If you have a long journey ahead this good-humoured, wide-ranging conversation between two Canadians might help.
Covid response was never about health. PCR is not a test. VAERS soaring numbers are not because we’re injecting so many. Peer review is untrustworthy. The virus was created. Finding solutions is a priority.
People are fighting their own cognitive dissonance right now… go easy on them…
Q&A with Michelle McAttee begins at 25:45… aborted foetal cell lines… deliberate withholding of info from public… Covid injections made in China… Remdesivir (aka Veklury) made by Pfizer for Gilead1which the WHO recommends AGAINST using for Covid-19…
Basically, the vaccines are causing heart injury in at least 2.8% of people who get the shot. So 7M Americans now have hearts damaged by the COVID vaccine. He admits the number could be over 100M. The fact that the FAA *quietly* changed the EKG parameters for pilots suggests that the vaccine is causing a huge number of pilots to fail their screening. This is a tacit admission of a huge problem.
Age-stratified infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population
The largest burden of COVID-19 is carried by the elderly, and persons living in nursing homes are particularly vulnerable. However, 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. The objective of this study was to accurately estimate the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection… we identified 40 eligible national seroprevalence studies covering 38 countries with pre-vaccination seroprevalence data…
The study conducted in 399 participants [all unvaccinated1See press release here.] met its primary efficacy endpoint with a reduction of 72% of COVID-19 infection in the group treated with daily oral administration of ivermectin compared to the placebo group
Harvey Risch is physician and a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His recent critique of The ScienceTM contains so many bombshells, I struggled to pick highlights. But hopefully these snippets will entice you to click through and read the whole thing.1It gets technical at times. But you don’t need to understand all the numbers to understand his points about Randomized Controlled Trials.
… plausible theories are easy to believe, and that is the problem. That is what we have been fed for almost three years of the Covid-19 pandemic. In fact though, we have been fed plausibility instead of science for much longer…
The double-jabbed, cardiologist and former TV pundit – whose father (also a cardiologist) died because of a COVID vaccine induced cardiac-death – has switched from countering vaccine hesitancy to warning about vaccine dangers.
public health is declining
overall, medical drug impact is negative
most research can’t be trusted
relative risk reduction is highlighted, absolute risk ignored1Good explanation of difference between Absolute and Relative Risk
‘numbers needed to treat’ are ignored2Number of people one needs to treat to prevent one instance of an illness
consent is not fully informed
most doctors getting their info from media or pharma sources
passing off a model as evidence is tantamount to lying…
so, if it does backfit and your major parameter assumption is wrong, it means the whole rest of your model is garbage.
… it’s pure GIGO1Garbage In, Garbage Out and the minute you assumed “vaccines worked well” then “vaccines saved huge numbers of lives” will pop out.
but if this assumption is wrong (as it appears so clearly to have been in the israeli palestine natural experiment comparison where death rates in the two places were near indistinguishable both before and after vaccination despite wide divergence in vaxx rate) then you’ve just “proven” nothing at all apart from the fact that models express the assumptions of the modeler.
The [‘Canaadian crash study’] authors are not mincing words: they found that UNvaccinated people are MORE likely to have car crashes. Based on this statistical finding, they urge people to vaccinate to avoid car crashes!
Guess who is more likely to get into a car crash? That’s right, the person who drives to work daily, as opposed to a remote worker.
The Unvaccinated Could not Take Trains or Fly in Canada
So they had to drive more.
Oh, one more thing…
Turns out that people over 65, who do NOT drive to work, are the ONLY group where vaccination leads to a slightly higher chance of car crashes for the vaccinated (without reaching statistical significance).
This outcome is the OPPOSITE of what happened to employed people:
So we can see that the conclusion that “unvaccinated people are more likely to be hurt in crashes” is explained by the fact that “essential workers” who drive to work were the ones choosing not to get vaccinated!
So… It is not the COVID vaccine that reduces the chances of having a crash. It is a fact that staying home with warm coffee and a laptop is safer than commuting to work or driving a truck. The effect does NOT exist in old people who do not work.
… the general public and doctors don’t know what’s really happening; and they don’t even know that they don’t know.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra (1:37:00)
Nov 29, Dallas, Texas Drs. McCullough and Malhotra spoke about:
military style approach
deceptive use of science and data.1E.g. Relative Risk vs Absolute Risk.
regulatory, media and political capture
censorship and being attacked
Pfizer and Moderna’s original trials showed greater risk of harm from injection than of catching COVID…
… I was cautious during the early months of the vaccine campaign but as the deaths accrued shortly after injection I could not remain silent by the late winter of 2021. Dr. Malhotra in his presentation painfully describes his journey of emotional distraught, losing his father and last remaining first-degree family member, and then his relentless pursuit of the truth culminating in the publication of a pair of analyses concluding all COVID-19 vaccinations are not sufficiently safe nor effective to remain in use today… Together we have hundreds of published scientific reports and opinions. We have delivered thousands of lectures and speeches. We both have suffered professional retaliation for telling the truth. We are not wrong about these conclusions.
A better summary than mine of the Heidelberg autopsy study.
Our authorities claim that “myocarditis does not cause deaths” for only one reason: they refused to autopsy vaccine victims. As soon as autopsies of a representative sample of “sudden deaths” were finally done, as in the above Heidelberg study, it turned out that 20% of sudden deaths were myocarditis-related.
Here’s the list of “causes of death” for most of these subjects. Thanks to Brian Mowrey for pointing it out. A lot of them deserve their own substack post!!! Look at sudden-onset pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, thrombi etc…
Here, we describe the cardiac autopsy findings in five persons who have died unexpectedly within seven days following anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination, with vaccine-induced myocardial inflammation representing the likely or possible cause of death. Our findings establish the histological phenotype of lethal vaccination-associated myocarditis.
This a small study: 5 out of 25 people who died unexpectedly within 20 days of a COVID-19 injection. But hard to dismiss as coincidental given the mounting evidence1e.g this, this, this, all this and that the authors reported:
During the last 20 years of autopsy service at Heidelberg University Hospital we did not observe comparable myocardial inflammatory infiltration. This was validated by histological re-evaluation of age- and sex-matched cohorts from three independent periods, which did not reveal a single case showing a comparable cardiac pathology….
To provide the best experience, Oisin.Page uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies allows processing of data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, might affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.