COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
    And now barely there Biden has caught what is known as Rebound COVID.

    So ... you take how many pfizer shots and booster shots to prevent COVID-19? And then when you do catch COVID-19 you take pfizer's paxlovid to 'cure' COVID-19 ... and then when pfizer's paxlovid doesn't work then what? Another pfizer booster shot?? Perhaps a booster shot of pfizer's paxlovid?

    EPIC pfizer business model!!!
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2022-08-10 at 7.06.02 AM.png
Views:	124
Size:	732.5 KB
ID:	221098

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    And now barely there Biden has caught what is known as Rebound COVID.

    So ... you take how many pfizer shots and booster shots to prevent COVID-19? And then when you do catch COVID-19 you take pfizer's paxlovid to 'cure' COVID-19 ... and then when pfizer's paxlovid doesn't work then what? Another pfizer booster shot?? Perhaps a booster shot of pfizer's paxlovid?

    EPIC pfizer business model!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Social Distancing and Lockdowns were not new........we saw them in earlier world pandemics (Spanish Flu, etc.). The medical experts of 2020 and onward were building on what had gone before (It's just that many of us didn't know it, until the historian types started posting all these old photos and newspaper clippings).

    ~ Bob A (T-S/P)
    The big lie among many was the notion of asymptomatic transmission that led to all of the failed COVID restriction policies: This notion of asymptomatic transmission was disproven by Cao et al

    "The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts."

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w



    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Social Distancing and Lockdowns were not new........we saw them in earlier world pandemics (Spanish Flu, etc.). The medical experts of 2020 and onward were building on what had gone before (It's just that many of us didn't know it, until the historian types started posting all these old photos and newspaper clippings).

    ~ Bob A (T-S/P)

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    Dr. Birx ... Trump's former Covid-19 adviser

    Admits She And Fauci Made Up ‘The Science’ On Lockdowns, Social Distancing

    https://invesbrain.com/dr-birx-admit...al-distancing/

    "I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection and I think we overplayed the vaccines ..."

    https://twitter.com/SKMorefield/stat...86541239635969

    LOOL!

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    Over the years Sen. Rand Paul seems to really enjoy his exchanges with Dr. Fauci, ha!

    Relentless!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
    Every time Joe Biden said vaccines prevent COVID-19

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTlxpxdH3Yk

    Pandemic of misinformation!

    LOOL!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ICBBK-d-C0

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

    It is not absolute numbers; it is per 100,000.
    My question to Sid is whether what is true for the 3 week period shown also holds for much larger periods...
    Dilip the reason we plotted three weeks periods is the Govt Epidemiology reports lump all the data together going all the way back to Dec 20 2020 when almost no one was vaccinated. After five months after the first injection the vaccine efficacy wears off entirely and in fact shows negative efficacy, THe Govt epidemiologist provided an update report every few weeks and they delete the previous ones.
    What we did is we went to the Wayback machine and recovered the deleted files and then subtracted those numbers from the current files to break out whatever time slice we want. I have the spreadsheets and links with the calculations if you are interested..
    Bottomline since around March 2022 the injections have shown negative efficacy. They do more harm than good, and that is not taking into account their horrific safety profile myocarditis etc.
    The injections are neither safe nor effective, and Pfizer et al knew that from the start.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 23rd July, 2022, 11:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

    Interesting! Thank you for posting that graphic, Sid. A couple of questions for you:
    - It would be interesting to see some age data with the bar graphs. For example, could it be the case that the triple vaccinated group contains a higher proportion of people with an age vulnerability than the unvaccinated group, thereby skewing the numbers?
    Peter age-stratified data shows the same results in all cohorts , more doses the more the innate immune system is destroyed. Third dose definitely not helpful to the elderly
    Click image for larger version

Name:	British Coulmia  2022-07-04 at 1.45.37 AM.png
Views:	88
Size:	920.2 KB
ID:	220683

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    Every time Joe Biden said vaccines prevent COVID-19

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTlxpxdH3Yk

    Pandemic of misinformation!

    LOOL!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Dilip - thanks for the clarification.

    Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Sid:

    The problem with the graph, in my opinion, is that it is using absolute numbers. If the triple vaccinated group has the most no. of people in it (I'm not saying it does; just as an explanation), then obviously it is going to have the greatest number of cases.

    The graph we need is # of cases per 1000 persons, so that we can compare the percentages for each separate group.

    For transparency, I am certainly no stats expert; but this does seem logical to me.

    ~ Bob A (T-S/P)
    It is not absolute numbers; it is per 100,000.
    My question to Sid is whether what is true for the 3 week period shown also holds for much larger periods...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Hi Sid:

    The problem with the graph, in my opinion, is that it is using absolute numbers. If the triple vaccinated group has the most no. of people in it (I'm not saying it does; just as an explanation), then obviously it is going to have the greatest number of cases.

    The graph we need is # of cases per 1000 persons, so that we can compare the percentages for each separate group.

    For transparency, I am certainly no stats expert; but this does seem logical to me.

    ~ Bob A (T-S/P)

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

    Not according to the epidemiology reports from the Gov't of Canada The more doses, the more the immune system gets destroyed. Greatest Crime against humanity ever perpetrated in history.
    Click image for larger version Name:	Epidemiology chartScreen Shot 2022-07-04 at 1.25.19 AM.png Views:	0 Size:	745.7 KB ID:	220669
    Interesting! Thank you for posting that graphic, Sid. A couple of questions for you:
    - It would be interesting to see some age data with the bar graphs. For example, could it be the case that the triple vaccinated group contains a higher proportion of people with an age vulnerability than the unvaccinated group, thereby skewing the numbers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
    Dr. Rochelle Walensky

    We have a COVID-19 variant playbook to rapidly assess a variant’s transmissibility and severity, and its potential impact on vaccines and treatment.

    Press Briefing by White House March 2 2022

    ...

    Oopsy oops!

    LOOL!
    And your point is what? That Walensky, from 03/21 to 03/22, with an additional year of data to look at, amended her point of view? Why is that an "Oopsy oops!" Do you never alter your opinions based on new information?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X