6
BritPedeMEGA 6 points ago +6 / -0

Sure. Here ya go.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

CDC IFR tables, it’s about half way down the page under a lot of text. They have changed it from a simple percentage to out of a million. Odd thing to do. Quick bit of maths and 500 people dying “from” the Rona is 500 out of 1m. That’s still 0.05% IFR, Survival rate of 99.95%.

To extrapolate this IFR to other countries is not illogical nor unreasonable. Indeed, the English Office Of National Statistics easily found data shows a national IFR statistically even less- 0.003%

The leaky vaccines, links below. well.. turns out since Pfizer/Moderna et al have now quietly changed their official effectiveness from earlier this year from much dinosaur media copious praise of a miraculous 95% stopping the coof in its tracks to: the current version is now the mouthful of humble pie of: ‘the jabs still work but just reduce severity of symptoms”, this now thing in pharmaceutical clinicians circles of a ‘leaky vaccine’ ‘

Here’s some bits from 2 things talking about how vaccines can become “leaky.”

https://www.futurity.org/viruses-leaky-vaccines-968692/ “When a vaccine works perfectly, as do the childhood vaccines for smallpox, polio, mumps, rubella, and measles, it prevents vaccinated individuals from being sickened by the disease, and it also prevents them from transmitting the virus to others,” says Andrew Read, a leader of the research team and professor of biology and entomology and biotechnology at Penn State.”

The long and short of it is since the Rona jabs don’t stop the bug cold the vast majority of the time, according to pathology 101, this can drive unnatural evolution of stronger bugs. Not unlike the virus /jab version of antibiotic resistance. Traditional real vaccines (not gene “therapies” like the Rona shot ) drive virus evolution the other way. Weaker.

Original paper talking about leaky vaccines here: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198 Appears to be some biology journal of imperial college London.

“Vaccines that… do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing evolution of hotter pathogens... This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could… allow hot strains to emerge and persist. …experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease”

“Which you get by surviving the virus, which takes us back to the flooded hospitals.”

You raised the point about getting the Rona naturally. If you are strong. Relatively healthy and relatively young (or even old and strong) then just taking ones chances and getting Corona by chance is still the best way to build natural immunity - by a factor of x27 or so from any jab that may be developed.

If you are positing that folk in hospitals are getting it naturally well maybe they are. This raises more questions however:

If Corona has an IFR of 0.05%, this means it kills rarely. Then what are they in hospital for? Plenty of Ilnesses are non fatal and may or may have unpleasant symptoms. True. There is some diseases that are usually non fatal but highly infectious and can leave you bedbound and is very inconvenient for the patient. mono, for Eg in children- that sometimes require isolation in a hospital.

So what are these “Rona” patients dying of then?

If they are not dying, then all is well.

If they are dying, then either they are dying of something else or the Rona all by itself, if the latter, the CDC and ONS is either incompetent, lying or perhaps both.

If they have had the double double pokey and get admitted to hospital “with” the Rona, then (according to Pfizer/Moderna et al) basically sorry you still got it, the symptoms will be way less you should be fine.

Okay fine. But why take 2 (3, now 4) jabs for a pathogen with an IFR of 0.03 to 0.05%?

That’s akin to taking a jab for influenza, Athletes foot Or the common cold. Why bother?

Perhaps the “variants”? Are more pathogenic? Now why would that be? Unnatural evolutionary drives of jabs that allow the virus or bacterium to not quite get stopped 100%. Leaky vaccines again.

This whole thing has more elephants in rooms being ignored than an understaffed zoo.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Indeed. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say their stock price won’t be looking so hot come 2023/24…

2
BritPedeMEGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not so fast. The Star of David state is now making noises about a fourth shot. Sorry, (clears throat) a ‘second booster’.

To, apparently, ‘boost’ the 1st booster. That ‘boosted’ the last actual ‘real’ vaccine.

Ya know. The last shot that worked. If you got the first two that worked that was supposed to work.

Because the first one was 95%. “Safe and effective”.

“ Oh sorry folks. It’s safe and effective meaning we forgot to say it’s safe to handle and manufacture and it’s effective at uhhh making us billions? Yeah that’s it. “ Pfizer- probly

10
BritPedeMEGA 10 points ago +10 / -0

So 1 In 50. IOW 2%. IOW a 98% survival rate. However CDC states an over 99.5% survival rate.

Why develop a jab for a pathogen with a 98% survival rate at worst? Flu A and B kill more people a year.

If the jab made it so one was basically set for life (a la measles and chicken pox) that’s one thing.

Turns out these infusions are “leaky” vaccines. They are driving the evolution of coronavirii sars cov2 in directions it would never have done with natural in the wild herd immunity, with the injection letting the “original” version of sars-cov2 “escape” from the jabbed because it didn’t completely render the body able to mount a 100% defence and consume the pathogen.

Meanwhile, what’s the best “jab” to take? Why it’s something that has around 27x the effect of the existing jabs, natural immunity. This is virology/immunity 101.

I’ve already had the Rona naturally. I won’t get it again.

I’m not 85 so it’s not a concern for me or is things like the flu or colds. If anyone wants to take the poke, knock yourself out, none of my biz. Everyone that is terrified, go take the poke, then you’re covered against the scary “I vaxxed!” me who is covered with natural immunity 27x against you getting it again with a shot that’s only 30% effective and giving it to me… and we’re both covered so everyone stop worrying and get back to sanity.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Would imagine a post mortem looking for thrombii in the brain and the frequency of it amongst the dead that happened to have been single or X2 jabby would be an Interesting data set.

0
BritPedeMEGA 0 points ago +1 / -1

How does the virus (the Rona) “injure”?

Have you had the Rona already? If so, what was it like?

Have you had the double double? If so, what make?

2
BritPedeMEGA 2 points ago +3 / -1

Brand new, yes. If this is referring to the possibility that this Rona bug was engineered in Wuhan.

Otherwise brand new. Yes- perhaps on a geological time scale- otherwise practically identical to sars-cov-1, similar to MERS, Avian Flu, flu a, flu b, and the common cold.

All branches of coronavirii. These things have been with us since the Dawn of mankind.

How do we fight it? Like any other respiratory virus.

Let it run its course naturally. It will soon weaken and become a minor nuisance like many other respiratory virus. Stop giving out the gene therapy.

Get Grandad out of the care home regularly and keep his mind and body active. Take a good amount of vitamin D, zinc, C, fresh clean air, age suitable excercise, eat your fruit n dark veg, don’t be afraid of lots of yummy saturated animal fat and steaks, eggs.

Hug people, shake hands, throw big dinner parties, stop using that ethanol hand sanitiser crap, share common harmless germs, granny was right, there is such a thing as too clean.

Take off the damn mask.

2
BritPedeMEGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why wouldn’t I be asking a question? Are questions not permitted? Look it up? Alright. Let’s do that. I believe it will be more positive news than the dinosaur media likes to terrorize the public into believing.

If anything, it’s a rhetorical question because we already can have an educated guess at the likely answer based on previous statistical/health data over Rona “cases” and very sick people. That is, the patients are likely older and or/also have underlying health issues.

Let’s see the prior happenings so far with the Rona, deaths “from” (or “with”) the Rona for Eg.

  1. In BC - 96.6% of all Rona related deaths (as of July ish) are in long term care homes. 96.6% sounds a heck of a lot like 100% if one assumes (quite reasonably) rounding errors. Even the other way around +- 3%, that’s still 94%. Long term care homes tends to house the elderly and frail. That’s no bitchute video, that’s from BC health itself.

Sure it’s from July, however that’s around a whole year of the Rona panic. A years data at the “height” or the “pandemic” should be enough to give one a pattern.

Moreover, poring over the data on BC health’s sure one can see the vast majority of those admitted to the hospital over BC as a province were elderly as of about july. Has much changed since? Maybe. Why would it?

If the pathogen has switched from finishing off the elderly and frail to younger folk that would mean it’s mutating into a more pathogenic form. That would be unusual seeing as that flies in the face of virii self sustaining evolution. Virii mutations mean weaker ones, not stronger. A virus will not exist if it kills its hosts too quickly. Sars-cov-2s other Corona cousins flu a and flu b, also kill only the frail elderly and very sick.

  1. Meanwhile over in England, a FOIA request to their NHS royal Cornwall hospitals (pop 568K) asked the following Qs

a. What’s the total deaths from Corona ONLY from mar 20 to jan 21? b. Total # of deaths who have died with Corona AND also had additional health issues? c. What is the number of cycles used in the NHS for the covid PCR tests to determine a diagnosis?

Answers A. 11 patients died from only covid. b. 135 patients died with covid had underlying health conditions. C. At least 38 cycles. Source: UK FOIA Request ref 12505 Jenna Dunstan information governance team.

11 patients died from Rona only. Out of a pop of 568k that’s 0.0019%. Being charitable, let’s say 135 and 11 deaths aren’t part of the same dataset and are additive. 146 people. 146 people died either with or from the Rona in that part of England March 20-Jan 21, again, supposedly including the ‘deadly’ winter period.

0.025% or the other way around, a survival rate of 99.6% rounded up pessimistically. Sounds a heck of a lot like official CDC and English ONS IFR (infection fatality ratio) numbers of 0.005% & 0.003% respectively. Let’s go all dinosaur fake news fear porn media with the ‘grim milestone’ with the worst case scenario 0.054%, a 94.6% survival rate. That’s for 70+ years. (Source: CDC Scenario 5)

Back to the original Q about ages, health conditions of patients admitted into Canadian hospitals with the “Rona”:

I’m going to look into that. And the data will show either:

  1. There is no information avail (or kept) over ages and existing diseases /conditions of patients admitted - which will be odd. As what changed? Why so coy now when data was available before?
  2. The data will show a similar pattern. That is, the elderly and or frail with cormobidities.
  3. The pathogen over the course of a few months suddenly mutate, and infect and hospitalize (allegedly un poked) folk over a random age cohort. Strange, considering that mutating Corona virii get weaker not stronger.

Ah, the fabled Indian/delta variant. A mutation the health Poohbahs in BC/ON for Eg, are so sure to be befalling people. Which raises 2 questions:

  1. How do they know it’s a slightly different cov 2, when the much ballyhooed PCR test cannot tell the difference between a cov2 original version or the Indian version let alone influenza?
  2. Does the fact that in BC, Herr Gesundheitfuhrer Bonnie Henry decreed that persons refusing a test on admittance would be assumed to have the coof? Or some similar pronouncement - going off memory. The end result was assumed “cases” at any rate to a degree.
  3. Can the health cheeses like Adrian Dix et al, really say with a straight face that it’s the unjabbed, knowing likely that at least 1 person has been admitted within days of taking a shot or 2? Because of the capricious sophistry of only counting people as jabbed after a full 14 days? And that if I’m hospital for more than 14 days, on discharge still only counting jab “status” from the original date of admittance?

Oh but the holy lanced are only fully protected after 14 days! Okay, so no possibility of adverse reactions causing the hospitalizations? Perhaps the powers that be should be making sure of that eh? First do no harm and all that. What would the harm be?

It’s not like Pfizer /Moderna make billions out of this and exiting treatments like HCQ, Regeneron and an inhaled corticosteroid bidesimide that cost pennies or a few bucks might have anything to do with it.

Anyway. I digress. I’ll endeavour to look that info up about patient ages and current diseases and get back to this forum. Meanwhile, you are free to do the same.

After all, for a disease so ‘deadly’ and ‘terrifying’ one would imagine you want to find out yourself right?

However, if you got the double double, you have nothing to worry about. All is well.

2
BritPedeMEGA 2 points ago +3 / -1

What’s the average age of these patients and do they list any cormodities?

Eg. Some lady complaining the other week in BC about her jab “skeptical” hubby being in hospital with the Rona, and now pleading to folk to get the poke, becuase her ‘healthy’ 40yr old hubby got it- and that he now has changed his mind.

Fella had to be at least 250.

2
BritPedeMEGA 2 points ago +3 / -1

A ‘full effectiveness’ that - a few short months ago, Pfizer/Moderna et al were all crowing about their ‘safe and effective’ 95%? And that only 1 shot would be needed, no masks and everyone goes back to ‘normal’.

That turned into:

  1. “Sorry it’s going to be 2 shots to be effective now”. Still wear the holy cult rag.

  2. Then “the jab works but you can still catch the Rona and give the Rona to others”. Still wear the rag of obedience.

  3. As above but Now “it doesn’t really prevent catching or giving the Rona but it reduces the severity of the symptoms”. Oh and still anti social distance and Don the face fabric of shame.

4.Then a few weeks ago. Mainline press releases admitting from big pharma that the jabs were only around 30-40% effective. Still keep away from others like a leper and hide your visage with the sacrament of sin.

  1. Then “sorry we need boosters for everyone”.

  2. Now Israel is talking about a 4h shot.

  3. Now recent public mainline news about big pharma coming up with a daily pill for the Rona. Because, I suppose the earlier attempts at a prophylactic infusion to prevent infection worked so well😏

  4. VAERS having more entries in it for jab side effects and deaths for the last year or so, then the prior decades combined. Sure, ‘anyone’ can put an entry in VAERS But before it got traction in the public eye, it’s likely Joe Public had no clue about the VAERS system and probable that the public have better things to do than sit around and bash false data into VAERS. If the authorities considered the data to be so faulty, the site would have been taken down.

  5. Flu has “disappeared” according to the big talking heads of gov. Ahuh. It’s a miracle! It must be the masks (that have holes 5000x bigger than the pathogen) and distancing! Ahuh.

All for a pathogen- sars-cov-2, practically identical to sars-cov-1, that has an IFR (infection fatality rate) of 0.03% (ONS figures, office of national statistics, HM UK gov, one can find this data within mins on a lookup, not secret data)

US data? For anyone looking? CDC worst case survival rate for people up to around 50, something like 99.97%. Average age of death in UK of the Rona, 80-85, matching the average natural death rate.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s what I gather they want also.

So let’s say they get their way, and all fossil fuels and derived fuels are banned in 5, 9, 10 years. All ‘fossil’ fuels assumably all gasoline, kerosine, jet fuel. Diesel, farming diesel, coal, charcoal, Coker fuel. All ‘fossil’ origin oils, methane etc.

So as long as it isn’t ‘fossil’ fuel, they are ok with it one would assume. That’s fine, our rural cabin furnace can run on wood, and the trucks can be converted to run on used cooking oil without too much difficulty.

The Swedes have figured it out already. They generate a good amount of their power by avoiding fossil fuel use. They burn their garbage, avoiding the man hours faffing around trying to recycle it.

Sucks to have to travel to Europe with wood fired steam ships liners though, (as coal won’t be allowed) seeing as all planes will be grounded. Hope they do a business class at least. Electric solar ships? Hmm. Seawater and batteries don’t mix. To recharge half way in the Atlantic would take a heck of a long extension cable. And how to get it there? A sailboat one would assume spooling out a big wire from the coast. Assuming the transmission losses hold up…

Then of course all the solar panels, windmills and copper wire, aluminium will have to be cast and smelted using non fossil fuel electric, but if all fuels are cut off in 2030, how is the power generated? Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and chicken and egg come to mind. I’d imagine they do a transition.

Look forward to the iPhone 22 in 2030- petroleum plastic free, retro Bakelite case.

I’m no petroleum or oil chemist, but I hope they can make oil artificially, because without it millions of machines and engines are going to grind to a halt without lubrication.

It won’t be so bad I guess. It will be like the 1890s again! Always wanted to learn to ride a horse…

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok fine.

So saying “co2 is good for plants is silly as no speed limits anywhere”. Yet it’s been shown anywhere where no obvious speed limit signs are seen, on any type of road, motorists the vast majority of the time self police and do a speed reasonable to the road type and conditions. With speed AND co2, there is such a thing is ‘too much’ or ‘too high’.

Co2 is good for plants, within reasonable levels. Say, 2000-5000ppm. I should have specified that originally.

Is co2 good for plants? No? Yes? Depends? On what level ppm? If it isn’t “good for plants” then why do scores of commercial greenhouses in Alberta (Redcliff AB has loads) dump large amounts of co2 into their greenhouses?

Do you have a position on what ppm of global c02 is acceptable? Should it be higher than what the Paris agreement says? Lower?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok if all these problems are going to happen, what’s the solution?

I assume you have/know what the brief overview of what ‘they’ (the global warming head honchos) want as far as a solution?

I believe I’m aware of their proposal. I just wanted to see if you would posit what they are and their viability.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

I didn’t say high speeds everywhere. I said where safe to do so. The road from Merritt BC is rated at 120 and it easily supports 130-140 in good straight dry conditions.

Future electric vehicle sales. Exactly. If all the western govs get their way, you won’t be able to buy or lease a new car by 2030-2035. Electric cars aren’t real cars. They are smartphones on wheels. Real cars have engines. A new Electric vehicles/trucks are no use if I’m on a construction site north of high level at -45 with no charging stations around, it’s gets 250km, tops, and I can’t idle it to charge the entire crews tools or keep the cab warm.

The fleet of f350 6.7 litre diesels do.

Until someone invents Star Trek like warp power for our trucks, electric ones aren’t an option. Especially with the 6,7,8k replacement. We can buy new V8s replacement engines for a fraction of that. If they ban all new light trucks by 2030- that’s fine. We just buy f350s. Ban those? We buy F450s. Then f550s. All the ‘carbon tax’ did was raise the costs for our customers.

2
BritPedeMEGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Taking a leaf out of the Parisians fight back playbook. Nicely done patriots!

AB/BC health Stasi: “no restaurant entry for you!” Calgarians: “we don’t need no stinking restaurants”

This reminds me of when the Edmonton gestapo shut down the church just west ish of Edmonton and put fences around it. The right way to defeat that nonsense is to exhaust the government through absurdity.

Hold the church services at the fence/restaurants serve food just outside. When they ban that area move just outside and repeat. Keep doing it until the government runs out of fence and or the people get bored.

Bet the government runs out of fence/Stasi to enforce the area long before anything else. What they gonna do? Stop people gathering on Steven Ave? Then the whole block? Then several blocks?

Posit the best way to defeat these fucks isn’t violence, it’s interdiction. Truckers block roads leading to parliaments and all Stasi stations. Truckers block roads leading to the homes of Kenney, Horgan, Bonnie Henry etc.

These people are sold out, bought out, demonic scum. It’s about time the citizens started shunning them wherever they go publicly.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Let’s get to the point. The ‘global warming’ thing is either happening, will happen, or is isn’t happening or won’t happen in the future.

If it isn’t happening/will happen, then all is well.

If it is happening/will happen, what do you propose mankind does about it?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Leaving practicality behind how.

I was 5 years off the new car/truck ban. Point still stands. Good luck getting around in high level Alberta at -45c if you need to buy a new car.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/canada-to-ban-sale-of-new-fuel-powered-cars-and-light-trucks-from-2035.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

So how much lower do you posit average co2 ppm should be? Or higher?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

That I posit everyone will support!

Odd question: what vehicle if any, do you operate for work or home?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have no idea if the maunder min causes or contributes to ice ages. I’d have to look at the data. I don’t really fancy the sun reducing in power. How that can’t make the earth just a tad cooler.

Think of the positive, if the ice caps melt all that extra warm land to build, replace any flooded land by area and discover and we can finally settle the debate on all the weird chambers and geological hot springs under the ice.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh the highway thing. Yes. The faster traffic moves the better, if done safely. Speed doesn’t kill. It’s hitting other things that are going way slower or stationary that does. If speed killed, Germany’s autobahn would be a daily bloodbath.

The faster people can go, the faster they get off the roads and the faster someone else can get on and off. Slow traffic destroys productivity. The difference between cruise control a modern car at highway speeds (say 70mph) and fuel efficiency is hardly better than a car from 1994.

2020 Ford Taurus ecoboost 2.7/3.5) weighing about 4400lbs is about 16/24MPG. Ancient 1994 caddy fleetwood at 4400, Big primitive pushrod 5.7 350V8 18/26Mpg. Dodge caravan 2020 3.6 80-90mph for a few hours gets about 9litres/100km. At about 70mp it’s more or less same.

In any case, the US, Canadian and UK administrations have publicly stated they plan to outlaw sales of all new cars and light trucks by 2030, so you won’t have to worry about that. Better save up for a bicycle.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rising sea levels. Exactly. So what? Might sound like a flippant question but if one keeps asking ‘what if?’ And ‘so what?’ one can get further along. I looked at the article. The usual stuff about lowland flooding, people having to move inward, loss of habitat etc. Ok and? Whilst these things can be tragic if affecting humans or animals, the world has been through worse before. Humans and animals will move inland as before.

The seas will not boil and none of us are going to fry alive on the surface of the planet for the next 1000 years.

What about the opposite? During the ice age? Humans had to move south, many no doubt perished.

Greenland and Antarctica had no ice for long periods, much much warmer than it is now. Imagine Antarctica with no ice and it being not brutally cold/windy. I’m sure the penguins and polar bears would much prefer huddling together at -80c and walking for miles in the biting blizzards to have their young.

If ‘climate change’ and rising sea levels is so pressing and urgent (‘12 years’) why do so many politicians buy real estate on the coast?

Let’s say that there is more lighting. And it starts more fires, again, so what? We get more fires. The co2, nitrates and particulates released into the air wash down with rain and are re absorbed into nature.

If one is that concerned about things generating co2 then perhaps cutting co2 production with power generation would be a start?

Get the whole world to convert to nuclear power. Done. No more co2 production through power. Problem solved. Should offset cows farting no?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

They do. And with any luck with the Maunder Minimum coming we can dump enough Co2 into the atmosphere to head off another cold epoch and my grandkids won’t face mini ice ages like the founding fathers did around 1750.

Is a colder earth better for civilisations? Or a warmer earth? Or is the current average temp just right?

Should we have lower co2 than we do now? If so, how many ppm on average?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›