Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Resume]

to play the experimental gene therapy lottery, because it confers no benefit, only risk.

Discredited, debunked, disinformationist lie.

 

[Tippit]

Deaths will only be attributed to a vaccine on a death certificate if there is no doubt that was the cause. Otherwise the immediate cause of death (heart failure, blood clot, breast cancer) will be given.

You do realize this admission of yours makes my case that deaths caused by this experimental gene therapy are vastly underreported, and not yours, right? If the vaccines are the direct cause of death, yet only the final symptoms are listed as the cause on the death certificate, then we have a serious problem, don't we? That means if a VAERS report is not filed at all, then there is absolutely no evidence that the death had anything at all to do with the "vaccine" even if it was the direct cause. This is a big problem.

Just because a death is reported to VAERS that doesn't mean it was definitely vaccine related.

Granted.

If there is any doubt at all about what caused a death it will be reported 'just in case'. So a death that was caused by a disease that was present before the vaccination, or a road accident death etc, won't be reported, but anything else might well be. So if there is a sudden increase in deaths due to a particular cause that will become apparent, and doctors will check to see if the incidence is indeed higher than would normally be expected. That's how they found the blood clot thing. That's what this database is for.

If the death certificate only records the final symptoms that directly lead to death, and not prior causes, then where absent VAERS and it's problematic underreporting do we get the forensic data required to properly analyze anomalies in all cause mortality, like the insurance companies are beginning to report? The answer is nowhere. It will remain a big mystery. Cause of death should be recorded as a probability weighted list of potential causes in order to get the granularity of data required to draw any meaningful assumptions about causes of mortality, so we're not left wondering whether all of the dead people died from Covid, experimental gene therapy, or just widescale top-down medical malpractice and killer protocols.

In the article Bubba linked, which started this discussion, it is claimed that VAERS is showing upticks in many different causes of death including, for example, breast cancer (which is why I included that in the above list). But the VAERS database is messy and unreliable so before concluding that vaccines are increasing the incidence of breast cancer it first has to be established that's a real uptick, e.g. by looking at the actual incidence of breast cancer this year compared to previous years. Last I heard the only such correlation that had been reliably made was that rare blood clot thing.

Right, the jury is still out. But it seems to me that there are other problems than VAERS in terms of tabulating mortality statistics and causes.

 

[Tippit]

Pixel, you may find this interesting:

National Center for Health Statistics
Mortality Data on CDC WONDER

It states:

The mortality data available on CDC WONDER are national mortality and population data produced by National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Mortality information is collected by state registries and provided to the National Vital Statistics System. Data are based on death certificates for U.S. residents. Each death certificate contains a single underlying cause of death, and demographic data. The number of deaths and death rates can be obtained by place of residence (United States national, state, and county when available), age group, race, Hispanic ethnicity, gender, and cause of death (4-digit ICD-10 codes, 113 selected causes of death, 130 selected causes of death for infants, and categories for injury intent and mechanism, or drug / alcohol induced causes of death, when available). For more information, refer to National Vital Statistics System - Mortality Data.

The emphasis is mine. It seems very problematic to me that all mortality data is based on death certificates, which apparently only have one single underlying cause of death presumably as listed by the attending physician. Where is the granularity of data required to make any meaningful studies?

 

[EaglePuncher]

nvm

 

[Tippit]

This nurse claims that most of the patients she saw died of negligence and medical malpractice, not Covid:

https://twitter.com/Lyndonx/status/1486050696516489216?t=A8SsfP3f4c8G0a1tA304NA&s=19#

So if effective and early treatments are unilaterally denied by hospitals, and they instead use protocols that rely on renal-toxic drugs like Remdesivir, and harmful and sometimes contraindicated ventilators, and causes of death are marked "Covid" anyway, is it any wonder that the Covid mortality stats are perceived as a joke?

 

[Pixel42]

You do realize this admission of yours makes my case that deaths caused by this experimental gene therapy are vastly underreported, and not yours, right? If the vaccines are the direct cause of death, yet only the final symptoms are listed as the cause on the death certificate, then we have a serious problem, don't we? That means if a VAERS report is not filed at all, then there is absolutely no evidence that the death had anything at all to do with the "vaccine" even if it was the direct cause. This is a big problem.

It would only be a problem if VAERS was the only data we had. But we have masses of data about rates of death from all causes. It takes a while to be collected and published, which is why we have the 'early warning' VAERS reporting system in the first place, but it's far more reliable.

If there was an actual increase in the incidence of breast cancer in 2021, for example, that will become apparent when the data for cases of breast cancer in 2021 is published. Likewise every other cause of death. Any correlation with vaccination rates and status will be immediately apparent.

So let's wait and see what the reliable data tells us, rather than jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on unreliable and incomplete data.

 

[Resume]

This nurse claims that most of the patients she saw died of negligence and medical malpractice, not Covid:

CANE.

is it any wonder that the Covid mortality stats are perceived as a joke?

The only people who think COVID mortality stats are a joke are dangerous disinformationists like that nurse, and you.

 

[EaglePuncher]

This nurse claims that most of the patients she saw died of negligence and medical malpractice, not Covid:

Yawn

So if effective and early treatments are unilaterally denied by hospitals, and they instead use protocols that rely on renal-toxic drugs like Remdesivir, and harmful and sometimes contraindicated ventilators, and causes of death are marked "Covid" anyway, is it any wonder that the Covid mortality stats are perceived as a joke?

They aren't. Well they are, but only by a handful of people (whose "insights" on Covid are completely irrelevant)

 

[Foster Zygote]

Disinformationist hyperbole.

Throughout the spectrum of conspiracy theories, it always comes down to the same things. It's a gnostic cult that feeds people's egos. Proponents of whatever conspiracy theory get to act as though they know something that only genuinely smart people like themselves can figure out. And that same egotism causes them to have a general problem with any authority. And I'm not talking about governmental or law enforcement authority, I'm talking about whole fields of highly trained experts in any complex field of knowledge. These conspiracy theorists are the types who always have to know as much or more than any expert, whether it's a trained mechanic, scientist, doctor, electrician, whatever. They need everyone to be impressed with them, and someone seeing them say "this is beyond my knowledge base, but a ****-load of scientists around the world have reached an overwhelming consensus on what should be done, so I'm going to trust them", makes them feel weak. But saying, "all those experts are wrong and I know better", makes them feel strong.

 

[Tippit]

It would only be a problem if VAERS was the only data we had. But we have masses of data about rates of death from all causes. It takes a while to be collected and published, which is why we have the 'early warning' VAERS reporting system in the first place, but it's far more reliable.

If there was an actual increase in the incidence of breast cancer in 2021, for example, that will become apparent when the data for cases of breast cancer in 2021 is published. Likewise every other cause of death. Any correlation with vaccination rates and status will be immediately apparent.

So let's wait and see what the reliable data tells us, rather than jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on unreliable and incomplete data.

You're completely missing my point. At least in the United States, mortality statistics are based on death certificates, which themselves list one cause of death as you correctly pointed out. If this cause is incorrect, or if there are other mitigating factors that cannot be listed, then the "masses of data about rates of death" we have are meaningless, because the data is bad, or incomplete.

For instance, if someone actually died from a "treatment" of breast cancer, say chemo or radiation, but the cause of death was listed as "breast cancer", then we don't have enough information to conduct a forensic analysis.

Death certificates with their sole cause of death, and the mortality statistics they're based on, not only don't tell us what we need to know in order to do a proper analysis, but they can also be completely misleading in cases where the treatment is the disease.

 

[varwoche]

This nurse claims that most of the patients she saw died of negligence and medical malpractice, not Covid:

https://twitter.com/Lyndonx/status/1486050696516489216?t=A8SsfP3f4c8G0a1tA304NA&s=19#

So if effective and early treatments are unilaterally denied by hospitals, and they instead use protocols that rely on renal-toxic drugs like Remdesivir, and harmful and sometimes contraindicated ventilators, and causes of death are marked "Covid" anyway, is it any wonder that the Covid mortality stats are perceived as a joke?

I cringe with embarrassment on your behalf for assigning weight to this sort of drivel.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Oh, and here is evidence from Dr. John Campbell (by way of the CDC) that "vaccination" confers no benefit upon the unvaccinated but previously infected group:



Time to throw Campbell under the bus if he hasn't been already?

If you played the Covid lottery and won, as I have, it turns out you don't need to play the experimental gene therapy lottery, because it confers no benefit, only risk.

As Campbell has pointed out many times, there is no doubt that people get an immunity from catching the virus. Those that don't die from it, that is. However, as he also points out, doing it that way gives all the risk, including that of death.

Being vaccinated gives high immunity WITHOUT the need to first catch the disease, and all the risk that entails. I would have thought that was obvious, but apparently not?

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

You're completely missing my point. At least in the United States, mortality statistics are based on death certificates, which themselves list one cause of death as you correctly pointed out. If this cause is incorrect, or if there are other mitigating factors that cannot be listed, then the "masses of data about rates of death" we have are meaningless, because the data is bad, or incomplete.

For instance, if someone actually died from a "treatment" of breast cancer, say chemo or radiation, but the cause of death was listed as "breast cancer", then we don't have enough information to conduct a forensic analysis.

Death certificates with their sole cause of death, and the mortality statistics they're based on, not only don't tell us what we need to know in order to do a proper analysis, but they can also be completely misleading in cases where the treatment is the disease.

I suppose if the USA were the only country in the world, you might have a glimmering of a point. But its not, and so you don't.

 

[Planigale]

Deaths will only be attributed to a vaccine on a death certificate if there is no doubt that was the cause. Otherwise the immediate cause of death (heart failure, blood clot, breast cancer) will be given.

Just because a death is reported to VAERS that doesn't mean it was definitely vaccine related. If there is any doubt at all about what caused a death it will be reported 'just in case'. So a death that was caused by a disease that was present before the vaccination, or a road accident death etc, won't be reported, but anything else might well be. So if there is a sudden increase in deaths due to a particular cause that will become apparent, and doctors will check to see if the incidence is indeed higher than would normally be expected. That's how they found the blood clot thing. That's what this database is for.

In the article Bubba linked, which started this discussion, it is claimed that VAERS is showing upticks in many different causes of death including, for example, breast cancer (which is why I included that in the above list). But the VAERS database is messy and unreliable so before concluding that vaccines are increasing the incidence of breast cancer it first has to be established that's a real uptick, e.g. by looking at the actual incidence of breast cancer this year compared to previous years. Last I heard the only such correlation that had been reliably made was that rare blood clot thing.

Whilst I am not familiar with certification in the US I have signed many death certificates in the UK.

Deaths will only be attributed to a vaccine on a death certificate if there is no doubt that was the cause.

If one had to be certain about the cause of death, few certificates would be completed. The actual requirement is the most likely probable cause of death. One would not need to be certain, there could be doubt, but if a vaccine adverse event was the most likely cause, that is what one would put as number one on the death certificate. Heart failure is something one is discouraged as putting down as a cause of death (it is likely the certificate would be refused and you would need to re do it). One can say heart failure due to aortic stenosis or coronary artery disease. Heart failure is what is termed a mechanism not a cause. One can have a whole chain of events, e.g respiratory failure due to hospital acquired pneumonia due to acute exacerbation of copd due to smoking. One can also include contributory factors that did not directly cause death but assisted it such as obesity and previous stroke.

In the UK currently 25% of death certificates that mention covid-19 give it as a contributory factor not as the cause of death. An example might be someone receiving palliative care for cancer at home, who catches covid and whose condition deteriorated. They come into hospital and die. The underlying cause of death is e.g. metastatic breast cancer. The contributory cause of death would be covid-19, it might have caused the death to be a bit sooner, but it was not what caused the death. This death would be registered as breast cancer not covid-19.

 

[Hans]

The reality is that I have natural immunity to Covid, and I've been successfully living my life as if it doesn't exist.

OR the reality is - and seems more likely:

You've made all this up, and have taken the vaccine with booster - and never had Covid at all.

Remember we know you like to make up fantasies and pretend they are real.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I just saw that Brazilian COVID-19 denier Olavo de Carvalho has died of the virus he claimed didn't exist.

I'm sure he just had a common cold and died of terror induced by the press he didn't believe in either.

 

[Tippit]

As Campbell has pointed out many times, there is no doubt that people get an immunity from catching the virus. Those that don't die from it, that is. However, as he also points out, doing it that way gives all the risk, including that of death.

Being vaccinated gives high immunity WITHOUT the need to first catch the disease, and all the risk that entails. I would have thought that was obvious, but apparently not?

It's always been obvious to me. My assessment of the long and short term risks of the EGTs are much higher than yours, which changes the cost benefit. The experimental gene therapy is "leaky", and doesn't offer immunity, it offers alleged protection against severe illness and death, with numerous possible immediate and long term risks.

If you are aware of how to actually treat Covid, as I am, and you don't suffer from co-morbidities, the risk of losing the Covid lottery is much less than the .26% infection fatality rate, which itself is likely vastly inflated due to problems with incentives as they pertain to hospitals, "treatments", and death certificates.

 

[Resume]

It's always been obvious to me. My assessment of . . .

Is disinformationist garbage.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Throughout the spectrum of conspiracy theories, it always comes down to the same things. It's a gnostic cult that feeds people's egos. Proponents of whatever conspiracy theory get to act as though they know something that only genuinely smart people like themselves can figure out. And that same egotism causes them to have a general problem with any authority. And I'm not talking about governmental or law enforcement authority, I'm talking about whole fields of highly trained experts in any complex field of knowledge. These conspiracy theorists are the types who always have to know as much or more than any expert, whether it's a trained mechanic, scientist, doctor, electrician, whatever. They need everyone to be impressed with them, and someone seeing them say "this is beyond my knowledge base, but a ****-load of scientists around the world have reached an overwhelming consensus on what should be done, so I'm going to trust them", makes them feel weak. But saying, "all those experts are wrong and I know better", makes them feel strong.

Foster Zygote, I commend you on an almost uncanny gift of prediction.
No sooner do you describe certain types of attitude and behaviour, than along comes a perfect example:

It's always been obvious to me. My assessment of the long and short term risks of the EGTs are much higher than yours, which changes the cost benefit. The experimental gene therapy is "leaky", and doesn't offer immunity, it offers alleged protection against severe illness and death, with numerous possible immediate and long term risks.

If you are aware of how to actually treat Covid, as I am, and you don't suffer from co-morbidities, the risk of losing the Covid lottery is much less than the .26% infection fatality rate, which itself is likely vastly inflated due to problems with incentives as they pertain to hospitals, "treatments", and death certificates.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's always been obvious to me. My assessment of the long and short term risks of the EGTs are much higher than yours, which changes the cost benefit. The experimental gene therapy is "leaky", and doesn't offer immunity, it offers alleged protection against severe illness and death, with numerous possible immediate and long term risks.

If you are aware of how to actually treat Covid, as I am, and you don't suffer from co-morbidities, the risk of losing the Covid lottery is much less than the .26% infection fatality rate, which itself is likely vastly inflated due to problems with incentives as they pertain to hospitals, "treatments", and death certificates.

So where did you earn your Ph.D. in epidemiology?

Seriously, the arrogance is astounding. Is there any field of knowledge in which you aren't an expert?