Last night I saw Sen Rand Paul on cspan talking about Covid, China, and Dr Fauci. It appears that about half or more of the criticisms of vaccine and government supervision, discounted as conspiracies were true. Of course not all of them.
JR
JR
Not really. Seems pretty useful for tracking longer term mortality trends that might otherwise go unnoticed. Once recognized the underlying causes can be investigated. Or we can just keep trying to label it misinformation and gaslight everyone about it."Excess deaths" is a strange metric anyway.
Yep. My wife is a nurse. Cause of death is not always simple, especially when a person has one or more chronic conditions.In my previous job, I had access to the numbers from several retirement homes. There were almost no deaths due to natural cause. That's logical because the average age of the deceased was well over 70. At that age, most people suffer from some ailment. Only one person died of covid.
You can imagine that these numbers depend on the interpretation of the MD that signs the death certificate. Often, these certificates had already been filled out by a nurse. They usually knew way more about the deceased than the MD. The MD might not have seen that patient in a while. The nurses are there continually.
Studying excess deaths is just smart. I recall reading reports that there were economic rewards for hospitals to report deaths as Covid caused.Yep. My wife is a nurse. Cause of death is not always simple, especially when a person has one or more chronic conditions.
Last night I saw Sen Rand Paul on cspan talking about Covid, China, and Dr Fauci. It appears that about half or more of the criticisms of vaccine and government supervision, discounted as conspiracies were true. Of course not all of them.
I recall reading reports that there were economic rewards for hospitals to report deaths as Covid caused.
Studying excess deaths is just smart.
No thank you... I already dislike watching the life expectancy fall from year to year.I can send you a pdf copy of Ed Dowd's book which analyses insurance actuarial data if you want to be smarter.
The point however is not being right
Assuming their data is accurate, the net result is still worse for those young males who were vaccinated because the Covid infection rate of that group was tiny, while the vaccination rate is likely something over 50%. Scarring of heart muscle doesn't sound minor to me.Yes, that's been noted from the get-go, but a greater incidence from covid itself.
https://news.yale.edu/2023/05/05/yale-study-reveals-insights-post-vaccine-heart-inflammation-cases
the net result is still worse for those young males who were vaccinated because the Covid infection rate of that group was tiny,
myocarditis was not acknowledged as a vaccine risk "from the get-go."
Ah, "cases" based on the PCR tests again. I submit that a mild case (including one with no symptoms) is not likely to produce any systemic response involving the organs. A severe case likely does. How many severe cases were there in this cohort?
Several months after the majority of people had already been coerced into getting at least two doses. I recall leaked docs that revealed the vaccine makers knew of these problems from testing before the EUA was done.Pfizer and BioNTech Share Detailed Update to the Results from 6 Month Safety and
Efficacy Data Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study
NEW YORK AND MAINZ, GERMANY, JULY 28, 2021
• Reports of adverse events following use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under
EUA suggest increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly following the second
dose. The decision to administer the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to an individual with
a history of myocarditis or pericarditis should take into account the individual’s clinical
circumstances
https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2021-07/Preprint_Post_Hoc_Publication_Statement_VF.pdf
Vaccination is not only effective at the individual level, but collectively - herd immunity being the ultimate goal. So if vaccinating younger people helps contain the spread of the disease and thus prevent more deaths in older age groups, it could still make sense to do it.Yes, the myocarditis risk to young males was noted by Rand Paul as a "more harm than good" from vaccinating young people. Just one of the several examples of bad (non) science in the government response.
JR
PS; Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist so perhaps somewhat better informed than many, while not a full GP.
Pointless to go on if you're unable to understand that.And why is your data truncated to 2020 only?
Yes, it's pre-vaccine "data," but it's also polluted by false-positive PCR testing with cycle counts 30+. Do you remember that? I do. In the Yale paper they refer to "infections" without defining whether that means simply "tested positive" or displayed symptoms specific to Covid. I see the flaws in the analysis. Do you?Pointless to go on if you're unable to understand that.
Enter your email address to join: