374
Comments (27)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
6
MAG768720 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's a very tough read, but everyone should at least skim through it. Give it a shot.

Basically confirms all the things we have discussed on GAW.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X#!

Some takeaways:

  • The people most at risk are those over 85 years old, and those with co-morbidities.
  • The studies included possibly zero people over 85 (Pfizer had only 4.4% of people in study over 75, and do not tell us how many over 85) [NOTE: Pfizer still has not released their raw data for others to review]
  • The studies excluded people with most co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS:

The people with myriad comorbidities in the age range where most deaths with COVID-19 occurred were in very poor health. Their deaths did not seem to increase all-cause mortality as shown in several studies. If they hadn't died with COVID-19, they probably would have died from the flu or many of the other comorbidities they had. We can't say for sure that many/most died from COVID-19 because of: 1) how the PCR tests were manipulated to give copious false positives and 2) how deaths were arbitrarily attributed to COVID-19 in the presence of myriad comorbidities.

The COVID-19 reported deaths are people who died with COVID-19, not necessarily from COVID-19. Likewise, the VAERS deaths are people who have died following inoculation, not necessarily from inoculation.

As stated before, CDC showed that 94 % of the reported deaths had multiple comorbidities, thereby reducing the CDC's numbers attributed strictly to COVID-19 to about 35,000 for all age groups. Given the number of high false positives from the high amplification cycle PCR tests, and the willingness of healthcare professionals to attribute death to COVID-19 in the absence of tests or sometimes even with negative PCR tests, this 35,000 number is probably highly inflated as well.

On the latter issue, both Virginia Stoner and Jessica Rose have shown independently that the deaths following inoculation are not coincidental and are strongly related to inoculation through strong clustering around the time of injection. Our independent analyses of the VAERS database reported in Appendix 1 confirmed these clustering findings.

... at best, VAERS is underreporting by a factor of ˜20.

... people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! This demographic is the most vulnerable to adverse effects from COVID-19. As the age demographics go below about 35 years old, the chances of death from COVID-19 become very small, and when they go below 18, become negligible.

Thus, the long-term cost-benefit ratio under the best-case scenario could well be on the order of 10/1, 20/1, or more for all the demographics, increasing with decreasing age, and an order-of-magnitude higher under real-world scenarios!

In summary, the value of these COVID-19 inoculations is not obvious from a cost-benefit perspective for the most vulnerable age demographic, and is not obvious from any perspective for the least vulnerable age demographic.

1
ItsOkayToBeWight 1 point ago +1 / -0

The kills roughly 80k people every year. That should be our baseline. It's unlikely covid + Flu killed less, and we know Flu deaths were lumped into covid deaths.

US Deaths were 8.880 per 1k people, up a mere 1% from 2019. I'm curious how they got their numbers because all of the other sources are trying to say the US had about 300k excess deaths but we know the CDC is lying.