Jump to content

CBC's Covid Disinformation Reaches New Heights


Recommended Posts

It's at 47 now, January 30: six more in less than three months vs. 11 in two years; if the trend continues will be in the high twenties for the year. That's over four times compared to before QV peddled persistently and tirelessly for under five group even with minuscule microscopic risk in this group. It needs to be reported and investigated by serious professionals not Canada's syringe-happy exSpert"" bunch.

How does one get the data for an earlier date? It will be reported to an international research panel.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's this question that cannot be avoided now: is this behavior compatible with professional standard of quality medicine in a first world, democratic society?

One thing is to say that certain prophylactic treatment is available for those who chose to use it; another is to actively promote and peddle it, including in mass media, to patients with virtually non-existent serious risks and without confident knowledge of possible side effects. Again: is it compatible with the professional standard? or... anything goes from now on, for the great greater good?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, this can be a serious matter, like serious. Eleven child deaths in two years, thirty six in just over one. Can we get anything real done here other than babbling into the cosmic void?

We have three time points in a trajectory. It's not great but can suffice for a hypothesis. Let's ask real professionals, competent and sane to figure it out, there's no use of those sad parody figureheads in the TV regardless of how much public dough they rake. What's needed: snapshots need to be supported by references to real data, like links or published. Can those be gotten for the snapshots 07.11.22 and 10.12.2021? It'll then be posted to an international research forum on the subject.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, myata said:

This can be a matter of serious concern and I'm thinking of reporting it in an international professional forum. I'd like to know is there any prior context to this finding, including discussions, arguments, explanations including changes of reporting standard, errors, other inconsistencies? Or you just stumbled upon it. Thanks.

Near the beginning of the pandemic I saw Dr Oz talking about the health demographics of the people who died from covid.  He said the avg age was 75 and that 96% of them had one or more co-morbidities. 

For the avg age to be 74 there have to be  aot of people older than that dying, and that's jst a small % of the population up there. 

US stats don't compare to Canada very well, they have the population of Alberta riding in the NYC subway system every day, so I did a google search for "covid deaths in Canada by age" and that graph came up. 

 

I knew that I likely wouldn't be able to do a historical search of that data so I screen-shotted it. I screen-shot all that stuff. Especially the covid deaths by vax status graph, when they had it. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First kids under 11 got vaccinated Nov. 23, 2021: CTV https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/first-canadian-kids-under-12-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19-1.5678502

The control number of Covid-related fatal cases, 0-11 total as of 3.12.2021: 8 (web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20211210171822/https://www.statista.com/statistics/1228632/number-covid-deaths-canada-by-age/)

Same number, 15.11.2022: 41 (+33, just under a year) (web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20221120074934/https://www.statista.com/statistics/1228632/number-covid-deaths-canada-by-age/)

Same number 30.01.2023: 47(+6, less 2.5 months) (Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1228632/number-covid-deaths-canada-by-age/). If the trend continues, expectation for 2023: 29.

1. March 2021 to December 2021: 8 cases, 21 months

2. 12.21 to 11.22: 33 cases, 12 months

3. 11.22 to 01.23: 6 cases, 2.5 months: look above, almost the same as in p.1 (almost two years)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask a specialist here, @SpankyMcFarland please:

1. Recommending a preventative treatment, including in a public, generic fashion including through mass media, that is a) essentially not needed to a patient (the risk of the condition, in a general case, extremely low) while b) possible long-term effects, unverified and therefore unknown: 1) ethical and 2) compatible with the professional standard of the medical profession?

2. Not notifying the public immediately and clearly about possible side effects where it was a) possible and b) directly within the range of duties to monitor, detect and notify a) competent and b) compatible with the professional standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's weird already.... Everybody or many can see that something isn't right, in plain sight. And - silence. Because it's as it should be. Because the Supreme Guru said so. 0.5 deaths monthly before the treatment, 3-5 after, all is great for the greater goodness. Some decades on, the Guru will declare a holy commission of inquiry, out of your pocket. Weird... but OK. Good to know.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem is that correlation is not causation. You've tried to suggest there's some figures and there was covid (and vaccines specifically) and therefore the one is a result of the other.  And that's just not how causality works. You would have to show a connection.

Further there is a fundimental flaw in your argument. The stats you quote are for "covid deaths" - but as we know it was necessary for various reasons for countries to attribute the death of anyone who died with covid as a 'covid death' even tho covid may have had nothing to do with the death.

So all you're REALLY quoting is how many children who died had covid, without showing any connection between covid, the shot, or the deaths.

Nobody's going to take that seriously. It's the old "hilter chewed gum, his officers chewed gum, so chewing gum makes you hate jews" argument. That's why nobody's biting and getting upset and anxious to 'do' anything. So far you've provided nothing to get worked up about.

Which isn't to say there isn't anything. But you would have to make that case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, myata said:

Really, I have to do that?

If you want to make the claim that the data you presented is evidence of the phenomenon you claim it is and be taken seriously, yes.

9 hours ago, myata said:

What an interesting interpretation of professional responsibilities..

That's not an interpretation of "professional responsibility".  Its a factual requirement of a logical and reasoned position. If you wish for your ideas to be considered valid by intelligent people then you have certain criteria your argument must meet and you have failed to reach that requirement.  Sooooooo......

9 hours ago, myata said:

but hey this is Canada, anything is possible (or next to), eh?

So what you're saying in the end is that you are unable to actually draw a connection between the data and your conclusion and you're unhappy.

Well - that's fine but you can't blame anyone for not talking you seriously. I pointed out a legitimate problem with your position and instead of addressing it all you could do was reply with this nonsense.  Which again is fine but don't expect to be taken seriously then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So what you're saying in the end is that you are unable to actually draw a connection between the data and your conclusion and you're unhappy.

If there's a "conclusion" here, then only in your mind. What is real though is a factual disturbing trend in the public statistics and not a small bucketload of government exsperts paid even more massive load of public cash to monitor, detect and figure out these very things. So what could one take from here? Is it that no amount of public funds thrown at the bureaucracy causes and results in competent, professional and timely execution of direct professional duties? Sounds right?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

If there's a "conclusion" here, then only in your mind.

I thought you had concluded that the trend in public statistics was disturbing?  Am I not correct?

1 hour ago, myata said:

What is real though is a factual disturbing trend in the public statistics

Ahhh... so the problem here is you don' t know what a "conclusion" is.  Well fair enough.

As it is - you would have to make a reasoned claim as to why the trend in public statistics should be concerning for anyone to care about it. And as i've said you have not done so.  I bring it up because you seem angry nobody is taking you seriously and this is why.

1 hour ago, myata said:

So what could one take from here? Is it that no amount of public funds thrown at the bureaucracy causes and results in competent, professional and timely execution of direct professional duties? Sounds right?

 No, it would not be possible to arrive at that conclusion based on the evidence you've presented. Which isn't to say it isn't true, but as i've said you have to make a logical connection there. Why would that data indicate that a) the beurocracy has had 'endless' funds rather than limited funds, b) that the 'beurocracy'  (which you'll have to define) is in any way incompetent or unprofessional or untimely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

but

You'll make a great public exSpert! (in Canada)... writing ton-weighing reports saying nothing (like, zero value) is exactly what they are famous for.. with cluelessness and incompetence (down to basic arithmetic level, apparently) close second. Good luck!

.. you understand, public id.. scratch that, exSpert that 47 - 11 - 6 = 30 (that's basic arithmetic for you) were somebody's children, real, living beings (to the happy bandwagon song). Nothing to worry yet? The trend isn't clear? Should wait another couple decades?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The CBC is a pack of federally funded twits who will say whatever they're told to say.

'Sit. Roll over. Beg. Good boy. Here's your funding.'

That would be bad enough but unfortunately i think it's worse. I think they have now gotten to the point where they are completely rogue and will pursue whatever left wing agenda is in their heads.

If they'd rather see the liberals in power - then they deliberately organize their publications in such a way as to support that.  IF they don't like the convoy as many on the left didn't, then they deliberately lie and print false information in order to vilify it. If for some reason the decided they didn't like trudeau then they would be slanting the news to get rid of him.

We've seen their recent completely unsubstantiated attack on danielle smith.

They are a power unto themselves. They believe they are entitled to their money and nobody can stop them.

They don't just report events - they want to control them. They want to be a political power within the country with no master.

They have to go

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I think they have now gotten to the point where they are completely rogue and will pursue whatever left wing agenda is in their heads.

Why wouldn't they (or to think of if it, in her current state, almost anyone in Canada) do that if 1) they can and 2) paid for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, myata said:

Why wouldn't they (or to think of if it, in her current state, almost anyone in Canada) do that if 1) they can and 2) paid for it?

Well that's not what they get paid for. :)   which is kind of the point. If they won't do what they're paid for we should stop paying them.

Then they're absolutely free to go ahead and do that if they wish - IF people are willing to pay for it directly.  They will have to be accountable to the market forces. ANd i have no problem with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, myata said:

Indeed we should. But could we, that's the thing.

Yes. We absolutely can.  And PP has said he'll do exactly that.

There was a time when the CBC filled a critical purpose which could not be achieved otherwise in a normal market environment. Those days are over.  All we need to do is say 'there is no money for the cbc in next years budget at all".

They will still exist, they can go find other revenue (they make other revenue now), they can become an independent company. If they can appeal to the market they can make money and pay their own way. If not they die. But either way-  i don't have to pay for them any more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That would be bad enough but unfortunately i think it's worse. I think they have now gotten to the point where they are completely rogue and will pursue whatever left wing agenda is in their heads.

If they'd rather see the liberals in power - then they deliberately organize their publications in such a way as to support that.  IF they don't like the convoy as many on the left didn't, then they deliberately lie and print false information in order to vilify it. If for some reason the decided they didn't like trudeau then they would be slanting the news to get rid of him.

We've seen their recent completely unsubstantiated attack on danielle smith.

They are a power unto themselves. They believe they are entitled to their money and nobody can stop them.

They don't just report events - they want to control them. They want to be a political power within the country with no master.

They have to go

The media has always been there to hold government accountable. But when they begin to lie, in order to sell a narrative, they are no longer news media and do not deserve my funding.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...