor of the test himself said anything over 35 CT's and you will most likely get back all or nearly all false positives. The UK CT rate was around 45, of course they were doing it as a scare tactic to up the numbers. The same with death certificates, one guy was killed in a motorcycle accident but his death certificate said CV killed him!
Are you claiming that the research paper is not accurate? Because of PCR tests?
Umm, the study is peer reviewed and deals with MORTALITY. People dying, not 'cases'.
The research paper is not based on data but on statistical modelling. Also not peer-reviewed.
Peer review of statistical modelling is irrelevant.
Here's a suggestion. How about you check your facts before you comment?
https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003094
The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association (BMA). The BMJ has editorial freedom from the BMA.[1] It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988, and then changed to The BMJ in 2014.[2] The journal is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a subsidiary of the British Medical Association (BMA). The editor-in-chief of The BMJ is Fiona Godlee, who was appointed in February 2005.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ
And the Lancet published a knowingly false report! The point being if you cannot rely on what were once impeccable journals then we are just guessing.
Gaslighting. There is no value to peer review if what they are reviewing is hypothetical. Seems to me you're attempting to legitimise this dodgy research.
It's hard to work with that girl en how many deaths we know are wrongfully attributed to China flu.
But how do you get mortality stats without comparing cases vs. deaths?