What have they been wrong on?
I went through it also and after my initial surprise I too, felt it too 'neat'. I mean, I know that military staff tend to be a bit more direct but it sure does tick all the boxes.
It's like a gift. A perfectly wrapped one. Maybe The Deep State wanted to mess with PV. Time will reveal all. I'm sure all of us would like nothing better for Fraudci to get his come uppance.
"the PCR (the old version used in canada) can and does have an innaccurate rate of anywhere from 30-50% garbage results"
You probably want to supply some authoritative reference material for a statement like that. Some people would accuse you of spreading misinformation otherwise.
No problem, here skip to 36s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16Stdsi0Kw Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s Deputy Medical Health Officer, admits that there can be a 50% false positive error in PCR testing. She then bizarrely goes on to defend how important testing is. When asked about it, Premier Doug Ford talks in circles rather than give a straight answer.
Regarding: "You may not remember Bonnie Henry basically saying its a waste of time testing everyone showing up with no symptoms because you can get false negatives and then maybe get a positive in the same person the same day."
Here she is, skip to 22, saying PCR tests can give 30% false negatives: https://youtu.be/gCvrWo3Av5g
If these testing stations have been "overwhelmed", and this is the recent news after the BC gov decided to throw a bunch of taxpayer money at giving out thousands of test kits avail to the public (just around omicron coming out, odd coincidence).
Maybe testing stations are being overwhelmed. Okay. So a lot of people are choosing to wait for hours in a queue, in bitter freezing weather, to get a test to see if they are ill or not? When 9 out of 10 people are innoculated?
One is either not sick and wasting your and their time. Have a cold or mild flu and toughing out waiting in a queue to get a test that cant even detect cold/flu -but people may freak out at you anyway, thinking you have the rona.OR, you really ARE sick bad with kung flu (jabbed or not) and you must have the determination of Job standing there.
If the latter 2, then what the heck are these people there for? Take some days off work and stay away from others, if one is so concerned about spreading the, er, "love".
Is there any results of this 'overwhelmingness'? Tests vs "positive" results. Notwithstanding the 30-50& innacurate factor. "Cases" are shooting up apparently? But I thought we were completly jabbed? How can this be?
Wait a minute. Isn’t this test supposed to be highly accurate and reliable? How then would false positives overwhelm the medical system?
For some context: (a) BC admits there is a 30% false negative rate. (b) ON admits there is a 50% false positive rate.
And, BC CDC has no idea of the error rate. Quote-
" What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity).
These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens.
In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results.
CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia. . Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate)."
Some highlights: Out of the over 3700 deaths reported from Dec. 6 to Jan. 2, over 2600 of them were "fully" jabbed – over 70%, according to the data, and an additional 130 deaths attributed to the partly jabbed brings the total up to nearly 75%.
However, with the jab count possibly numbering greater than one can count on ones fingers this year, what "fully vaccinated" will mean now or in the future is subject to depending on who you ask.
Additionally, the fully pokied account for, by far, the vast majority of "Covid-19" cases during that time period. That is, if they really do have Covid, and not something else caused by, something that disagreed with them.....?
The HSA states “it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective,” although the numbers seem rather lopsided given that the report also stated that 63.1% of the population had taken 2 doses of the vaccine, and 45.6% of the population had taken at least 3.
Unfortunately the latest UKHSA report also shows that despite the so called "booster" propaganda campaign being well underway, the vast majority of alleged "Covid-19" hospitalisations were also among the fully jabbed pop between 6th Dec 21 and 2nd Jan 22.
The totals number of hospitalisations by Jabba The Hurt status for all age groups between 6th Dec 21 and 2nd Jan 22, as confirmed by table 11 of the UKHSA report were as follows –
Non Jabby population = 4,056 - or as some wags would say "purebloods." Partly poked population = 508 Triple/Double-full on Jabba The Clot population = 5,283
This means the vaccinated population accounted for 59% of Covid-19 hospitalisations between 6th Dec 21 and 2nd Jan 22, whilst the not-vaccinated accounted for just 41%.
The number of alleged Covid-19 deaths by jab status between 6th Dec 21 and 2nd Jan 22, shown on table 12b –
Non jab population = 928 deaths Partly jab population = 130 deaths Triple/Double- jab population = 2,621 deaths.
What will be very interesting to see, is the total yearly death rate by month for UK, US, and Canada numbers.
If they ever see the light of day.
He certainly dictated a lot of calories going into his body.
CEO interview on Yahoo! Finance here, skip to 1:53. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhMbKyDq9_w
“Two doses of the vaccine offers very limited protection, if any,” Bourla said when asked about developing an omicron variant-specific "booster".
“Three doses with a booster offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths,” Bourla added. I'ts important to remember that all the so called "booster" is, the exact same Pfizer shot as the first 2 or 3 times, further filling Pfizer's already sizable coffers.
However, “Less protection against infection,” the CEO admitted.
No, it's not your imagination that you seem to recall Pfizer previous pronouncements some months ago. April the 1st, (April Fools Day - perhaps a morbid coincidence ) which he crowed all over the media that the first and second jab doses as “100% effective.”
Here's a tweet from Bourla from April 1st 21: https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377586182519947264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1377586182519947264%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswars.com%2Fpfizer-ceo-admits-two-doses-of-vaccine-offer-very-limited-protection-if-any%2F
This type of story breaching into dinosaur mocking bird media, such as The Hill and Yahoo News, publishing headlines reading, “GOP Oversight Cmte Releases Emails Showing Fauci CONCEALED Lab Leak Info,” shows the establishment version is falling apart.
Is what's to come, getting simply too big to hide? Time will tell.
Yahoo! News source https://www.yahoo.com/now/breaking-news-gop-oversight-cmte-161200836.html
Original congress cmte email documents: https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf
The original emails, squeezed from the NIH by a FOIA, reveal Fauci was made aware of the fact that SARS-nCov-2 was likely not a naturally-occurring virus as early as Feb 1/20.
The House Oversight Committee explains, “These emails were originally produced redacted via the Freedom of Information Act and subsequently to Committee Republicans. At the request of Committee Republicans and pursuant to the Seven Member Rule, the Department of Health and Human Services made unredacted versions available for an in camera review but not available to the public. Committee staff, to the best of their ability, hand transcribed the contents of the emails and excerpts of those transcriptions are reproduced below. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added.”
From Zerohedge Financial News: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/house-republicans-release-damning-fauci-emails-suggesting-concealed-knowledge-lab-leak
"“Three days after the call, four participants authored a paper entitled ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,’ of which Fauci and Collins were sent drafts. The authors, who had previously expressed concern over a lab-leak and genetic manipulation, suddenly abandoned that theory to insist the new virus had a natural origin. Meanwhile, on April 16, 2020, Collins emailed Fauci to express dismay that the Nature Medicine article which they saw prior to publication (and were given the opportunity to edit) did not quash the lab leak hypothesis. Collins asked Fauci if the NIH could do more to ‘put down’ the lab leak hypothesis. The next day, Fauci cited the paper from the White House podium ‘likely in an effort to further stifle the hypothesis that COVID-19 leaked from the WIV,’” the article continues.”
Looks like he's been offered food time and time again.
He's so fat, he made the video file bigger than normal.
"This is why my child is sitting in front of a computer". He's sitting in front of 4.
He's so fat, even his hands are fat.
He's so fat, he sits around the house.
He's so fat, he bleeds gravy when he gets cut.
Ah....fat people. Bring back fatpeoplehate. Is there a fatpeoplehate on .win?
Project Veritas drop.
So it was true. Fauci's agency went cap in hand to DARPA and asked if they could have money to mess with bat coronavirus. DARPA balked and basically said "Are you nuts? That could potentially kill off thousands if it gets loose, and its against bio weapons law!"
We can only speculate how blue the air was between Fauci, or his representatives, and DARPA staff in that room, or perhaps over phone calls.
Who else was right about this months ago?
Oh yeah. Alex Jones.
Project Veritas:
"Military documents state that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018 seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the gain of function research moratorium.
The main report regarding the EcoHealth Alliance proposal leaked on the internet a couple of months ago, it has remained unverified until now. Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
“The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.
Project Veritas reached out to DARPA for comment regarding the hidden documents and spoke with the Chief of Communications, Jared Adams, who said, “It doesn’t sound normal to me,” when asked about the way the documents were buried.
[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Jan. 10, 2022] Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.
Mr. Fauci has not responded to this document at this time."
sorry i screwed this one up and i dont know how to delete it
Poor kenny.
He's died more times than the jokes on Ghostbusters 3.
"Oi fatty! Come get yer double double!"
I'd say if we have the bed capacity, then start now.
Eh? It's plain as day. The original test could not detect influenza. Only sars2.
Was it 'designed' to? Or 'supposed' to? Maybe not, maybe so. Kinda moot now. My implication was, how many people were tested who had fluish/cold ish/corona symptoms, tested negative or possibly threw the test and got a false positive or false negative/inconclusive but actually had a cold or influenza, and categorised as having covid anyway, as a precaution? Seeing as the PCR (the old version used in canada) can and does have an innaccurate rate of anywhere from 30-50% garbage results if you are trying to find rona on folk that don't even have it and just a sniffle.
Would trhat not skew covid stats, and cause undue concern in people, especially as those numbers are passed on to the dinosaur media, and you know how they love to doom and gloom everything.
You may not remember Bonnie Henry basically saying its a waste of time testing everyone showing up with no symptoms because you can get false negatives and then maybe get a positive in the same person the same day.
Id like to see viewer/listener numbers for Joe Rogan in Canada alone, vs CBC.
Has that page been updated? Am not sure if I'm looking at the same page you found?
Under- "Hospitalizations by vaccination status", theres a pinkish brown chart. Both seem to be "cases", meaning I assume people who tested + on the way in, no matter what they came in with.
Assuming this means spread over all the hospitals in Ontario. Can't see anything giving an age or comorbidity breakdown.
I see a pie chart, "in hosp but not the ICU". Jabbed- 1478 people. Unjabbed - 457. So a smidge over 75% 3/4 are jabbed, Slightly less than 25% 1/4 are unjabbed.
Pie chart below, in the ICU. a yellowish brown pie chart. Jabbed, 155. Unjabbed 123. Over 9/16ths or 56.25% are jabbed.
Total over 2 charts in hosp, 580 non jab, 1633 jabbed.
Ontario has about 48,700 hospital beds. With an increase in the last 2 years. Unless im reading the charts wrong, then thats 1.19% of the bed capcity in hospital are non jabbed people testing positive, and 3.35% of the bed capacity are jabbed. 4.5% capacity of beds in hospital are testing positive, irrespective of jab.
That doesnt sound right. Unless, all the other capacity taken up is just patients who have not tested positive for whatever reason. Also, maybe the beds arent even being taken up. Some ER intake is non critical walking wounded or what have you that are in and out in hours or can sit down.
We also don't know if everyone consented to a rona test, or declined giving jab status.
(bed number from here https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/health-2020 )
The jabbed are taking more room up than the unjabbed. Even if it was the other way around, this Ont page still doesnt tell us what are they in hospital for? Are in they admitted because they have corona, (Becuase it says "Cases" meaning, I assume they tested "positive") and are ill from complications from COVID or by itself, or are they admitted for something else, and their jab status and positivity status is just a statistical entry on intake paperwork? It doesn't say.
It doesn't say ages or comorbidities either. I would imagine that kind of granularity is difficult to keep track of in near real time, and possibly has some privacy identifying implications.
Perhaps identifying data follows along in a lag, as the record keepers get the paperwork in arrears, I have no idea.
Say they test everyone as they enter. It isnt telling us here who is in hospital who is not tested positive.
I mean, I was in hospital a month or so ago with a back injury, so I was technically 'in hospital' and under the non jabbed column, and tested positive because ive already had corona natually.
Ontario health really needs to provide us more detail. If they produced a chart that had # of people in hosp jabbed vs unjabbed, all positive on the way in, and they all had 1 kidney (a comorbidity) - are they in hospital because they are sick with covid, or are in they in hospital for a routine renal procedure or blood filtering? Maybe a bit of both?
Moving down to the numbers per beds used per avail ICU. Largely constant for the last 90 days, with a slight rise from 185 xmas eve ish to 429 people jan ish.
This chart doesn't tell us, of those in ICU for rona reasons, if they are jab/no jab, nor does it tell us are they in ICU, just because of rona, or they were negative, in ICU for something else and caight rona, or maybe were positive, were in ICU for something else and then developed rona symptoms. No detail on ages or comorbidities, or a break down on what previously was wrong with them - if any.
So, ICU bed numbers largely the same for 90 days, a slight rise in rona at the end, total Ont beds avail, 2343, patients in ICU with non rona 1336, patients in ICU either with, got later, or whatever combination of rona, 429.
The latter category occupying 18.3% of ICU beds, non rona 57%, 75% of capacity. Flipping the chart to all time, extra ICU beds were laid on to 2554 around 7th may 21, and subsequently reduced once demand fell off a cliff. Peak use being 835 rona related vs 1331 non rona related.
The chart doesnt indicate jab vs non jab.
At worst, the reserve of ICU is 340 beds all time, and in last 90 days, at worst is 540.
The non rona ICU are taking up more space than the rona related patients. We also dont know from this page if they got jabbed or not, or wether they got the rona anyway despite having 1, 2, 3 or even 4 shots thats rolling out now. ( https://globalnews.ca/news/8499223/fourth-covid-vaccine-dose-explainer/ )
One supposes it could be called the Greek variant....?
"OMICRON vs MEGATRON.....FIGHT!"
Sorry, clears throat
"OMICRONNNNNN vs DELTACRONNNNNNNNNnnnn. Lllllletssss get rrrrrrrrreadyyyyyy to rrrrrrrrumbaaaaaaaaaal!" etc.
More good news now that the global corona incident is behind us, (goodbye 2021!).
If the data is the case, then 2020 death's could have been way way greater.
For clarity, the 25 seroprevalance studies number crunched from 2020 data, when (IIRC ) the jab rollout had not even started. It's also a 'pre-print' meaning it has not been peer reviewed, IOW it has only just come out.
So, the survival rate of the corona in 2020 will be mostly eu-natrel. IE, one would just have to tough it out.
Assumably, if the jabs have an effect, then one would expect the IFR to be lower. However, at a survival rate of 99.9987% for <20yrs any beneficial effect, say moving the rate to 99.99991% would hardly seem to be worth the bother.
This begs the question, did our gov waste millions of $ on shots given to the fit & healthy young uns? That money could have been redirected to the elderly, it would have paid for a heck of a lot of strong vitamins, even a temporary pension bonus. Or paying off the national debt.
I picked out the relevant numbers-
The data used from the study was taken before mass jabs, so the data applies to unjabbed people.
The Stanford Prof previously published an analysis of seroprevalence (antibody) studies from 2020, which resulted being able show data that the IFR for the Wutang clan Flu globally was around 0.15%. In Europe, the number stood at 0.3%-0.4% , while in Africa and Asia it went down to 0.05%.
Number crunching of 25 sero surveys across 14 countries, the Prof and his colleague found the IFR varied from 0.0013% in <20s (around one in 100,000) to 0.65% in those >60.
For those >70 not in LTC it was 2.9%, rising to 4.9% for all >70s. This means that even for the elderly, more than 95% of those infected survive – 97.1% when considering those not in LTCH. For younger people the mortality risk is orders of magnitude less, with 99.9987% of <20s surviving exposure. These survival rates include people with underlying health conditions, so for the healthy the rates will be higher again (and the fatality rates lower)- obviously.
Again for reference heres the link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v2 Stanford author: https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis#bio
And now we are at 90%, of jab rollout saturation the worst is behind us. Anyone wants to receive the jab, go nuts.
If someone out there wants to cut their chance of death on average by 4 thousandths of a percent, by all means, get the jab if that is important to you. Or 2. Or maybe even 3. Or 4. Heck get them every other month if you and your medical professional feel it best.
I didn't say they were any good. Sometimes they are, sometimes they arent. Some data holds up, some doesn't. If hes wrong, hes wrong. If this Adams dude had non watertight data, well sucks for him, maybe he will try harder next time.
Certainly a good idea to review a wide variety of medical opinion and data out there.
We listened to these people. And now Canada is 90% jabbed, the program has been a success as far as rollout completion. Say we reach 95%.
We cant jab more than 100% complete. We cant get any more complete than complete innoculation. Mission is accomplished. What now?
So, CDC dir states 75% of deaths are from people who are seriously ill or have comorbidities.
Flipped around (reasonable to infer), she is implying that fit, healthy folks do not tend to die of corona or the resulting symptoms.
All the more reason to keep a good BMI, excercise, take your vitamins, vit D, don't smoke or drink like a fish.
Corrected typo from sars1 to sars2. Which may have caused confusion. Sentence should have read "So really, I should rephrase my original claim to say "PCR test could not differentiate between flu and sars2 as the teting could not detect the flu".
Not having a hard time with the info at all. The only hard time was with the fact that there wasnt much information at all - hence me observing-
the flaws or holes in the data. The pie charts on that page are woefully vague, and raise many questions as to the specificity of the data.
You attack the fact that I was disclaiming I didn't know about missing data points: Eg. "Can't see anything giving an age or comorbidity breakdown."
But yet I posit If I had said: "Can't see anything giving an age or comorbidity breakdown, but I bet most of them are old and or fat" - you would attack that as "knowing", or being an "expert", or wanting "a link for that".
But shall we go over the numbers again, as that's the only part that matters.
in hosp but not the ICU. Jabbed- 1478 people. Unjabbed - 457. So a smidge over 75% 3/4 are jabbed, Slightly less than 25% 1/4 are unjabbed.
in the ICU.. Jabbed, 155. Unjabbed 123. Over 9/16ths or 56.25% are jabbed.
Total over 2 charts in hosp, 580 non jab, 1633 jabbed.
More people are in hospital that are vaxxed than un vaxxed. Who can tell us why that is? AGAIN, just because someone is in hospital, and they happen to be "positive" vaxed or not, doesnt follow that they are in there because of COVID. They may have a broken leg. Thats what I was driving at. Those charts are practically useless.
As far as the point quote: "chances of being hospitalized with covid are reduced by 77.4% if you have 2 doses of a vaccine, and with 2 doses your chances of winding up in the ICU are reduced by 90%."
Okay, so then why is there more vaxxed in the hospitals overall (and ICU) than unvaxxed? 580 non, 1633 vaxxed.
The good news about this where you said:
"This means that the more people who are vaccinated the fewer will wind up in the hospital or ICU, and that will reduce the strain on the healthcare system. Then maybe they can resume doing non-emergency surgeries again."
...That there is no "strain" on Ont Health care over corona. Ontario has 48,700 beds. 1.19% of the bed capcity in hospital are non jabbed, and 3.35% of the bed capacity are jabbed. 4.5% capacity of beds in hospital are testing positive, irrespective of jab.
Leaving about 46,000 beds left. If that isn't plenty then I don't know what is. Routine surgeries could start now. If they aren't, then that's on them, not us.