85.7% of Covid Deaths in Canada Were Among the Multi-Vaxed from Aug to Sept of 2022. Jabbing 85% of the Population Didn't Reduce Deaths

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Canada's over-reaction kept our death and disease rates to half of those experienced in the US.

Well, a good chunk of that was that by the time we got our $2 billion of ventilators, the US had already figured out that's what was actually killing people.

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Well, a good chunk of that was that by the time we got our $2 billion of ventilators, the US had already figured out that's what was actually killing people.

Angry, ignorant Karens and their like.  👍

Edited April 16 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Canada's over-reaction kept our death and disease rates to half of those experienced in the US.

 

The latest research suggests that it isn't.

 

[Goddess]

RE: ventilators

The protocols for respiratory illnesses were COMPLETELY changed, by non-medical bureaucrats from above.

Patients are normally put on vents as a last-ditch effort, and it's a given that most will die after being vented.  Few are saved by them.

But patients were put on them after having been scared into signing consent to vent forms and docs made over $40,000 USD for venting each patient.

Many docs and nurses quit when their horror at actually killing patients was ignored.

Be glad Canada didn't go the vent route.

whatthenursessaw.com    👈 Check it.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

You are filling in the blanks again. Never did I say what someone should do. I am simply pointing out a lot of folks who had zero medical background were suddenly experts.

You're being pedantic if you're going to claim that you weren't suggesting that only experts should have an opinion and people shouldn't try to be experts.

Nobody has zero medical background.  we all have some basic working knowledge of how bodies work.  I don't need to have completed residency to understand what diabetes can do to my body and how i personally can best manage it. 

So if a doctor said to me that sugar was good for me - i'd be pretty damn skeptical and i'm fully qualified to be so - despite not being an 'expert'.

Given the number of medical mistakes made each year you HAVE to be able to become knowledgeable in the issues that affect you directly. It's not all that hard for the most part.  And NOBODY was an 'expert on covid' at the time.

It's good to listen to expert opinions - but you're a fool if you don't also read up on it yourself and trust your gut a bit. Holding people in contempt for making their own decisions is not a reasonable position to take.

[Goddess]

52 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I will say that it is amazing how the most ordinary of folks (on both sides) instantly became epidemiologists and doctors.

I worked in medical for years and spent my lunch hours reading medical journals and studies.  Not a doctor or nurse, but I started this with better-than-average knowledge.

If more people had even a basic understanding of virology and epidemiology, perhaps fewer would have fallen for the faux experts.

Most of the "experts" touted by the press were actually not top experts, they were lower on the educational rungs of the ladder - the top experts in these fields were silenced and cancelled for pointing out obvious medical malfeasance.

Most of the over-reactions were based on models and Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in the UK was the top modeler used, in spite of years of false predictions and then being caught diddling around with his mistress during the lockdowns he insisted be imposed on everyone else.  While people like John Ionniadis, who had a record of level-headedness, were vilified and discredited.

 

[Goddess]

Yes.  So hilarious.

Why do you think Canada didn't use the $2 billion in ventilators?

Who cares, right?  It's only $2 billion and thank gawd Frank Bayliss, Liberal party insider, was able to make a f*c9ton of money off them.

[impartialobserver]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I worked in medical for years and spent my lunch hours reading medical journals and studies.  Not a doctor or nurse, but I started this with better-than-average knowledge.

If more people had even a basic understanding of virology and epidemiology, perhaps fewer would have fallen for the faux experts.

Most of the "experts" touted by the press were actually not top experts, they were lower on the educational rungs of the ladder - the top experts in these fields were silenced and cancelled for pointing out obvious medical malfeasance.

Most of the over-reactions were based on models and Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in the UK was the top modeler used, in spite of years of false predictions and then being caught diddling around with his mistress during the lockdowns he insisted be imposed on everyone else.  While people like John Ionniadis, who had a record of level-headedness, were vilified and discredited.

 

Here is where we differ.. I found there to be faux experts on both sides.. pro vax and anti vax. I can sniff out a faux expert on economics, statistics, and programming within about 2 minutes usually. Yes, there are quite a few of them. 

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The latest research suggests that it isn't.

Crackpot research?

Meanwhile the CDC approves SARS-COV-2 vaccine for everyone over the age of 6 months.

Of course if was me it wouldn't just be approval but an order...like a fatwa or something.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Crackpot research?

Undoubtedly you'll think so even if it comes notarized by god  

Quote

Meanwhile the CDC approves SARS-COV-2 vaccine for everyone over the age of 6 months.

And?

[impartialobserver]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're being pedantic if you're going to claim that you weren't suggesting that only experts should have an opinion and people shouldn't try to be experts.

Nobody has zero medical background.  we all have some basic working knowledge of how bodies work.  I don't need to have completed residency to understand what diabetes can do to my body and how i personally can best manage it. 

So if a doctor said to me that sugar was good for me - i'd be pretty damn skeptical and i'm fully qualified to be so - despite not being an 'expert'.

Given the number of medical mistakes made each year you HAVE to be able to become knowledgeable in the issues that affect you directly. It's not all that hard for the most part.  And NOBODY was an 'expert on covid' at the time.

It's good to listen to expert opinions - but you're a fool if you don't also read up on it yourself and trust your gut a bit. Holding people in contempt for making their own decisions is not a reasonable position to take.

Quite a few people have never worked in the health care field nor taken any course (high school, community college, or standard university). Someone with absolutely no working or educational background does not qualify as an expert with me. If It does with you.. then so be it. 

Everyone can have an opinion. And I am free to not take truly non-expert opinions into account. Where we differ is that I found that both sides were chalk full of these conveniently created experts. Some truly bizarre stuff came out during the heart of it. As for reading up on it... that's what I do and not just do a simple google search and find something that agrees with me. If i care about a topic, I tear it down to the studs (so to speak) and do not take subjective opinions into account until the very end. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Quite a few people have never worked in the health care field nor taken any course (high school, community college, or standard university). Someone with absolutely no working or educational background does not qualify as an expert with me. If It does with you.. then so be it. 

You completely dodged the point. 

That's the third time.  Obviously you don't have faith in what you're saying but you don't want to change your opinion or you'd address the points.

Well there you go. That's why it's important to not let the whole 'covid' thing go - too many people like that out there who feel that people should have no right in deciding their medical treatments.  Not experts i guess.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You completely dodged the point. 

That's the third time.  Obviously you don't have faith in what you're saying but you don't want to change your opinion or you'd address the points.

Well there you go. That's why it's important to not let the whole 'covid' thing go - too many people like that out there who feel that people should have no right in deciding their medical treatments.  Not experts i guess.

When someone claims to be an epidemiologist and come to find out.. they have never attended college of any kind nor have ever worked in the health care field... I find that to be disingenuous. It apparently does not bother you. I do not claim to be an expert on rebuilding old cars. Why? I have never done it. 

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Undoubtedly you'll think so even if it comes notarized by god

I'll be gobsmacked if you even provide it from your crackpot source.

 

Edited April 16 by eyeball

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And?

Vaccine is recommended for everyone between 6 months and at least 97 years because it's safe and effective.

Edited April 17 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

When someone claims to be an epidemiologist and come to find out.. they have never attended college of any kind nor have ever worked in the health care field... I find that to be disingenuous. It apparently does not bother you. I do not claim to be an expert on rebuilding old cars. Why? I have never done it. 

Sure - if someone makes ANY false claim about their credentials and it's later discovered that they don't have the credentials they claimed then it's disingenuous.

To be blunt, you didnt' sound like you were referring to fraud, you sounded more like you were referencing people who behaved or spoke as if their opinion had the weight of an expert when (in your opinion) it did not.   If what you mean is LITERALLY people who claimed to be formally trained experts and were later found to have no formal training at all then i misread your posts and totally got that wrong

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Canada's over-reaction kept our death and disease rates to half of those experienced in the US.

Canada's low population density kept our death rates rates down. 

When covid hit the NYC metro area (5,000 sq m), more than 1/4 of Canada's population lived there, and that area is 1/3rd the size of Vancouver Island. More than 10% of Canada's entire population rides the NYC subway every day (4.3M people). 

You never appreciated all of this stuff when I tried to tell it to you before, but now that the concept of social distancing has been driven into your thick head, surely you understand that the initial wave of covid spread through the NYC metro area faster than it spread around Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Those 3 provinces have a combined population of 7M, spread across 750,000 sq m. 

AB, SK and MB have just over 1/2 of NYC's population spread across 150x as much space. Covid just spread more slowly here. I don't have proof of that, but if you have any kind of brains at all, you just know it to be true.

By the time that covid really got around here we were onto the weaker variants. In case you missed it, I also told you about Muller's ratchet all the wayback in 2020. 

Would you like me to find that for you? I'm sure that it doesn't come up on this forum very often. I can search it for you. 

And FYI, when Canada's overreaction was in full effect, and the unvaxed were locked down, and the vaxed population here was onto our 3rd dose, we had our worst bout of covid deaths ever. 

Just for gits and shiggles, here's one of my earlier posts about Muller's ratchet:

 

Edited April 17 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Vaccine is recommended for everyone between 6 months and at least 97 years because it's safe and effective.

Look how many people under 20 died of covid in the first 2 f'ing years:

19 people under 20 died in the first 22 months or so of covid. That's probably 15M people people. 

Knowing that co-morbidities are the main risk factor for covid deaths, do you think that even 1 healthy kid under 20 died of covid in those 2 years? 

Are you honestly gonna sit there and pretend that Health Canada has any place at all recommending a vax that's been known to kill healthy young people to healthy young people? 

Dude, I have the exact same amount of respect for you that I have for the terrorist who blew himself up at the Arianna Grande concert. You're of equal value. 

Edited April 17 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Vaccine is recommended for everyone between 6 months and at least 97 years because it's safe and effective.

That does not appear to be what the research says.  At best you can call it 'not outrageously dangerous and unnecessary'.

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That does not appear to be what the research says.  At best you can call it 'not outrageously dangerous and unnecessary'.

Can you prove that's what your crackpot research source actually says? I can believe it does but without a cite, who else would?

Don't you guys share this stuff amongst yourselves or does it all come to you via Q?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Can you prove that's what your crackpot research source actually says? I can believe it does but without a cite, who else would?

we literally did a whole thread on this where i posted sources.  Moonbat also posted one he thought at first refuted it but it turns out it actually agreed with it

You posted on those threads.  So i know you're just sealioning, ,

But just for fun, this once,  i'll post info AGAIN and PRETEND you're not being a dishonest turd,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9880674/

Six studies reported an incidence greater than 15 cases per 100,000 persons (or doses) in males aged 12–24 after dose 2 of an mRNA‐based vaccine.

The covid death rate for unvacinated males in that age range is a tiny fraction of that,

There are numerous others.

Funny how you managed to forget all that.

 

[Venandi]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Funny how you managed to forget all that.

Not just the forget part, it's chiding others for not forgetting that irks me. 

These folks can do the chicken dance until their feathers fall out but those feathers reinforce the fact that advocates for mass amnesia were, and remain, unapologetically wrong about most of what they previously said.  

Not long ago they ridiculed people for asking grade 13 biology questions, now they would do the same for anyone who remembers the wrong answers they (themselves) provided. They're now suggesting I just forget the damage done (on a variety of fronts) and accept their assurance that it won't happen again... the answer is hell no.

To me, the manipulation of data speaks to intent and its that intent that highlights the  difference between government/media/pharma efforts and those of Nancy.

Nancy has a lot invested here too, she subjected her neighbours to a lot of grief and now can't abide the idea that she got it all wrong. As a result Nancy defends the indefensible in a way that leaves the authors of it not having to.

That's what worries me here, so patting me on the head, mixing in a few condescending remarks and suggesting that I should move on because the Governor has moved on suggests that the governor needs to be fired.

I might not be smart enough to untangle all of the stats but I remain concerned about the intent behind obvious differences in presentation. 

Ya it's Rebel News but like her, I have a few questions about intent. The sooner those get answered the sooner I'll move on. 

In the meantime there's about zero chance that dancing chickens will have much sway.

Edited April 17 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Not just the forget part, it's chiding others for not forgetting that irks me. 

These folks can do the chicken dance until their feathers fall out but those feathers reinforce the fact that advocates for mass amnesia were, and remain, unapologetically wrong about most of what they previously said.  

Not long ago they ridiculed people for asking grade 13 biology questions, now they would do the same for anyone who remembers the wrong answers they (themselves) provided. They're now suggesting I just forget the damage done (on a variety of fronts) and accept their assurance that it won't happen again... the answer is hell no.

To me, the manipulation of data speaks to intent and its that intent that highlights the  difference between government/media/pharma efforts and those of Nancy.

Nancy has a lot invested here too, she subjected her neighbours to a lot of grief and now can't abide the idea that she got it all wrong. As a result Nancy defends the indefensible in a way that leaves the authors of it not having to.

That's what worries me here, so patting me on the head, mixing in a few condescending remarks and suggesting that I should move on because the Governor has moved on suggests that the governor needs to be fired.

I might not be smart enough to untangle all of the stats but I remain concerned about the intent behind obvious differences in presentation. 

Ya it's Rebel News but like her, I have a few questions about intent. The sooner those get answered the sooner I'll move on. 

In the meantime there's about zero chance that dancing chickens will have much sway.

I think both nancy and the gov't have the same problem in that respect.

I could understand the argument "Well, we made the best choices with the information we had at the time and even tho later evidence shows we made some bad decisions given the circumstances at that moment we believe we did the right thing".    I would disagree with it but at least it would be logically defensible as a rational position

But instead we get denial and "why are you still talking", etc etc. And that seriously concerns me

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Ya it's Rebel News but like her, I have a few questions about intent. The sooner those get answered the sooner I'll move on. 

I love it.

A PhD-level statistician is saying the exact same things I've said here for years now about the false comments and fabricated stats coming from our gov'ts and places like Statista:

• Dr. Regina N. Watteel holds a PhD in Statistics from the University of Western Ontario, an MSc in Statistics from McMaster University (Mac), and a BSc in Mathematics and Physics, also from Mac. 

 

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I could understand the argument "Well, we made the best choices with the information we had at the time and even tho later evidence shows we made some bad decisions given the circumstances at that moment we believe we did the right thing".    I would disagree with it but at least it would be logically defensible as a rational position

That pretty much sums it up.

They were definitely wrong to pretend that young, healthy people needed a vaccine, given all of the info that was available at the time they said it, but in this day and age a disingenuous, false apology is usually enough to appease the lie-weary public. 

Case in point: Trudeau managed to skate on the WE scandal just by saying "I shoulda recused myself from the obvious decision to choose WE [to rake in a billion dollars and divert large sums of it down to my mom]". He basically just threw some BS into a sentenced that was framed like a half-hearted/fake apology and CBC and CTV declared him fully repented: "Hallelujah, brothers and sisters! Behold the glory of our Golden Child, who is free from sin, and humble in the face of shameful accusations!"