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]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

the vaccines saved us all, and if you don't take them, you'll probably die before you finish your cup of coffee, just like I did.

I also died 3 years ago.

[Goddess]

  

Dr. Vinay Prasad recently provided an analysis in his substack, of the paper with the 99 million cohort.  He breaks down the flaws in the study.  This was the study - which I think EX-F was talking about as showing the vaccines to be a miracle life-saver with  no issues.

It's important to note that this study identifies quite a few more adverse events that can happen, than the CDC recognizing only 4.

From the substack:

First, let us be clear, the benefit of COVID vaccination is small, uncertain or not present in several populations. For instance, there is no reliable evidence anyone who had COVID previously had a further reduction in severe disease from getting a dose (or 7 doses) of vaccine.

The theoretical absolute benefit of vaccination depends on the baseline risk so the *upper bound* absolute benefits to healthy people under 20, 30 or 40 were always minuscule— bordering on zero— and possibly, not present. Available data lacks power to show a benefit in 20 year olds.

Worse, there is not even one reliable study that shows a benefit in children. This means- that for these populations- even rare safety signals can tilt the entire balance. We have previously shown that boosters and dose 2 of mRNA vaccines were, on balance, harmful to young men because the risk of myocarditis was greater than the further upper bound absolute risk reduction in severe COVID19 outcomes.

Many other researchers have gotten this question wrong because they use *EHR documented COVID19 infections* as the denominator for COVID19 bad outcomes, which misses the vast denominator of asymptomatic infections and infection that don’t prompt EHR visit. Eating at McDonalds looks deadly if your denominator is all the people who ate there and ended up in the ICU with food poisoning. If your denominator is all people who ate there, and never went to the hospital, food poisoning is rare. Most COVID19 papers use the first denominator for COVID19 infection.

Now let us look at the paper. It has 2 huge limitations. While the denominator (vaccination) is solid, the numerator is weak. It is EHR detected cases of these clinical outcomes across different systems. The biggest problem is that MANY cases of adverse events are likely NOT TO BE CODED. The authors will argue that not coding these events should occur both before and after vaccination and ergo there is no bias (the method looks only at the relative change), but this is incorrect.

It is likely there is differential missing data. That some of these events are missed much more often after vaccination. For instance, the myocarditis due to vaccination is different than myocarditis after a cold. Doctors may not recognize it as such, and be more dismissive. Some diagnoses— like splanchnic vein thrombus— may be increased in populations where you are less likely to consider that diagnosis (young healthy people) and rates of angiography and imaging (needed to diagnose it) may occur less likely. In other words, vaccination could cause a huge increase in abdominal pain from clot in a group of people in whom you would not normally suspect that in— and this analysis assumes doctor’s work it up with the same vigor as they would do for an older, frailer population pre vaccination, and they code it the same. Ergo, all the signals here are, in my view, LOWER bound estimates. I think the truth will be worse.

 

Second, this analysis does not stratify by demographic group. The increased risk of myocarditis you will see is ACROSS ALL AGES AND GENDERS. That is a big error, when we know it is a problem that plagues young men. Doing this will mask the harm signal. If the increased risk is 3 fold, it may be 100 fold in the demographic that is facing the harm. This is a classic mistake in the field that we have published on.

For this reason, every time we see a signal, we should assume it will be worse. And we should think that it doesn’t take much harm to tip the benefit-harm balance in young people, or people who already had COVID. 

Increases in cerebral vein clot were known and I wrote about them at the time

Now, we see concerning signals for

• Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)

• Febrile seizures

• Myocarditis/ pericarditis

• Racing heart - SVT

• Bells palsy (facial paralysis)

• Pulmonary embolism

• Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and more

My overall thoughts. A few years ago a vaccine safety researcher told me she worried tinnitus was linked to COVID19 vaccination. Yet, she had to abandon the project because the political pressure to not find safety signals was too high. We repeatedly see researchers saying that COVID19 is still worse than vaccination, but this is dishonest. Vaccination was worse for young men, and that can be easily shown mathematically.

 

Imagine a 20 year old man who had covid and was doing fine, and then their college forced them to get the shot, and they suffered bell’s palsy or myocarditis. This man suffered net harm. The mistake was known not in retrospect but at the time. I know because I published a paper saying so in the summer 2021 (before mandates). Public health should be ashamed of itself for harming people in pursuit of a misguided policy goal, and worse, for obfuscating the data, and not admitting error. With time and distance, I suspect most academics will see the wisdom of my argument.

I encourage everyone to read my comprehensive paper.

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I also died 3 years ago.

Wow.  Just like biden. 

(Ba dum DING!    Tip yer waitress folks, i'm here all week )

[Goddess]

On 5/6/2024 at 11:49 AM, CdnFox said:

You certainly would have to prove that MILLIONS more would have died without the vaccines at all which seems to be what you're suggesting

Happened to read Mark Oshinkie's substack this morning:

Admitting error—or outright complicity with the Scam—during the Covid overreaction would entail losses of face and credibility. After all the harm the media has done, those consequences would be just and proper.

To avoid this result, the media and bureaucrats are backpedaling slowly to try to change their views without too many people noticing. In so doing, they’re very belatedly adopting the views of those, like me, who from Day 1, called out the hysteria driving, and the downsides to, the Covid overreaction.

But while they’ve incrementally changed parts of their message, they hold tightly to the central, false narrative that the Covid was a terrible disease that indiscriminately killed millions. The Covophobes continue to falsely credit the Covid injections for “saving millions of lives” and “preventing untold misery.”

The mythology is that, even if the shots injured people, they were a net positive in a world facing a universally vicious killer. Relying on that false premise, Coronamaniacs, columnists and the commenters assert that no medical intervention is risk-free and that a few metaphorical eggs were inevitably broken while making the mass vaccination omelet. In their view, such injuries are a cost of doing business. 

To begin with, where was such risk/reward analysis when the lockdowns and school closures were being put in place?

To many, modern medicine is a religion and “vaccines” are a sacrament. Their pro-vaxx faith is unshakable. But these ostensible Science devotees unreasonably overlooked Covid’s clearest empirical trend: SARS-CoV-2 did not threaten healthy, non-old people. Therefore, neither non-pharmaceutical interventions (“NPIs”) nor shots should have been imposed upon those not at risk. The NPI and shot backers weren’t Scientists. They were Pseudo-Scientists.

 

And many commenters to the Mandavilli article, emphasize that “correlation isn’t causation.”

The persuasiveness of correlation is typically questioned only when one would viscerally prefer not to apply Occam’s Razor and adopt the most straightforward explanation for symptoms that begin shortly after injection.

 And ultimately, doesn’t the cited “millions saved” study assume that correlation is causation?

While the peremptory assertions that the shots saved millions of lives are very questionable and poorly supported, many who read these statements will cite these as gospel because millions is a memorable, albeit speculative and squishy figure, and because, well, The New York Times said so!

While the columnists use this phony stat to justify mass vaccination, only one in five-thousand of those infected—nearly all of them very old and/or very sick or killed iatrogenically—had died “of Covid” before VaxxFest began. The vast majority of these deceased were likely to die soon, virus or no.

Thus, how can one say that the shots saved millions of lives? For how long were they saved? 

They never acknowledge—and may not even know of— the statistical sleight of hand that’s have been used throughout by the jab pushers. I’ve described these tricks in prior posts. For example, there was “healthy vaccinee bias:” those who administered the shots strategically declined to inject those who were so frail that the shots’ systemic shock might kill them. And those who injected weren’t counted as “vaxxed” until 42 days after their first shot. As the shots initially suppress immunity and disrupt bodies, one should expect the shots to increase deaths in the weeks after the shot regimen begins. Injectees who died within this initial 42 days were falsely categorized as “unvaxxed.”

FWIW, my wife and I and all other non-vaxxers I know have predictably been fine. The shots didn’t save any of our lives or keep us out of the hospital. Our immune systems did. The virus’s lethality was badly overhyped.

And more medical intervention doesn’t necessarily improve health. To the contrary, and especially regarding the shots, less is often more.

Many of NPI and shot backers have taken refuge in “We-Couldn’t-Have-Known-ism.” But millions, including me, did know, based on widely available information, that the NPIs and shots were bad ideas. And as we knew that only the old and ill were at risk and that the NPIs would cause great harm, those who are very belatedly admitting that “mistakes were made” not only also could have known; they should have known. Their failure to know reveals either a willful, opportunistic, tribalistic disregard of plainly observable information or a lack of intelligence.

 

They also fail to mention that hundreds of thousands have suffered apparent vaxx injuries or deaths from heart attacks, strokes or cancers and that overall deaths have increased in highly vaxxed nations. Thus, when one considers all causes of death, the shots seem to have caused a net loss, not gain, in life span.

The Times writers ignore the tens of thousands of American post-vaxx deaths listed in the user-unfriendly, and therefore underused, VAERS database and the excess death increases in the most highly vaxxed nations in 2021-22. Unlike the vaxx injured, who are still alive, dead vaccinees tell no tales. Nor do most of their survivors because, as with families who’ve lost a young man in a war, those left to mourn don’t want to believe that their beloved has died avoidably or in vain. The reluctance to attribute deaths to the shots is particularly acute if the bereaved encouraged the decedent to inject.

Commentators now begrudgingly report that the shots may not, despite all of the ads and bureaucratic assurances, have been so safe after all, conceding that the shots have killed people is a bridge too far. At least for now.

 

Nonetheless, in order to discourage additional public health, political and economic chicanery, we must continue to say what’s true: the whole Scamdemic was a massive, opportunistic overreaction that most people were too naive to apprehend.

Truth is intrinsically valuable. Regardless of outcome, telling the truth is our obligation to posterity.

 

[exPS]

I worked in a lab for over two decades and looking up data and maintaing data was part of my job. I kept track of Covid deaths from about March of 2000 for Canada and other countries.

Looking at Canada prior to Covid, we had between 7000 to 8500 deaths per year due to the flu and pneumonia. Covid which is a respiratory, took those numbers up to about 15,000 per year and some of those deaths were also not due to Covid but the fact that people could not get in for an operation at the hospital. And most of the deaths were from those over 75 which is the norm for all other flu & pneumonia cases before Covid. Exactly why they pushed flu shots in retirement homes every year.

And then jabs for high school kids.  Really, less than a few dozen died of Covid over the years. Simply amazing.

People can believe what they want. One thing is for sure, the government put the fear of God into people. That is how you control them.

 

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, exPS said:

One thing is for sure, the government put the fear of God into people. That is how you control them.

So...Mr Socks - a black-faced dilitente...

Fear? Seriously?

 

🤣

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, exPS said:

I worked in a lab for over two decades and looking up data and maintaing data was part of my job. I kept track of Covid deaths from about March of 2000 for Canada and other countries.

Looking at Canada prior to Covid, we had between 7000 to 8500 deaths per year due to the flu and pneumonia. Covid which is a respiratory, took those numbers up to about 15,000 per year

How many non-covid years in the last century did Canada have approximately zero flu deaths?

Is it weird that the regular seasonal flu just took those covid years off? Are flus like Hollywood blockbuster movies, where they schedule their release dates so that they don't overlap?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

So...Mr Socks - a black-faced dilitente...

Fear? Seriously?

the pen is mightier than the sword. And tha black-faced dilettante could wield a pen just fine. 

Hitler was a wispy little guy with thin hair that you could probably knock out with harsh language. They don't have to be hulk hogan to spread fear and ruin lives. 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

To begin with, where was such risk/reward analysis when the lockdowns and school closures were being put in place?

To many, modern medicine is a religion and “vaccines” are a sacrament. Their pro-vaxx faith is unshakable. But these ostensible Science devotees unreasonably overlooked Covid’s clearest empirical trend: SARS-CoV-2 did not threaten healthy, non-old people. Therefore, neither non-pharmaceutical interventions (“NPIs”) nor shots should have been imposed upon those not at risk. The NPI and shot backers weren’t Scientists. They were Pseudo-Scientists.

We've said that over 100 times here.

None of the covid10t cultists here have ever explained why children were jabbed or why young adults were forced to take the jab. 

They just babble about "millions of lives saved", as the author of your article mentioned.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

For example, there was “healthy vaccinee bias:” those who administered the shots strategically declined to inject those who were so frail that the shots’ systemic shock might kill them. And those who injected weren’t counted as “vaxxed” until 42 days after their first shot. As the shots initially suppress immunity and disrupt bodies, one should expect the shots to increase deaths in the weeks after the shot regimen begins. Injectees who died within this initial 42 days were falsely categorized as “unvaxxed.”

He really needs to provide a cite for that, because it's a massive accusation.

I am personally aware that people on palliative care, for things other than covid, were swabbed for covid daily, because it happened to my wife's "stepdad" or whatever you would call him (her mom was re-married after my wife was an adult, so 'stepdad' sounds weird). 

That was back when the swabs went way back into your nasal cavity, and it was apparently quite uncomfortable. 

The poor bugger was dying of dementia, so he probably didn't even know what they were doing to him, and for sure it didn't need to be done when he was down to his last few days on earth. 

Theoretically they never marked him down as a covid death, because we were told he didn't have it, but I don't know what they actually marked down for his cause of death. I had nothing to do with any of that, and I'm not going to bother the widow about it.

 

Seeing as those vultures were so busy fishing for false covid x's on death certificates, I wouldn't put it past them to do creative accounting on the "vaxed vs unvaxed death" stats, and I wondered if they were avoiding giving the jabs to people in the "extremely elderly with co-morbidities" demographic, to keep them out of the vaxed category, but I never found proof of it. 

Edited May 10, 2024 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

The reluctance to attribute deaths to the shots is particularly acute if the bereaved encouraged the decedent to inject.

The vaxtards lie about everything. They're worse than a pile of snakes. 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

Truth is intrinsically valuable. Regardless of outcome, telling the truth is our obligation to posterity.

🤣 Good luck getting the truth out.

These dipshits won't even admit that "The vaccine is safe and you don't have to worry about getting covid once you're vaccinated" was wrong. 

[Goddess]

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

He really needs to provide a cite for that, because it's a massive accusation.

Shots were not administered to anyone who was expected to die shortly.  I imagine it would have been decided on a case-by-case basis, so I doubt there was any kind of protocols for whether or when to jab a terminally ill person or not.  Remember at the beginning, they were sort of "rationing" shots, so it makes sense that terminally ill people who were expected to die shortly or as said - were already in systemic breakdown - would not have received a shot.

The whole reasoning behind not counting someone as vaxxed until 2 weeks ( or more, it depended on the jurisdiction) after their jabs was because it actually undermined your immune system for that time. Which was another reason why they were not administered to people who were already systemically endangered and had one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel.

This "not counting anyone as vaxxed until 2 weeks or more after the jabs" REALLY messed up a lot of the stats RE: how many vaxxed or unvaxxed were cases, hospitalizations, or deaths.  The limitations with VAERS reporting system, also doesn't help.  If it was properly run and analyzed - we would be able to tell exactly how many died post-vax and not unvaxxed.  If you got the vax and died of covid 13 days later, you were counted as "unvaxxed."

 

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Shots were not administered to anyone who was expected to die shortly.  I imagine it would have been decided on a case-by-case basis, so I doubt there was any kind of protocols for whether or when to jab a terminally ill person or not. 

Do you have a policy statement showing that? Or an internal memo or something? 

I've always maintained that age wasn't the determining factor for vulnerability, and the gov't never gave out the vax rates for people who were elderly with co-morbidities. It's the group that almost singlehandedly drives the covid death stats. 

If you have some proof of that, it would be the final nail in the coffin for the pseudovax efficacy propaganda campaign AFAIC. I would officially switch my opinion on vax-efficacy from "maybe slightly helpful, with terrible side effects for people who don't need it" to "snake oil with dangerous side effects".

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I've always maintained that age wasn't the determining factor for vulnerability

Oh.  That's surprising.  We knew early on it was the very elderly who were most vulnerable.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Oh.  That's surprising.  We knew early on it was the very elderly who were most vulnerable.

The main factor was co-morbidities though, right?

Over 96% of the people who died "of covid" had one or more co-morbidities. On avg they had about 2.3 iirc.

People over 80 only accounted for about 60% of covid deaths in Canada. You have to go down to about 50+ to get up to 96% of deaths, and 50 isn't really 'elderly'. 

There are 80 yr olds who weren't really at risk of dying of covid because they still run marathons, and 40 yr olds at great risk due to things like a combination of COPD, diabetes, morbid obesity, etc. 

 

The gov't gave us vax rates of the elderly to make it seem like all of the most vulnerable were jabbed, but that gave us no real idea. 

If the "death's door" group that we were talking about earlier were ineligible to be vaxed for whatever "reasons", that's like stacking the deck full of unvaxed deaths.

Edited May 10, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Goddess]

54 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The main factor was co-morbidities though, right?

Elderly and obese.  Obesity was the #2 comorbidity after being very elderly.

56 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There are 80 yr olds who weren't really at risk of dying of covid because they still run marathons, and 40 yr olds at great risk due to things like a combination of COPD, diabetes, morbid obesity, etc. 

Exactly.  Risk was very much based on the individual.  Which is why it should have been left between you and your doctor.  Especially when it was obvious very quickly that the shots didn't prevent transmission or infection.

[WestCanMan]

24 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Elderly and obese.  Obesity was the #2 comorbidity after being very elderly.

Exactly.  Risk was very much based on the individual.  Which is why it should have been left between you and your doctor.  Especially when it was obvious very quickly that the shots didn't prevent transmission or infection.

The first time that I heard the risk factors ranked was by Dr Oz in spring 2020. 

Basically what he said was [paraphrasing] 'It's mostly the elderly and people with co-morbidities dying. The avg age among fatalities is 74, and 96% of people who died had one or more serious underlying health issues. On avg 2.3."

I didn't take his comment to mean that advanced age was considered a co-morbidity, but maybe I misunderstood what he said.

[Goddess]

I recently saw a stats thing that listed the covid IFR for each province, based on their own provincial stats.

The IFR for Canada as a whole was 0.03%

I remember there were some provinces who were at statistically 0% IFR - mainly Maritime provinces and NWT, I believe.

I do remember Quebec was highest at 0.12%

It would be interesting to study that, since QC was the province with the harshest lockdowns, etc.  Do they have a more aged population there?  More unhealthy?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I recently saw a stats thing that listed the covid IFR for each province, based on their own provincial stats.

The IFR for Canada as a whole was 0.03%

I remember there were some provinces who were at statistically 0% IFR - mainly Maritime provinces and NWT, I believe.

I do remember Quebec was highest at 0.12%

It would be interesting to study that, since QC was the province with the harshest lockdowns, etc.  Do they have a more aged population there?  More unhealthy?

I wonder what the IFR was for healthy people under 30. Probably something like 0.0000001. 

Edited May 10, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Goddess]

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I wonder what the IFR was for healthy people under 30. Probably something like 0.0000001. 

When they first starting calculating IFR by age group - mine was 0.025%.  I'm mid-50's, no comorbidities.

Seemed like good odds to me.

[Goddess]

Now that contamination of the DNA packaged into the lipid nanoparticles has been confirmed many times over (including by Health Canada), a few may be asking "How does this affect those who got jabbed?"

In spite of the alphabet authorities assurances that it is  **shrug**  "no big deal", other researchers and scientists decided to find out.

MPs | Free Full-Text | Methodological Considerations Regarding the Quantification of DNA Impurities in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Comirnaty® (mdpi.com)

According to the researchers, it turns out that Pfizer may have slightly under-reported the amounts of DNA contamination in its magic spike protein elixirs. 

Behold my shocked face: 

And by "slightly" under-reported, I mean by orders of magnitude. 

Their conclusion included the alarming determination that contaminant DNA enters patients’ cells. In the study authors’ own words:

Quote

 

The available information and data indicate that the ready-to-use mRNA vaccine Comirnaty contains DNA impurities that exceed the permitted limit value by several hundred times and, in some cases, even more than 500 times, and that this went unnoticed because the DNA quantification carried out as part of batch testing only at the active substance level appears to be methodologically inadequate when using qPCR.

Further, DNA impurities in Comirnaty® are apparently integrated into the lipid nanoparticles and are thus transported directly into the cells of a vaccinated person, just like the mRNA active ingredient. What this means for the safety risks, particularly the possible integration of this DNA into the human genome, i.e., the risk of insertional mutagenesis, should be a secondary focus of the discussion required, which must go far beyond what could have been considered years before the so unexpected introduction of mRNA pharmaceuticals into the global market.

 

 

Haha, “unexpected introduction of mRNA” into the global market.

See, what you really DON'T want in a vaccine is a cellular delivery system for random bacterial DNA.

What could go wrong? One thing that could go wrong is cancer, or ‘oncogenesis’ in public health’s dialect.

Speculation:  Could be why Pfizer and Moderna are switching focus to cancer meds and why cancer rates are rising.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Goddess

[Venandi]

36 minutes ago, Goddess said:

One thing that could go wrong is cancer, or ‘oncogenesis’ in public health’s dialect.

To me (and my feeble grade 13 biology brain) it was always about LNPs, systemic distribution, and the potential for binding genes best left alone. If not for LNPs, P51 would be nothing more than a cool airplane. 

I feel sorry for the ferrets but can't help wondering what they would think of all this... had they survived.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Venandi

[Goddess]

20 minutes ago, Venandi said:

To me (and my feeble grade 13 biology brain) it was always about LNPs, systemic distribution

Yes, those were my initial thoughts when the jabs rolled out, too.

They were using 2 NOVEL delivery platforms, so no long-term studies on safety or efficacy.  Yet the public was told "100% safe and 95% effective" and assured that the LNPs stayed in the deltoid.

I was like, "I guess we'll see..."

And now we are.

[Goddess]

27 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I feel sorry for the ferrets but can't help wondering what they would think of all this

Now that Pharma's focus is on creating other jabs using mRNA tech, I think the tech is nowhere near ready for use in humans.

But what do I know?  I'm just a lowly Goddess.