I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Completely and utterly unrelated.

Moderators: raboof, MattKingUSA, khz

jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by jonetsu »

merlyn wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:34 pm
jonetsu wrote:So you do not want to look into the numbers reported by VAERS and EudraVigilance official databases, isn't it ?

Looking into the official numbers you like, but not other official numbers and then saying what ? Something about cherry picking ?
Yes, cherry picking is one of the logical fallacies in your posts. Your posts also have a lot of non sequiturs, in addition to too many rhetorical questions that don't go anywhere and faulty metaphors.

I have some data points to add to the discussion. I have had one Astra-Zeneca jab. I felt tired the next day. Most people I know have had one or two jabs of Pfizer or Astra-Zeneca and there have been no serious side effects. One person I know had flu like symptoms for a couple of days. That's it.

So, no, there is not a lot of relevance in vaccine side effect databases to me.
To YOU. Otherwise if you'd dare to look at the official numbers then you might feel something for some families ?

Again, you look at some official numbers, and then YOU decide that you will not look at others.

And that isn't cherry picking.

By your statement you support the vaccination of 75% of the population from 12 years old onward.

One example of something you brought in, a non sequitur:

""Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!""

Isn't it strange that non sequiturs and cherry picking are put forth in a simple discussion ?

What will you do next, poison this discussion as you know Raboof will close it ?
merlyn
Established Member
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by merlyn »

jonestu wrote:By your statement you support the vaccination of 75% of the population from 12 years old onward.
That's correct.
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by jonetsu »

Gps wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:11 pm They don;t wanna hear it, although I don't understand why.
When I was working on devices and transport for the IoT, I would happily reject any criticism. Hey, I bought houses, raised a family, kids to university, had cars, a backyard pool, I wouldn't risk all that by criticizing.
Gps wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:11 pm Although I am sceptical on the stuff I read online, I serious hope this will work out.

https://rumble.com/vgdl3f-dr-reiner-fue ... demic.html

I am not holding my breath though, first want to see if this is actual happening.
There is a tendency in having people 'parked' for some time. And time is not necessarily in favor of the populations. Any legal action takes time. There are commissions - we are used to that here - trying to prove the wrongdoings of politicians and they simply last and last, and never bear fruits.

I would have expected that Füllmich, and partner Swinwood in this case, based on their experience would have known better than to say that it's an advantage to have a Native as a plaintiff in a court case. I consider this has something's not entirely right. Their court case was dismissed.

I will post from Füllmich's newsletter as it it posted. It will be up to interested parties, as it was done before in this thread, to run it through a translating software. I prefer, and more specifically in this case since it's the original, to post the source sentences.

"Die Indianer (Algonquin) als Klägergruppe sind von besonderer Bedeutung, weil sie seit Jahrhunderten – ebenso wie die Indianer in den USA und in Lateinamerika – Ziel von Genocidversuchen der sogenannten Eroberer war. Jetzt, so erklärt es Michael Swinwood, sind wir alle Indianer („We are all indians now“)."

The link about that refers to the actual court case as it was submitted (missing the Ontario Superior Court seal, but that's also available). I'm not used to class actions although I find this one smells and looks funny. I'd have expected lawyers that defend a population to be more down-to-earth

https://www.fuellmich.com/news/mandante ... satzklage/

Forgot. Why would a Native plaintiff not be an advantage ? Have you driven by the 401 around Kingston seeing the very large signs requesting the RCMP to investigate Native women deaths ? The Native rights are constantly ignored and that's not since yesterday. Their rights are ignored to such an extent that would make anyone with just a bit of heart ashamed.
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by jonetsu »

merlyn wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:05 pm
jonestu wrote:By your statement you support the vaccination of 75% of the population from 12 years old onward.
That's correct.
I was cherry picking.
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by CrocoDuck »

Gps wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm My point however was that the number of people dying during the flue pandamic? of 2018 are about the same as the number of people now dying from corona.
Oh I see, you are comparing the number of COVD-19 deaths now with the number of deaths of the 2018 flu epidemics.

So, we know that the death toll in 2018 must have been governed by the boundary conditions of the time, which are subject to change over time: this is why we see a varying death toll by week. Conditions vary due to human interventions but also naturally. Seasonality is a boundary condition, but so is yearly vaccinations campaigns for flu which, both in Italy and the UK, are offered to subjects at risk every year.

Similarly, the death toll from COVID-19 is governed by the boundary conditions, which are time varying as well. Among the factors that play, there is social distancing, mask mandates, vaccinations. If the COVID-19 death toll as of now is weekly compatible to that of the 2018 epidemics this would suggest that the measure put in place are being effective. If the conditions change, we shall expect this to impact the death-toll. I'd say that this is the natural conclusion of this line of reasoning. Note that actually one can test for the compatibility of of the current rate with that of the 2018 epidemics: it would work similar to my last post, I haven't got around doing it but I could do. My message here is: this can be answered quantitiatively, and I think quantitative analysis should precede any position on the matter: I would wait to run the numbers before making claims.
Gps wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm I don't like you taking an flue average, because we can't do that yet with corona. We probably can in a few years.
The data we are using are the total deaths, for any cause. So, we have built a baseline model using the historic data. This allows to tells us if 2020/2021 is anomalous with respect the total deaths statistics. This is the natural way to do what goes by the name of anomaly detection, and I'd say we have found evidence that tells us that 2020/2021 is anomalous (or better, we fail to find evidence to support the inverse claim, statistics actually makes use of inverse logic). This way of doing things answer this question: is 2020/2021 different from what we are used to? The answer appears to be yes (or better, the data cannot support the answer no).

Let's fast forward 10 years into the future. We have full statistics for flu and COVID-19. A similar analysis as that we done before, but comparing now two distributions (not a distribution and an event) will tell us how similar they are. Maybe we will compare the distribution of deaths from COVID-19 to that of the flu. Note that this comparison will factor in all the boundary conditions applying in 10 years in the future, including the impact of new therapies and vaccines.

There is nothing wrong in using the average for COVID-19, but it is also something you would do to answer a different question: how COVID-19 and flu compare now that, 10 years in the future, we have equivalent tools to deal with them?
Gps wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm Our governments however (and the mainstream media), still are in that panic mode. Were all gonna die.
Why is a vaccine the only way out (I am quoting one of the assholes in my government) when everybody by now could know there are drugs that can help if you get covid.

HCQ with some more, or Ivermectin. Is it because the pharmaceutical companies, can't make much money from those drugs?

The media and the governments are not listening to the doctors and the scientist though, but do listen the pharmaceutical companies, who are not even liable if their vaccines cause side effects, and are making profits on the vaccines.
Classic media, I am not too finely tuned on them as I don't consume them. However, there is a point to be made here. That of the other substances that you mention: they are under current and frequent use.

For example, here you can see that AIFA, the Italian Medicines Agency, lists several of them for treatment of COVID-19. Some are recommended, some are not. Some were recommended in the past and are not anymore now that they have been used extensively and evidence on their effectiveness has been accumulated. There is a common denominator among those: they treat the condition after it has developed, ease the symptoms and raise probability of survival and reduce the likelihood of needing intensive care. They do this with varying level of effectiveness.

If one compare this with a vaccine, which does all of the above but also reduces transmission and contagion in the first place, one understands why a vaccine has quite a logistic appeal: it will reduce the load on hospitals further without needing to relying on the other measures (social distancing et al).

Now, numerous questions are brought about the statement above. However, it is somewhat unsatisfactory (if I do say so myself) that the mere possibility of posing these questions is seemingly treated as a proof that the statement above cannot hold. A common thing I see in this thread when these questions are brought about is that of the reliance on figures of authority (not the mainstream authority, but an alternative authority), which are brought in to provide the answer. This goes by the name of "principle of authority": this person is so clever that what they say must be right. This principle animated much of the philosophical discourse in Europe up until the 1600s, when Galileo broke with it introducing the so called "Scientific Method". Definitely not the only one of the modern Scientific Paradigms, but essentially it can be summarized with: "do you have a question? the answer is in the data". The Scientific idea is to have the facts and data to speak at face value, because authoritative figures are not necessarily right. For example, the impressive CV of Dr. Hodkinson does not replace the need for deep scrutiny of his points. After all even Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Whilst I seen a lot of skepticism towards the mainstream, I do not see the same towards the alternative authority, even when the articles linked make use of sensationalistic titling and some details that turn out to be false, details that would be treated by those who propose these very sources as Red Flags had they come from the mainstream (for example, sources wrongfully listing some of Dr. Hodkinson qualifications), as we seen in some example. This strikes me as unbalanced and prone to failure, given that we know that, logically, the degree of truth in a proposition is independent from who say it.

Hence, the sources brought about in this thread, that now are far too many to mention one by one, appear to me to be often low quality: they try to convince me about something by appealing to authority, to somebody that seems to have figured everything out. I instead just want access to the data, run the numbers, and see for myself: this is the true meaning of research. The second best thing would be to presented with the conclusion alongside all the information, including the raw data, needed to verify said conclusions independently. Thankfully many good sources of data have also been linked, and I might very well dive into those in the near future, time permitting. Taken from this point of view, this thread becomes actually quite interesting and maybe a way to practice some stats more. So thanks to all of you that linked the raw data, you know who you are. For somebody like me, the raw data is about the only interesting stuff. But then I am a nerd writing about acoustics in his spare time, so maybe that's why (SHAMELESS PLUG LINK IN MY SIGNATURE).

Finally, the argument about Big-Pharma: it goes two ways. For example, one of the substances that were mentioned, hydroxychloroquine, is undergoing a very substantial market growth. By one of the skeptical lines of reasoning presented in this thread, the Cui Bono? line fo reasoning, should we be suspicious? What this market growth tells us? Who is profiting? Is maybe some lobbying happening? Again, I say grabbing the data, the most fundamental source, is by far the only reasonable way to answer any question which might be raised by Cui Bono?. But I also say that the corporations that produce those medications seems to be treated asymmetrically from those that make vaccines in this discourse, despite them being in for profits too. This also strikes me as unbalanced, and perhaps strikes many more similarly and hence the critiques that are raised.

So yeah, if I manage to dig into more data, and I find some interesting stuff, and I find the time to polish it into a coherent post you will see me back over here. I thought this was going to be a train wreck, and in many ways it is, but I also found some unexpected stimulation...
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by jonetsu »

In a normal discussion one person would respond to another on a certain point or a certain series of points. There are plenty of examples of this is conferences filmed on video. Here though it seems it is considered as cherry picking. So pardon me while I stroll through the orchard...
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pm Similarly, the death toll from COVID-19 is governed by the boundary conditions, which are time varying as well. Among the factors that play, there is social distancing, mask mandates, vaccinations. If the COVID-19 death toll as of now is weekly compatible to that of the 2018 epidemics this would suggest that the measure put in place are being effective.
That is effectively a suggestion. Nothing is actual fact regarding this. Since the very start the role played by simulations is important. It goes along the redefinition of the word "pandemic" as was done by the WHO. Simulation driven. What if. One of the main person involved in this was Neal Ferguson from the Imperial College. You know, the guy who had to quit when caught with a visit of his mistress in full lockdown times. See the BBC article.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pm If the conditions change, we shall expect this to impact the death-toll.
There were some events that brought in condition changes. And they did not do any impact on hospitals and funeral homes. I'm referring to the numerous large scale protests that went on in many countries. here for instance, after such a day of protests with about 50 000 people, the hospitals in the following weeks were not surcharged nor the funeral homes. There were no complaint of missing space in the graveyards. Obviously, a lot of the protesters did not social distance, wear masks or were vaccinated. On the contrary, many hugged.

What does it show ? That hugging en masse is not changing anything. Is that valuable data ? I'd say yes it is.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmClassic media, I am not too finely tuned on them as I don't consume them. However, there is a point to be made here. That of the other substances that you mention: they are under current and frequent use.
We stopped having a TV years ago. As you probably know, HCQ is used since about 70 years in our modern world. The basis for it was introduced by the Jesuits well before our modern era.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmIf one compare this with a vaccine, which does all of the above but also reduces transmission and contagion in the first place, one understands why a vaccine has quite a logistic appeal: it will reduce the load on hospitals further without needing to relying on the other measures (social distancing et al).
As you may have seen from another post here related to the number of cycles used with the RT-PCR process, the CDC is currently investigating why some vaccinated people are still catching covid.

"COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough case investigation"

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/d ... gation.pdf

I do not know about Italy, but here there are large signs nearby roads that even with one of the vaccines, all measures must stay in place.

The effectiveness of one product, the Pfizer/BioNTech, is mentioned in the pamphlet given along the product. It was posted elsewhere here, so I will just extract some bits. For anyone wanting the full bowl of fruits, simply get it from the CDC.

My emphasis.

"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and MAY PREVENT you from getting COVID-19."

"It is your choice to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."

"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may not protect everyone."

Additionally taking into accounts that these products are NOT approved but only AUTHORIZED while there's a state of emergency, I would be hesitant at this stage to assert what you did. Unless you have access to other data and show it.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmA common thing I see in this thread when these questions are brought about is that of the reliance on figures of authority (not the mainstream authority, but an alternative authority), which are brought in to provide the answer. This goes by the name of "principle of authority": this person is so clever that what they say must be right.
Are we still in kindergarten ? One who goes with the mentality you are describing will be prone to be cheated anytime by anyone. I'm not saying that some people do not behave that way, although I wouldn't slap anyone with that notion unless I'm in dire need of self-defense with words.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmThe Scientific idea is to have the facts and data to speak at face value, because authoritative figures are not necessarily right.
Does the scientific idea take into account that if one gets data from Al Capone then that should be taken into consideration ?

Or is Al Capone able to use scientists to boast his business ?

What is expressed in the last statements is the "bubble effect" of having a very restrained set of data that is not representing anything outside of the box where the data actually is produced.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmFor example, the impressive CV of Dr. Hodkinson does not replace the need for deep scrutiny of his points.
Obviously not. At least ot outside of the kindergarten. I have explained why the credentials were posted up front. To disperse a notion that videos being put here by people who have a different opinion are not necessarily videos issued from the basement of a 'conspiracy theorist' thus preventing its viewing.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmfor example, sources wrongfully listing some of Dr. Hodkinson qualifications)
As I demonstrated, he himself is saying this. As I mentioned previously he describes himself as such on the web site of his company selling covid tests. As I remarked, who would to that when it's so easy to spot ?
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmHence, the sources brought about in this thread, that now are far too many to mention one by one, appear to me to be often low quality: they try to convince me about something by appealing to authority, to somebody that seems to have figured everything out.
As you most probably know there are HUNDREDS of doctors and scientists that have a different opinion than the one carried by the WHO and intertwined interests.

Should they go anonymous according to your statement ? There might be none in Italy (I do not know) but look in France, Germany, the USA, and many other countries. Should they dress like hipsters and sport crafted pseudos ? Of course not.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmTaken from this point of view, this thread becomes actually quite interesting and maybe a way to practice some stats more.
But there have to be a willingness to explore numbers. We have seen here that there's personal opposition in getting into the VAERS and EudraVigilance numbers.
CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pmFinally, the argument about Big-Pharma: it goes two ways. For example, one of the substances that were mentioned, hydroxychloroquine, is undergoing a very substantial market growth.
And despite - perhaps you forgot to mention this - one of the largest company producing base materials for HCQ burning down.

This is because there are countries, yes, that are allowing the use of HCQ. Not really a lot of Western countries though, but with significant populations. And it is cheap to buy.

For the Western countries, mainly, a study published by the Lancet prompted several governments to immediately ban HCQ in the following hours. That study proved to be not that serious but, the governments did not back down.
Last edited by jonetsu on Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gps
Established Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:09 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by Gps »

CrocoDuck wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:03 pm
Gps wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm My point however was that the number of people dying during the flue pandamic? of 2018 are about the same as the number of people now dying from corona.
Oh I see, you are comparing the number of COVD-19 deaths now with the number of deaths of the 2018 flu epidemics.

So, we know that the death toll in 2018 must have been governed by the boundary conditions of the time, which are subject to change over time: this is why we see a varying death toll by week. Conditions vary due to human interventions but also naturally. Seasonality is a boundary condition, but so is yearly vaccinations campaigns for flu which, both in Italy and the UK, are offered to subjects at risk every year.

Similarly, the death toll from COVID-19 is governed by the boundary conditions, which are time varying as well. Among the factors that play, there is social distancing, mask mandates, vaccinations. If the COVID-19 death toll as of now is weekly compatible to that of the 2018 epidemics this would suggest that the measure put in place are being effective. If the conditions change, we shall expect this to impact the death-toll. I'd say that this is the natural conclusion of this line of reasoning. Note that actually one can test for the compatibility of of the current rate with that of the 2018 epidemics: it would work similar to my last post, I haven't got around doing it but I could do. My message here is: this can be answered quantitiatively, and I think quantitative analysis should precede any position on the matter: I would wait to run the numbers before making claims.
Gps wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm I don't like you taking an flue average, because we can't do that yet with corona. We probably can in a few years.
The data we are using are the total deaths, for any cause. So, we have built a baseline model using the historic data. This allows to tells us if 2020/2021 is anomalous with respect the total deaths statistics. This is the natural way to do what goes by the name of anomaly detection, and I'd say we have found evidence that tells us that 2020/2021 is anomalous (or better, we fail to find evidence to support the inverse claim, statistics actually makes use of inverse logic). This way of doing things answer this question: is 2020/2021 different from what we are used to? The answer appears to be yes (or better, the data cannot support the answer no).

Let's fast forward 10 years into the future. We have full statistics for flu and COVID-19. A similar analysis as that we done before, but comparing now two distributions (not a distribution and an event) will tell us how similar they are. Maybe we will compare the distribution of deaths from COVID-19 to that of the flu. Note that this comparison will factor in all the boundary conditions applying in 10 years in the future, including the impact of new therapies and vaccines.

There is nothing wrong in using the average for COVID-19, but it is also something you would do to answer a different question: how COVID-19 and flu compare now that, 10 years in the future, we have equivalent tools to deal with them?
Gps wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:29 pm Our governments however (and the mainstream media), still are in that panic mode. Were all gonna die.
Why is a vaccine the only way out (I am quoting one of the assholes in my government) when everybody by now could know there are drugs that can help if you get covid.

HCQ with some more, or Ivermectin. Is it because the pharmaceutical companies, can't make much money from those drugs?

The media and the governments are not listening to the doctors and the scientist though, but do listen the pharmaceutical companies, who are not even liable if their vaccines cause side effects, and are making profits on the vaccines.
Classic media, I am not too finely tuned on them as I don't consume them. However, there is a point to be made here. That of the other substances that you mention: they are under current and frequent use.

For example, here you can see that AIFA, the Italian Medicines Agency, lists several of them for treatment of COVID-19. Some are recommended, some are not. Some were recommended in the past and are not anymore now that they have been used extensively and evidence on their effectiveness has been accumulated. There is a common denominator among those: they treat the condition after it has developed, ease the symptoms and raise probability of survival and reduce the likelihood of needing intensive care. They do this with varying level of effectiveness.

If one compare this with a vaccine, which does all of the above but also reduces transmission and contagion in the first place, one understands why a vaccine has quite a logistic appeal: it will reduce the load on hospitals further without needing to relying on the other measures (social distancing et al).

Now, numerous questions are brought about the statement above. However, it is somewhat unsatisfactory (if I do say so myself) that the mere possibility of posing these questions is seemingly treated as a proof that the statement above cannot hold. A common thing I see in this thread when these questions are brought about is that of the reliance on figures of authority (not the mainstream authority, but an alternative authority), which are brought in to provide the answer. This goes by the name of "principle of authority": this person is so clever that what they say must be right. This principle animated much of the philosophical discourse in Europe up until the 1600s, when Galileo broke with it introducing the so called "Scientific Method". Definitely not the only one of the modern Scientific Paradigms, but essentially it can be summarized with: "do you have a question? the answer is in the data". The Scientific idea is to have the facts and data to speak at face value, because authoritative figures are not necessarily right. For example, the impressive CV of Dr. Hodkinson does not replace the need for deep scrutiny of his points. After all even Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Whilst I seen a lot of skepticism towards the mainstream, I do not see the same towards the alternative authority, even when the articles linked make use of sensationalistic titling and some details that turn out to be false, details that would be treated by those who propose these very sources as Red Flags had they come from the mainstream (for example, sources wrongfully listing some of Dr. Hodkinson qualifications), as we seen in some example. This strikes me as unbalanced and prone to failure, given that we know that, logically, the degree of truth in a proposition is independent from who say it.

Hence, the sources brought about in this thread, that now are far too many to mention one by one, appear to me to be often low quality: they try to convince me about something by appealing to authority, to somebody that seems to have figured everything out. I instead just want access to the data, run the numbers, and see for myself: this is the true meaning of research. The second best thing would be to presented with the conclusion alongside all the information, including the raw data, needed to verify said conclusions independently. Thankfully many good sources of data have also been linked, and I might very well dive into those in the near future, time permitting. Taken from this point of view, this thread becomes actually quite interesting and maybe a way to practice some stats more. So thanks to all of you that linked the raw data, you know who you are. For somebody like me, the raw data is about the only interesting stuff. But then I am a nerd writing about acoustics in his spare time, so maybe that's why (SHAMELESS PLUG LINK IN MY SIGNATURE).

Finally, the argument about Big-Pharma: it goes two ways. For example, one of the substances that were mentioned, hydroxychloroquine, is undergoing a very substantial market growth. By one of the skeptical lines of reasoning presented in this thread, the Cui Bono? line fo reasoning, should we be suspicious? What this market growth tells us? Who is profiting? Is maybe some lobbying happening? Again, I say grabbing the data, the most fundamental source, is by far the only reasonable way to answer any question which might be raised by Cui Bono?. But I also say that the corporations that produce those medications seems to be treated asymmetrically from those that make vaccines in this discourse, despite them being in for profits too. This also strikes me as unbalanced, and perhaps strikes many more similarly and hence the critiques that are raised.

So yeah, if I manage to dig into more data, and I find some interesting stuff, and I find the time to polish it into a coherent post you will see me back over here. I thought this was going to be a train wreck, and in many ways it is, but I also found some unexpected stimulation...
What I see happening, and not just in my country is that our rights are been taken away, because there is a pandemic.
(according to main stream media and my government)

When I compared already months ago, how many people had died during the last say 10 years a year, to the number of people dying now, I started to wonder were is that pandemic? Or in other words why was 2018 not a pandemic with lockdowns and all the other shit.

Then I learned, the WHO changed the definition of what a pandemic is. So if we use the old definition, there is now no pandemic, because not enough (thank god) people die.

That is the point I am trying to make. :)
robbert-vdh
Established Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:56 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 92 times
Contact:

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by robbert-vdh »

Gps wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:39 pm What I see happening, and not just in my country is that our rights are been taken away, because there is a pandemic.
(according to main stream media and my government)

When I compared already months ago, how many people had died during the last say 10 years a year, to the number of people dying now, I started to wonder were is that pandemic? Or in other words why was 2018 not a pandemic with lockdowns and all the other shit.

Then I learned, the WHO changed the definition of what a pandemic is. So if we use the old definition, there is now no pandemic, because not enough (thank god) people die.

That is the point I am trying to make. :)
People have pointed this out many times in this thread already, but you cannot directly compare those situations directly. In 2018 there was no lockdown, there was no social distancing, there were no masks, there were no hospitals announcing code black. If even with those preventive measures and the hospitals requiring medical triage because they're over capacity, then maybe just maybe there is a reason why the current situation is being labeled as a pandemic. You're basically describing the prevention paradox, as you're comparing the current situation to the situation in 2018 despite the fact that there were no measures preventing the spread of the flu in 2018:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_paradox
Gps
Established Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:09 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by Gps »

Nicely ignoring the WHO changed the definition.
robbert-vdh
Established Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:56 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 92 times
Contact:

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by robbert-vdh »

Gps wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:37 pm Nicely ignoring the WHO changed the definition.
Why do you care so much about how the WHO defines a pandemic? Countries want to avoid deaths that can be avoided (relatively easily), hence the measures they put in place to do so. A different definition doesn't change that. And they changed this back in 2019 (see the archive.org link in this article). You're making it sound like they changed their definition last year in response to the current COVID-19 situation.
merlyn
Established Member
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by merlyn »

jonetsu wrote:We have seen here that there's personal opposition in getting into the VAERS and EudraVigilance numbers.
If you want to analyse data and post the results please feel free to do so. I'm not entirely sure why you expect me to do it. I've had the vaccine so I took a more empirical approach to finding out whether Covid vaccines are safe or not. I can confirm that for me and everyone I know they are safe.

One way people who feel aggrieved can get closure is by bringing a court case. If this was a court case then you would be the prosecution and you have to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of your case. You haven't presented a case. You've presented vague hand waving about VAERS. If you want to make a point about this provide the statistics.
User avatar
TAERSH
Established Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:48 pm
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by TAERSH »

Why do you care so much about how the WHO defines a pandemic?
In Germany there needs to be a Pandemic Situation to make the government able to take our rights away.
Lots of those basic rights which are guaranteed by our Grundgesetz have been taken away already.

If there wouldn't be declared the Pandemic Situation the government would break the laws by taking these rights away from us.
So, in the end they all would end up in JAIL - where they already do belong because of lots of other actions they made.

Angela Merkel is now working to convince other governments in Europe to keep the declaration of the Pandemic Situation European wide.
I heavily doubt, Angela Merkel or any European Country would be able to declare the Pandemic Situation without the WHO changing the definition of a Pandemic Situation first.

Edit:
merly wrote:I can confirm that for me and everyone I know they are safe.
We will await the longer results perhaps in one, two or even more years - after you getting the third, fourth, fifth vaccination every six months.
Gps
Established Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:09 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by Gps »

robbert-vdh wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:02 pm
Gps wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:37 pm Nicely ignoring the WHO changed the definition.
Why do you care so much about how the WHO defines a pandemic? Countries want to avoid deaths that can be avoided (relatively easily), hence the measures they put in place to do so. A different definition doesn't change that. And they changed this back in 2019 (see the archive.org link in this article). You're making it sound like they changed their definition last year in response to the current COVID-19 situation.
If you had watched the vid from that German Lawyer, you would not have asked me why I care so much.

My rights are been taken away, based on very bad science, the Gorman Drosten papers.

I see wikipedia getting changed, to fit the story from the main stream media.

Looking back I wish I had made screen shots May last year, because then I could proof this.

Maybe you can explain why they changed the influenza wiki, to fit the covid 19 story.

You might wonder why I now this. I am already having this discussion for over a year now, I used to quote the influenza wiki, to proof my point.
Then they changed that wiki........

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/508383-fatal-flaws-covid-test/

Although this review did not get accepted, now an American doctor is saying exactly the same.

Maybe the truth will come out still.
User avatar
Michael Willis
Established Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:27 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains, North America
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 163 times
Contact:

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by Michael Willis »

Gps wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:08 pm I see wikipedia getting changed, to fit the story from the main stream media.

Looking back I wish I had made screen shots May last year, because then I could proof this.
Wikipedia keeps all prior revisions. You can go back and look at any revision, share a link to it, and even share a link to differences in two revisions.
User avatar
bhilmers
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:44 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

Post by bhilmers »

Michael Willis wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:43 pmWikipedia keeps all prior revisions. You can go back and look at any revision, share a link to it, and even share a link to differences in two revisions.
:roll: LOL, of course the mouth-breathers that share Russian Propaganda links don't know this.
Post Reply