Another concept that I am trying to figure out. Is the world really overpopulated? It is time to destroy all unscientific myths that are ruining our lives. Lou
Scientism
“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made at least 25 statistical or numerical errors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overwhelming majority exaggerated the severity of the pandemic, according to a new study.
Researchers who have been tracking CDC errors compiled 25 instances where the agency offered demonstrably false information. For each instance, they analyzed whether the error exaggerated or downplayed the severity of COVID-19.
Of the 25 instances, 20 exaggerated the severity, the researchers reported in the study, which was published ahead of peer review on March 23.
“The CDC has expressed significant concern about COVID-19 misinformation. In order for the CDC to be a credible source of information, they must improve the accuracy of the data they provide,” the authors wrote.
The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.”
Most Errors Involved Children
Most of the errors were about COVID-19’s impact on children.
In mid-2021, for instance, the CDC claimed that 4 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 were kids. The actual percentage was 0.04 percent. The CDC eventually corrected the misinformation, months after being alerted to the issue.
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky falsely told a White House press briefing in October 2021 that there had been 745 COVID-19 deaths in children, but the actual number, based on CDC death certificate analysis, was 558.
Walensky and other CDC officials also falsely said in 2022 that COVID-19 was a top five cause of death for children, citing a study that gathered CDC data instead of looking at the data directly. The officials have not corrected the false claims.
Other errors include the CDC claiming in 2022 that pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations were “increasing again” when they’d actually peaked two weeks earlier; CDC officials in 2023 including deaths among infants younger than 6 months old when reporting COVID-19 deaths among children; and Walensky on Feb. 9, 2023, exaggerating the pediatric death toll before Congress.
“These errors suggest the CDC consistently exaggerates the impact of COVID-19 on children,” the authors of the study said.
Global Research, March 25, 2023
Region: Europe
Theme: Media Disinformation, Science and Medicine
***
These days it isn’t difficult to be cynical about politicians. This is especially the case given the draconian public health policies that most of them supported during the COVID-19 pandemic.
After enduring repeated lockdowns and being coerced into accepting experimental gene-based vaccines, it’s no wonder that many people have lost faith in their lawmakers.
While only rarely do we see politicians who are brave enough to speak out about the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 injections, there are a few who refuse to be silenced. Take Andrew Bridgen, for example, a Member of Parliament from the UK who, a few days ago, stood up to give a speech in a debate on mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccinations. Speaking to an almost deserted UK House of Commons (the video shows fellow parliamentarians quickly leaving the chamber as he began to speak), Bridgen openly described the deaths and serious harms caused by the shots.
Recently suspended from the UK’s ruling Conservative Party after he had tweeted an article questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and labelled them “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust,” Bridgen currently sits as an independent MP in the UK parliament. Predictably, since he began speaking out about the dangers of these vaccines, there have been crude attempts to censor him. After the video of his House of Commons speech was posted on YouTube, for example, it was rapidly taken down and only reinstated by the social media platform after a public outcry. Meantime, the speech has essentially been ignored in the mainstream media.
Video
The risk of serious adverse events
One of the most powerful aspects of this speech is that, far from resorting to conjecture or hearsay, Bridgen specifically refers to the UK government’s own data. Citing the Yellow Card scheme, for example, the system for reporting and monitoring adverse reactions to drugs and vaccines in the UK, he describes how the reported number of adverse events for COVID-19 vaccines is now far higher than those for all conventional vaccines administered over the past 50 years.
Bridgen also outlines how, in order to examine the frequency of serious adverse events following vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, data held by the US Government’s National Library of Medicine was used for a research study led by Dr. Joseph Fraiman. This revealed that there are 10.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Pfizer vaccinations administered, meaning that one in every 990 people vaccinated with the Pfizer booster will suffer a serious adverse event.
Dr. Fraiman further discovered that the risk from the Moderna mRNA vaccine was even greater than that of the Pfizer one, with an average of 15.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 shots given. This means that one in 662 people vaccinated with the Moderna booster will suffer a serious adverse event. Combining the data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines or boosters gives an average of 1,250 serious adverse events for every 1 million vaccine boosters administered – in other words, a one in 800 chance of a serious adverse event occurring.
The true cost of using mRNA vaccines to prevent hospitalization
Bridgen describes how the UK government’s own data shows that, in order to prevent just one healthy adult aged between 50 and 59 from being hospitalized due to COVID-19, 43,600 people have to be given a booster shot. Based on a serious adverse event rate of one in 800, this means that in the healthy 50 to 59-year-old group, as a result of being given mRNA boosters, 55 people would die or be hospitalized simply to prevent one COVID-19 patient being hospitalized.
The same data also shows that in the healthy 40 to 49 age group, 92,500 booster jabs were required just to prevent one person from being hospitalized due to COVID-19. This would have put 116 people at risk of death or having a serious adverse reaction. In the healthy 30 to 39 age group, a total of 210,400 booster jabs would be required to prevent one person being hospitalized. This suggests that 263 UK citizens in this age group will have been hospitalized or even died just to keep one single COVID-19 case out of the hospital.
As Bridgen points out, however, hospitalization does not necessarily mean a serious medical intervention such as intubation or oxygen. To prevent severe hospitalization from COVID-19, the numbers needed to be boosted with the vaccines become astronomical. Here, the UK government’s own data shows that, in healthy adults aged 50 to 59, it was necessary to give 256,400 booster jabs to prevent just one severe hospitalization. This would put 321 people into hospital with a serious side-effect, including risk of death.
For healthy 40 to 49-year-olds, the number needing to be boosted to keep just one COVID-19 patient out of an intensive care unit increases to 932,500. This potentially puts 1,165 people in hospital with serious harm, disability, or death.
For the most vulnerable group – the over-70s with comorbidities – UK government data suggest it would be necessary to administer 800 vaccine boosters to prevent one hospitalization. This means that, by being boosted, all this group is essentially doing is swapping the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 for the risk of being hospitalized from the vaccine.
Examining the financial cost of the COVID-19 vaccination program in the UK, Bridgen says the government’s own data suggest that it cost over £1.9 million ($2.34 million) to prevent a single hospitalization among healthy 50 to 59-year-olds, and over £11 million ($13.54 million) to prevent one serious hospitalization in this group. The cost of preventing the hospitalization of one healthy 40 to 49-year-old was over £4 million ($4.93 million). For healthy 30 to 39-year-olds, preventing one hospitalization costs over £9 million ($11.08 million).
State-sponsored self-harm
Summing up, Bridgen says that the data are clear: for all healthy people and all those considered at risk under 70, the probability of being seriously harmed by COVID-19 is seriously outweighed by the risks associated with the experimental mRNA vaccines and boosters. Even for the most vulnerable group – the over-70s with health problems – he says the two risks are essentially identical. Describing the use of mRNA vaccines as “absolute madness,” he argues that if the UK were to continue employing them it would be engaging in “expensive state-sponsored self-harm on a national level.”
Nor does Bridgen shy away from identifying the biggest beneficiaries from the UK’s COVID-19 vaccine program. Pointing out that mRNA vaccines have made the pharma industry billions, he describes how the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is 86 percent funded by drug companies. He additionally alleges that members of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), the body that advises UK health departments on immunization, have between them declared interests of more than £1 billion ($1.23 billion) in the pharma industry. Clearly, this hardly qualifies their advice as independent.
Accusing pharma companies of putting profits before people, Bridgen says governments across the globe have been their willing marketing agents in all this. He concludes by calling on the UK government to immediately stop the mRNA vaccine booster program and initiate a full public inquiry into not only the vaccine harms, but also how every UK agency and institution set up to protect the public interest has failed so abysmally in its duties.
Bridgen’s speech should be required viewing for politicians across the globe.
*
This article was originally published by Dr. Rath Health Foundation.
Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from DRHF
“Like the rest of the mis-, mal-, and dis-information they and other government actors publish, the false injection uptake data probably is simply more propaganda intended to isolate independent thinkers who haven’t submitted to the Covid tyranny.”
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-03-24-cdc-lied-about-vaccination-rates-investigation-shows.html
by: Ethan Huff
Friday, March 24, 2023
(Natural News) According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), just 8 percent of the country remains completely unvaccinated for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) – the other 92 percent, we are told, have taken at least one shot. According to an independent report from Northeastern University, however, the CDC’s figures are a lie.
In reality, one in four Americans, or 25 percent, remain fully unvaccinated for the Chinese Virus. And if you believe surveys taken by Zogby and Rasmussen, the percentage of unvaccinated Americans is closer to 33 percent.
“This agrees separately with a Kaiser Family Foundation report,” writes Dr. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, about the independent data showing that a much larger percentage of Americans are unvaccinated than what the CDC is claiming.
“Apparently the CDC vaccination administration system is not accurately identifying each person by a unique identifier and linking each injection to that code. Therefore, if a patient does not have the prior vaccine card or goes to a different vaccines center with slightly different name spelling, then the encounter is counted as a brand new person coming forward. This is leading to double-counting of ‘vaccinated’ in CDC records.”
(Related: Even the tampered-with death toll numbers the CDC has released show that covid injections are the deadliest “vaccines” to ever be unleashed.)
Don’t let the powers that be bully you for being unvaccinated – you’re hardly alone!
It is quite convenient, is it not, for the CDC’s vaccination rate figures to be vastly overinflated? After all, the private corporation posing as a federal public health agency would love for everyone to believe that only a tiny sliver of the American population still has natural immunity.
The smaller the minority of unvaccinated, the easier they are to bully. This is probably the goal of the CDC, to make it appear as though nearly everyone is injected, which will in turn make it easier for forced vaccination protocols to stick.
“These findings give new hope to the unvaccinated that they are not alone in holding strong against the adverse safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccines and standing up for the preservation of good health and the right to decide what is injected into their bodies,” McCullough says.
One of McCullough’s subscribers emphasized the fact that even if only 75 percent of the country is “fully vaccinated,” this is still a “horrendous crime” against humanity that should not go unpunished.
“Another hopeful sign is that a lot of the ‘vaxxed’ seem embarrassed to admit it,” commented another, to which someone else wrote that he knows several people who got the double-dose of mRNA (messenger RNA) injections and were initially proud about it, but today are embarrassed about it and say they only agreed to get jabbed “under duress.”
“No doubt the CDC didn’t accidentally overcount the percentage of people who took the toxic injections,” wrote another, skeptical of the CDC’s politically convenient oversight of the real data.
“Like the rest of the mis-, mal-, and dis-information they and other government actors publish, the false injection uptake data probably is simply more propaganda intended to isolate independent thinkers who haven’t submitted to the Covid tyranny.”
Another person who got vaccinated and now regrets it interjected that she is not embarrassed so much as she is “enraged that we were lied to and our ‘care for other humans’ was taken advantage of (sorry for the hanging participle).”
“Never again,” this person concluded.
Would you like to keep up with the latest news about the covid scamdemic, the so-called “vaccines,” and the American deep state’s involvement in perpetrating these crimes against humanity? You can do so at Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
In conclusion, our analysis overall leads us to suggest that the COVID-19 mortality statistics collected and presented by the Government of Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada) are unreliable at best and possibly meaningless.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/proof-canada-covid-19-mortality-statistics-incorrect/5795534
By Prof Denis Rancourt, Dr. Marine Baudin, and Dr. Jérémie Mercier
Global Research, March 22, 2023
Region: Canada
Theme: Science and Medicine
***
Abstract
We make a quantitative comparison between the COVID-19 mortality statistics of the Government of Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada; managed by the Chief Public Health Officer) and calculated total excess all-cause mortality (ACM) (deaths from all causes) for the Covid period. The claimed “COVID-19 deaths” mortality is almost double the total excess ACM for the same period, which we find to be irreconcilable with reality. We describe how these numbers have been uncritically used in public Government communications, by leading media, and in a recent scientific article co-authored by Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, which claims that “without the use of restrictive measures and without high levels of vaccination, Canada could have experienced […] almost a million deaths.” We conclude that the COVID-19 mortality statistics are unreliable at best, and possibly meaningless.
Introduction
In Canada and in the world, there were virtually no reported deaths assigned to COVID-19 prior to the 11 March 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of a pandemic. Likewise, no anomaly in all-cause mortality by time (day, week, month) can be detected prior to the said declaration.1
The Government of Canada records “COVID-19 deaths” and reports the cumulative value on a weekly basis, at its Public Health Agency of Canada “COVID-19 epidemiology update” dashboard.2
Government of Canada officers and employees use the same cumulative “COVID-19 deaths” data in their peer-reviewed scientific articles (see below).
This brief report is about the irreconcilable discrepancy between the Government of Canada’s numbers of “COVID-19 deaths” and rigorous evaluations of excess total all-cause mortality (ACM) for the same time periods.
What the Canadian Government and legacy media say
Table 1 presents statements made by the Government of Canada and by leading media, reporting cumulative “COVID-19 deaths”. The list is incomplete.
Table 1. COVID-19 death count statements
Clearly, these numbers are an integral part of the Government of Canada’s communication campaign during the Covid period.
In addition, countless audio and video recorded interviews have media interviewers and commentators advancing these and comparable large cumulative numbers of “COVID-19 deaths”, typically to emphasize the seriousness of the declared pandemic, and always implying that infection with the presumed SARS-CoV-2 virus was the dominant or only medical factor causing the deaths.
The detailed time evolution of the cumulative number of “COVID-19 deaths” is available at the Government of Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada) dashboard and its csv-file download,17 and is represented in the following graph (Figure 1), in which the time axis starts on 1 February 2020.
Figure 1. Time evolution of the cumulative number of “COVID-19 deaths” for Canada. The vertical line marks the week of 11 March 2020, when a pandemic was declared by the WHO. Data is from the Government of Canada (accessed on 3 October 2022).18
The same data as in Figure 1, viewed in terms of weekly new “COVID-19 deaths”, for the same time period (February 2020 to present), is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Time evolution of the weekly new number of “COVID-19 deaths” for Canada. The vertical line marks the week of 11 March 2020, when a pandemic was declared by the WHO. Data is from the Government of Canada (accessed on 3 October 2022).19
There is a consensus in the Government of Canada and the major media outlets that these numbers of “COVID-19 deaths”, reviewed above, represent true and reliable mortality caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, since COVID-19 is uniquely ascribed to this virus.
We were not able to find any Government of Canada sources or publications that suggested that the presumed virus could have played an insignificant or minor role in causing the deaths in some of the deaths attributed to or associated with “confirmed” COVID-19; nor were we able to find any Government (or investigative media) effort to estimate the fraction of any such “false positive” attributions of cause of death.
What the all-cause mortality says
All-cause mortality by time is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause. Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. More and more researchers are recognizing that it is essential to examine ACM by time, and excess deaths from all causes compared with projections from historic trends, to help make sense of the events surrounding COVID-19: See Rancourt et al. (2022)20 and references therein.
Before we describe the quantification method, it is instructive to examine the ACM by time in Canada over the last three decades. Figure 3 shows ACM by month for Canada, from January 1991 through December 2020. Contrary to usual practice, we use the full y-scale, showing the zero, so that one may evaluate the relative importance of the seasonal variations and of any other changes compared to numbers of all the deaths in the country. This provides a reference to ascertain the degree to which the declared pandemic caused a notable excess in mortality after 11 March 2020.
Figure 3. All-cause mortality (ACM) by month for Canada, from January 1991 to December 2020, inclusive. The data is from StatCan.21 There are characteristic dips in February, due to the known artifact arising from February typically having only 28 days. The March-May 2020 peak that occurs immediately following the pandemic announcement of 11 March 2020 is historically anomalous, and we have discussed it previously.22
Next, we apply similar quantitative methods that we applied recently for the USA23 to the case of Canada, to quantify excess total ACM for the Covid period, which started on 11 March 2020. By “excess” we mean in addition to the expected mortality for the Covid period, based on the historic trend prior to 11 March 2020. As such, the expected mortality for the Covid period is the mortality that one would predict if the Covid period were just like recent prior periods, in terms of the factors that determine mortality.
We use the StatCan data of ACM by week,24 which starts at the week ending Saturday 9 January 2010, and ends at the week ending Saturday 14 May 2022. Although StatCan refers to this data as “provisional weekly death counts”, we have observed that successive updates for this product (their Table 13-10-0768-01) do not change the previously released data to a degree that could significantly change our calculations or conclusions. The last values in the dataset for May do not appear to be anomalous.
Given the end date of the data and given the start date of 11 March 2020 of the declared pandemic, the Covid period used in our calculation (the “defined Covid period”) is the 114-week period between the week ending Saturday 14 March 2020 and the week ending Saturday 14 May 2022, inclusive. We sum ACM over this 114-week period. We define non-overlapping 114-week periods of summation of ACM, which immediately precede the defined Covid period. Four such consecutive periods prior to the defined Covid period can be accommodated by the data.
We plot the resulting sum of ACM values versus time, along with the ACM by week (on a different y-axis), in Figure 4.
Figure 4. All-cause mortality (ACM) by week, 2010-2022, left y-axis (light blue continuous curve) for Canada; and ACM sums over the five 114-week non-overlapping consecutive periods described in the text, right y-axis (dark blue dots, joined by line segments). The ACM sums are positioned in time on the x-axis at the first week of the respective summation period. The last 114-week period is our operational Covid period (the defined Covid period). The orange straight dashed line is the least-squares best fit to the four ACM sums prior to the defined Covid period. The sharp spike occurring in the summer of 2021 corresponds to the heat wave that occurred in British Columbia (and the north-western USA).
We make a least-squares fit of a straight line to the four ACM sums of the 114-week periods prior to the defined Covid period (shown in Figure 4). Taking “x” to be the week number, where x=1 is the first week in the StatCan data, the resulting fitted line has slope = 264.5 ACM-sum-on-114-weeks per week, intercept = 516,400 deaths in 114-week period, and Pearson correlation coefficient r = +0.9989.
Therefore, the expected 114-week ACM sum for the defined Covid period, based on the least-squares fitted straight line, is (657.1 ± 1.3) x 103 deaths, where the uncertainty is estimated as the mean of the four absolute values of the deviations of the observed values from the fitted line; whereas the measured ACM sum for the 114-week defined Covid period is 679,645 deaths.
This means that the excess mortality for the 114-week defined Covid period ending on the week ending on Saturday 14 May 2022, is:
679,645 − (657.1 ± 1.3) x 103 = (22.5 ± 1.3) x 103 deaths, which is seen in Figure 4.
Covid-assigned deaths versus all-cause mortality
The thus obtained excess ACM for the 114-week defined Covid period ending on 14 May 2022 can be compared to the cumulative “COVID-19 deaths” on 14 May 2022.
The latter official value for 14 May 2022, from the Government of Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada), is: 40,684 “COVID-19 deaths”.25
Therefore, we have:
This means that there were 18,200 more “COVID-19 deaths” than the 22,500 excess all-cause deaths (up to 14 May 2022).
The “COVID-19 deaths” mortality, in magnitude, is 181% of the calculated total excess ACM (up to 14 May 2022).
If the same ratio were applied to the USA, there would have been 1.81 x 1.27M26 = 2.30M “COVID-19 deaths” in the USA, more than double the official USA number (998,587 “COVID-19 Deaths” on 14 May 2022, CDC).27
It is inconceivable that a virus killed this many more people than the total excess ACM, because this would imply that in the absence of the presumed virus there would be a large deficit of ACM. Alternatively, one would need to believe that Covid measures (masking, social distancing, isolation, shutting down economic sectors, etc.) cause a net reduction of deaths from all other causes; such as not causing any deaths while more than eliminating “influenza and pneumonia”, which in Canada have reported deaths in the range 6.2 to 8.6 K/year for 2016 through 2019.28
The presumed SARS-CoV-2 virus would have killed approximately twice as many people as the calculated excess ACM. This means that, in addition to presumably being the cause for all the excess ACM (which is implausible), the presumed SARS-CoV-2 virus would have also had to rush in and kill 18,200 people, in the same time period and before they could die of other causes, who most certainly would have died without the Covid circumstances. What is the meaning of a presumed virulent virus that kills people who would have died, when they would have died? Alternatively, for example, the Covid measures would have saved 18,200 people from “influenza and pneumonia”, say, while the presumed SARS-CoV-2 virus killed them.
More realistically, if approximately half of the excess deaths were due to the aggressive measures (including: harmful medical treatment, neglect of vulnerable individuals, social and physical isolation, and loss of regular occupation and care protocols), then at most 10,000 or so deaths could have been caused by the presumed SARS-CoV-2 virus, in this period, and the reported number of “COVID-19 deaths” is inflated by a factor of approximately 4, if the cause-of-death determinations can be taken to be meaningful.
Discussion: What does the Government of Canada say?
Deputy Prime Minister of Canada Chrystia Freeland29 has stated that if Canada had the same “COVID-19 deaths” rate per capita as the USA, then there would have been 70,000 more COVID-19 deaths in Canada.30 Freeland referred to a study by Naylor and other academics as her source. Razak et al. (including Naylor) make their analysis up to or near 12 February 2022 when the reported cumulative “COVID-19 deaths” for Canada were at 35,268. For this date, they report “COVID-19 deaths” rates per capita (per million) of 919 for Canada and 2,730 for the USA (their Figure 1C).31 The USA rate would produce 105,000 deaths in Canada, which is 70,000 more than 35,000.
This statement by Freeland has a “COVID-19 deaths” rate for the USA, which is 3.0 times larger than for Canada, but Freeland does not mention two important factors:
(1) the USA has an excess-ACM death rate (per capita) that is 6.5 times larger than for Canada [(1.27M/22.5K)(38M/330M) = 6.5], and
(2) the Covid-measures stringency index (Oxford Stringency Index) is statistically indistinguishable for the USA and Canada [Figure 2 in Razak et al.32].
Freeland’s attention should have been turned instead to a metric that takes into account the different health statuses of the vulnerable populations in the two countries.33 Freeland could have asked herself: “Why is the ratio of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ to excess ACM deaths [(40.7K/22.5K)/(0.999M/1.27M)] some 2.3 times larger in Canada than in the USA?” This contextualized comparison would mean a relative (compared to the USA) catastrophic failure of the Covid measures intended to prevent spread of the disease in Canada, in which the presumed infection appears to have disproportionately devastated those close to death in Canada. Freeland misled herself in her use of the USA regarding comparative efficacy of Covid measures in Canada.
Discussion: What do the Government scientists say?
Ogden et al. (with Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam), publishing in the peer-reviewed journal Canada Communicable Disease Report (CCDR) in July/August 2022 wrote:34
“Together, these observations show that without the use of restrictive measures and without high levels of vaccination, Canada could have experienced substantially higher numbers of infections and hospitalizations and almost a million deaths.”
One million added “COVID-19 deaths” in Canada corresponds to adding approximately 150% of the baseline total (not excess) ACM deaths for the Covid period. This would increase the Covid-period total (not excess) ACM from approximately 680,000 deaths (Figure 4) to approximately 1,680,000 deaths. One can gauge what that would look like on Figures 3 and 4.
To make it more visual and concrete, we simulate the ACM by week for Canada with the added said “almost a million deaths” in Figure 5. Here, for the sake of illustration and simplicity, we add the one million deaths to the defined Covid period uniformly to each of the 114 weeks in the period (1M/114 = 8,772 deaths added to each week in the defined Covid period; keeping in mind that the Ogden et al. article uses data up to 20 April 2022, which is close to our defined Covid period end date).
Figure 5. Simulated all-cause mortality (ACM) by week, 2010-2022, for Canada, using the proposal of Ogden et al. (red line), as explained in the text. The original data for the Covid period is shown by the dashed grey line.
Figure 5 suggests that the proposal made by Ogden et al. is not compatible with any reasonable view.
The theoretical notion that one million deaths were averted by the Covid measures in Canada is incredible on its face, but also contrary to reality. It would correspond to 210 million deaths globally [(1M/38M) x 8B]; and to 8.7 million deaths in the USA [(1M/38M) x 330M].
This conclusion by Ogden et al. (including Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam) is not connected to reality because, in addition to relying on reported “COVID-19 deaths” numbers, it is a product of their theoretical modelling exercise. All such models applied to nations have been shown to often be grossly unreliable. Arguably the most renowned epidemiologist (cited >450K times),35 Stanford University’s Professor of Medicine John Ioannidis and co-authors had this to say about the models:36
“Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, consideration of only one or a few dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and bandwagon effects, and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures. Nevertheless, epidemic forecasting is unlikely to be abandoned.”
At this point, readers have a choice of preferring to side more with one of two end-point views. Either:
(a) the Government of Canada saved one million lives, and thereby brought down mortality coincidentally to virtually the same level as in the pre-Covid periods (Figures 3 and 4); within 22,500 deaths, which is approximately +3% of expected mortality in the absence of Covid circumstances; or
(b) there was no such contagious and virulent pathogen present, and, if anything, the Covid measures may have caused net harm.
In making this evaluation, readers should keep in mind that the article by Ogden et al. (including Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam) is written by the architects of the Covid measures in Canada, and of the COVID-19 testing and vaccination campaigns. It is published by the Government. And it constructs a theoretical justification for unprecedented harsh nation-wide Government measures. It cannot be viewed as unbiased.
Conclusion
We determined the expected defined Covid period mortality (nominally from 11 March 2020 to 14 May 2022), in the absence of the Covid period circumstances to be: (657.1 ± 1.3) x 103 deaths.
The actual defined Covid period mortality was 679,645 deaths.
Therefore, the defined Covid period excess mortality is (22.5 ± 1.3) x 103 deaths, which is significantly smaller than the Government’s reported “COVID-19 deaths” number of 40,684 for the same period.
These numbers (22.5K vs 40.7K) cannot be reconciled by any reasonable explanation, which we have explored.
The recent suggestion by Ogden et al., derived from using the Government-reported “COVID-19 deaths” mortality, that “without the use of restrictive measures and without high levels of vaccination, Canada could have experienced […] almost a million deaths.”, appears to be palpably disconnected from reality (Figure 5).
In conclusion, our analysis overall leads us to suggest that the COVID-19 mortality statistics collected and presented by the Government of Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada) are unreliable at best, and possibly meaningless.
*
This report was published by Correlation Research in the Public Interest.
Notes
1 Rancourt, D.G. (2020) “All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”, ResearchGate, 2 June 2020. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24350.77125 | archived at: https://archive.ph/PXhsg
2 Government of Canada (2022) “COVID-19 epidemiology update”. Updated: 2022-10-03. https://health- infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/ (accessed on 3 October 2022).
3 Ogden NH, Turgeon P, Fazil A, Clark J, Gabriele-Rivet V, Tam T, Ng V. “Counterfactuals of effects of vaccination and public health measures on COVID-19 cases in Canada: What could have happened?” Canada Communicable Disease Report (CCDR) 2022;48(7/8):292–302. https://doi.org/10.14745/ccdr.v48i78a01
4 https://health-infobase.canada.ca/src/data/covidLive/Epidemiological-summary-of-COVID-19-cases-in- Canada-Canada.ca.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2022).
5 Ibid. (accessed after 4 April 2022)
6 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/canada-covid-cases.html | Archived: https://archive.ph/puy6S (accessed on 27 September 2022).
7 https://globalnews.ca/news/6649164/canada-coronavirus-cases/ (accessed on 27 September 2022).
8 https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/covid-19-hospitalizations-down-by-42-in-quebec-1.6053545 (accessed on 27 September 2022).
9 https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/08/25/did-a-conservative-leadership-hopeful-compare- covid-19-vaccines-to-nazi-atrocities-leslyn-lewis-rejects-cowardly-accusation.html | Archived: https://archive.ph/iTEjc (accessed on 27 September 2022).
10 https://globalnews.ca/news/9084719/covid-deaths-hit-one-million-who/ (accessed on 27 September 2022).
11 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/tracking-every-case-of-covid-19-in-canada-1.4852102 (accessed on 28 September 2022).
12 https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/canada/ (accessed on 28 September 2022).
13 https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/kaplan-myrth-ontario-election-covid-19-isnt-over-vote-for-the-party- that-will-act-on-this-reality (accessed on 28 September 2022).
14 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-40000-covid-19-deaths/ | Archived: https://archive.ph/v3w1r (accessed on 28 September 2022).
15 https://globalnews.ca/news/8834765/covid-canada-40k-deaths-6th-wave/ (accessed on 29 September 2022).
16 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-million-covid-deaths-1.6150574 (accessed on 28 September 2022).
17 See Footnote 2
18 See Footnote 2
19 See Footnote 2
20 Rancourt, D.G., Baudin, M., Mercier, J. “COVID-Period Mass Vaccination Campaign and Public Health Disaster in the USA – From age/state-resolved all-cause mortality by time, age-resolved vaccine delivery by time, and socio-geo-economic data”, Research Gate, 2 August 2022, DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.12688.28164, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362427136_COVID- Period_Mass_Vaccination_Campaign_and_Public_Health_Disaster_in_the_USA_From_agestate- resolved_all-cause_mortality_by_time_age-resolved_vaccine_delivery_by_time_and_socio-geo- economic_data | archived here: https://archive.ph/lFNwK
21 StatCan (2022) “Deaths, by month”. Release date: 2022-01-24. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310070801 (accessed on 6 June 2022).
22 Rancourt, D.G., Baudin, M. and Mercier, J. (2021) “Analysis of all-cause mortality by week in Canada 2010-2021, by province, age and sex: There was no COVID-19 pandemic and there is strong evidence of response-caused deaths in the most elderly and in young males”. ResearchGate, 6 August 2021, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14929.45921 | archived here: https://archive.ph/CYA20
23 Rancourt et al. (2022): Footnote 20.
24 StatCan (2022) “Table 13-10-0768-01 Provisional weekly death counts, by age group and sex”. Release date: 2022-09-08. https://doi.org/10.25318/1310076801-eng | also: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310076801 (accessed on 12 September 2022)
25 See Footnote 2
26 Rancourt et al. (2022): Footnote 20.
27 “COVID Data Tracker – Trends in Number of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in the US Reported to CDC, by State/Territory”, CDC, https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_totaldeaths_select_00 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
28 “Leading causes of death, total population, by age group”, Table: 13-10-0394-01 (formerly CANSIM 102-0561), Release date: 2022-01-24, Statistics Canada, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310039401 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
29 https://deputypm.canada.ca/en | archived: https://archive.ph/uyAHz (accessed on 1 October 2022).
30 Video: “All-cause deaths continue to skyrocket in Canada”, Rebel News, 26 September 2022. https://rumble.com/v1lmo2p-all-cause-deaths-continue-to-skyrocket-in-canada.html (at 4:12).
31 Fahad Razak, Saeha Shin, C. David Naylor, Arthur S. Slutsky. “Canada’s response to the initial 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison with peer countries” CMAJ Jun 2022, 194 (25) E870-E877; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.220316 . See also the 27 June 2022 Globe&Mail opinion piece by Razak, Slutsky and Naylor: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-need-new-strategies-to- tackle-covid-this-fall/ | archived: https://archive.ph/moeYs .
32 Ibid.
33 Rancourt et al. (2022): Footnote 20.
34 Ogden et al. (2022): Footnote 3.
35 Google Scholar authenticated profile of John P.A. Ioannidis: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JiiMY_wAAAAJ&hl (accessed on 1 October 2022).
36 Ioannidis JPA, Cripps S, Tanner MA. “Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed”. Int J Forecast. 2022 Apr- Jun;38(2):423-438. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.08.004. Epub 2020 Aug 25. PMID: 32863495; PMCID: PMC7447267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.08.004
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Denis Rancourt, Dr. Marine Baudin, and Dr. Jérémie Mercier, Global Research, 2023
Scroll down
Watch before it’s pulled.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-can-we-trust-institutions-lied
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, JAN 14, 2023
Authored by Abir Ballan via The Brownstone Institute,
Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told.
Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking.
In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19.
They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm).
From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’
“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC
But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?
Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative.
Falsehoods such as ‘Lockdowns save lives’ and ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far-reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.
The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the Covid-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes. The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection.
The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents they had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50 and 96 percent of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?
The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67 and 95 percent). They failed, however, to share with the public the more reliable measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1 percent, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines.
They also claimed “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent.
They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination).
In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post-natural infection is not needed.
The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans, and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs.’
It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20 percent of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune?
The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — a repurposed drug used for the treatment of Covid-19 — was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential Covid-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used was false.
In another instance, the medical journal Current Problems in Cardiology retracted —without any justification— a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the Covid-19 vaccines, after it was peer-reviewed and published. The authors advocated for the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature not only prevents science from taking its natural course, but it also gatekeeps important information from the public.
A similar story took place with Ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of Covdi-19, this time potentially implicating academia. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, coincidentally, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace —the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality with Covid-19 by 75 percent. Instead of supporting Ivermectin use as a Covid-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.
The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines as the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).
Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This was in the form of biased reporting, or by accepting to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR is an innocuous word for propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interest groups.
The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research, or to increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent $6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the US alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Lack of integrity and conflicts of interest have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic. It is up to the public to determine whether the above are instances of mis- or dis-information.
Public trust in the Media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great cost. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy; businesses ruined; jobs destroyed; educational achievement regressed; poverty aggravated; and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster.
We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflicts of interest in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy?
As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking. So the next time conflicted institutions cry woeful wolf or vicious variant or catastrophic climate, we need to think twice.
Children’s Health Defence Europe: Interview of Drs Charles Hoffe, Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, Dr. Patrick Phillips, Dr. Mark Trozzi and attorney Michael Alexander.
Global Research, January 12, 2023
Dr. Mark Trozzi 11 January 2023
***
Thanks to Aga Wilson and Children’s Health Defence Europe for bringing international attention to the unlawful weaponization of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and British Columbia, against ethical doctors who maintain our oaths and responsibilities, while refusing to participate in the covid-crimes-against-humanity. Here is the interview.
I take great pride in being one of these physicians. Dr. Hoffe, Dr. Luchkiw, Dr. Phillips, and Michael Alexander JD and are on my short list of heroes.
Video: Dr. McCullough Facing Certifications Revocation for Alleged “False…Information” Dissemination
https://tube.childrenshealthdefense.eu/videos/embed/bdd15ed7-25b4-432e-828e-38a3e02365fb
*
How can you possibly have overlooked the COVID vaccine as a possible cause of the huge rise in excess deaths? The evidence is in plain sight.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-british-heart
Dear British Heart Foundation,
I just finished reading an article in the Telegraph entitled “Critics claim Covid jabs are causing heart problems – do they have any proof?” where you were quoted as saying:
The British Heart Foundation told The Telegraph: “The scientific consensus is that the benefits of Covid vaccination, including a reduced risk of severe illness or death, far outweigh the very small risk of rare side effects like myocarditis or pericarditis for the vast majority of people, especially as people get older.
I was wondering if your staff would be open to publicly discussing this statement with me and a team of expert cardiologists including Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Aseem Malhotra as well as MIT Professor Retsef Levi (the senior author of Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave and Dr. Ryan Cole, one of the few pathologists in the US who specializes in COVID vaccine pathology?
The evidence is in plain sight; why are you ignoring it?
There is a large amount of evidence in plain sight that your recent comprehensive report on this subject has completely missed. The evidence shows that the COVID vaccine is, in fact, the most likely cause of all the cardiac issues experienced throughout the world. It is the elephant in the room.
To our utter astonishment, the COVID vaccine wasn’t even listed as a possible cause of cardiac death in the report, even though we can clearly show it is the major driver of the increased number of events.
For example, this analysis by the brilliant UK Professor Norman Fenton shows that the only thing that correlates with the excess deaths is the COVID vaccine. Did he get it wrong? Your comprehensive document never refutes his analysis. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone anywhere in the world show that he got it wrong and provide the correct analysis. Why do you think that is?
After the Schwab paper proved the COVID vaccines can kill people by damaging their hearts, where was the outcry from the British Heart Foundation? Did I miss this?
Where is the call to halt the COVID vaccine program in your report? It appears it was overlooked.
I have more data. Lots more data.
There was a study done on 175 people who got vaccinated in Puerto Rico. Do you know how many were diagnosed with myocarditis after the shot? The number will knock your socks off. I guarantee it. It makes the 29% rate of heart injury post-vaccine in the Thailand study look like a rounding error. I’ll share the data with you when we meet.
I think it is telling that nobody in the world accepted my offer to bet $1M that the vaccines killed more people than they saved. Not even the drug companies were willing to risk money on this.
In short, nobody in the entire world is willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to their statements on vaccine safety and efficacy.
That should give you pause… if the vaccine is so safe, why isn’t anyone willing to bet on a “sure thing” bet to get $1M?
Have you talked to any geriatric medical practices?
I am curious… have you ever picked up the phone and called a few large geriatric practices to see what is really going on?
It’s always good to do a “reality check” just to make sure that what you are being told in the medical literature is actually consistent with what is happening on the ground. Trust, but verify is important nowadays if you want to know the truth.
It’s not hard to do. The first large geriatric practice I spoke with has nearly 1,000 patients over 65 and they see around 11 deaths each year. It fluctuates every year with sigma= 3.3, exactly as predicted from Poisson distribution statistics. But in 2022, they had 36 deaths which is a 7.5 sigma event. So that couldn’t have happened by chance. The excess deaths were all attributed to the COVID vaccine by the doctor and nurse in that clinic. They can’t go public for fear of having their medical licenses revoked, but I can supply you with the de-identified patient records and case histories for all the deceased so you can verify this yourself. The 25 excess deaths in 2022 cannot be explained any other way as far as we know. This is highly statistically significant.
How can you ignore evidence like this?
Can you find any geriatric practices anywhere in the world where all-cause mortality dropped after the COVID vaccines rolled out?
I look forward to a public discussion.
It’s important that we get to the truth, isn’t it?
Swine flu vaccine (1976), 1 serious event per 100,000 vaccinees, Vaccine withdrawn
Rotavirus vaccine Rotashield, (1999),1 to 2 serious events per 10,000 vaccinees, Vaccine withdrawn
Covid mRNA vaccines, 1 serious event per 800 vaccinees, Vaccine officially promoted. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
In the Twitter post of concern, dated March 26, 2021, Kulldorff said that children and those who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not need to be vaccinated, but that vaccines were important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. The post was flagged by a Twitter moderator as having violated the company’s COVID-19 “misinformation policy.”
An internal email shared by Zweig showed that the moderator claimed Kulldorff had shared “false information regarding the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, which goes against CDC guidelines.” Twitter subsequently labelled the post as “misleading” and turned off all likes and replies.
BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, DEC 27, 2022
Authored by Mimi Nguyen Ly via The Epoch Times,.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a prominent epidemiologist and biostatistician and former Harvard School of Medicine professor, said he was “not surprised” after seeing concrete evidence that a post he shared on Twitter was flagged and prevented from wider dissemination.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, epidemiologist and statistician. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
He expressed disapproval and said that the social media giant’s overall censorship actions have stifled free debate on COVID-19 topics and undermined trust in science.
In the latest installment of the Elon Musk-endorsed “Twitter Files” published early on Dec. 26, journalist David Zweig shared how posts from Kulldorff and several others about COVID-19, including about vaccines, were flagged and censored in various ways by Twitter.
It marked the first trove of direct evidence from the “Twitter Files” showing how Twitter censored scientists, potentially at the behest of the U.S. government, ever since journalist Bari Weiss revealed in early December that Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya had been put on a blacklist due to his views on COVID-19-related lockdowns and school closures.
While Kulldorff said he was not surprised by evidence showing how he and others were censored, he said Twitter should not be the arbiter of which scientists have valid views, and that such censorship shouldn’t happen.
“There should be an open discussion. You can’t expect people to trust public health and trust the scientific community if you don’t have that open communication and open debate,” Kulldorff told The Epoch Times.
In the Twitter post of concern, dated March 26, 2021, Kulldorff said that children and those who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not need to be vaccinated, but that vaccines were important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. The post was flagged by a Twitter moderator as having violated the company’s COVID-19 “misinformation policy.”
An internal email shared by Zweig showed that the moderator claimed Kulldorff had shared “false information regarding the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, which goes against CDC guidelines.” Twitter subsequently labelled the post as “misleading” and turned off all likes and replies.
“But Kulldorff’s statement was an expert’s opinion—one which also happened to be in line with vaccine policies in numerous other countries. Yet it was deemed ‘false information’ by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines,” Zweig wrote.
“After Twitter took action, Kulldorff’s tweet was slapped with a ‘Misleading’ label and all replies and likes were shut off, throttling the tweet’s ability to be seen and shared by many people, the ostensible core function of the platform.”
A child receives a dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in Los Angeles, Calif., on Nov. 5, 2021. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)
Kulldorff reiterated his views on COVID-19 vaccination in children, telling The Epoch Times late Monday: “We know and we’ve known ever since the very beginning of the pandemic, and the data from Wuhan, that children are at minuscule risk … from dying from COVID-19.”
“So the benefit of the vaccine, therefore, is almost nothing, because it doesn’t prevent [transmission]. [And] the risk of death and hospitalization [with children] is very low. The benefit is very, very small. We know that,” he added.
“So then the question is, what are the potential harms? And we know there are potential harms, with myocarditis, for example. I think the benefit is so tiny it’s not worth taking the risks of adverse reactions, which we know there is myocarditis, but we don’t know the full extent of adverse reactions yet.”
Kulldorff also dismissed the view that had been promulgated incessantly by health officials and media outlets that COVID-19 vaccination is “safe and effective” at large.
“I think for many people, they only heard one voice. And when they heard alternative voices, [those voices] were sort of dismissed as cranks. But that’s not how medicine or science works,” he said.
“There are many vaccines and many drugs that are important for some people, but unnecessary for others. So to say that everybody should get a vaccine, that’s not very scientific way of thinking about things,” he said.
“Just like saying that nobody should ever be vaccinated is equally unscientific,” he added.
“But we get sort of a polarizing view between the anti-vaxxers and vaccine fanatics,” Kulldorff observed, adding that in his opinion, “the vaccine fanatics have done much more damage to vaccine confidence than anybody else with pushing vaccine mandates based on flawed scientific thinking.”
“I think that [the push for vaccine mandates] has had consequences not only for the COVID-19 vaccine but also for childhood vaccines—important childhood vaccines like polio, for example,” he said.
“So vaccine fanatics who have been pushing for mandates—that everybody should get vaccinated—they have done a lot of damage to vaccine confidence in the U.S. and other parts of the world as well.”
Amid emerging evidence that U.S. government officials have exerted influence on social media companies with regard to the sharing of views on COVID-19, Kulldorff expressed that the government “should not at all be involved” in any such influence.
While various examples have now come to light with regard to Twitter’s censorship of scientists, Kulldorff said he hopes to see the full extent of this censorship one day, such as “a summary of how many were censored, how many were blacklisted, for how long, and so on.”
He said it would also be important to know which person or people were behind the decisions to censor and whether there were people who were reporting posts to Twitter to be censored.
“Were other scientists involved in urging Twitter to censor their fellow scientists who had a different opinion?” he pondered. “And if so, to what extent, and who were those scientists?”
“I have never sent in a report to Twitter, asking them to censor a scientist with a different opinion of mine. I don’t think scientists should engage in such activity.”
Here we go, the beginning of the end of the farce.
These fake studies only serve to discredit real science. This propaganda nonsense has to stop. Lou
N = 11,270,763 Total traffic accidents
6,682 Unvaccinated, 16% Vaccinated, 84% Unvaccinated individuals 1,682 traffic crashes (25%) Equal to a 72% increased relative Confidence interval, (95%) 63% to 82% (P less than 0.001)
Dec 16, 2022
I discuss a variety of topics with Ryan Cole related to his expertise as a pathologist who specializes in COVID injuries and death.
The most shocking thing revealed in this video is that the CDC could easily determine how many people have likely been killed by the vaccine, but they are not interested in instructing the medical examiners on how to look for vaccine-related deaths both during the exam and after the exam.
We have 14,000 deaths that should be investigated and the government should compensate those victims. It’s a simple test. They won’t do it.
Why isn’t the CDC having 100 cases stained as specified by Dr. Cole? Then we can find out for sure if none of these deaths was vaccine-related or all of them. Doesn’t the CDC want to know?
They are not interested in contacting Dr. Cole for details.
Their mission is to vaccinate people and to look the other way when it comes to safety.
We talk about vaccine injury, what causes it, how to treat it, and why doctors cannot see it. All their tests come up negative. Dr. Cole explains why.
At this point, the garbage propaganda being perpetuated by these imbeciles pretending to be journalists or scientists is horrifying. They are just following orders, just like the guards in the camps. Useless human beings.
“A new study from Sunnybrook scientists suggests an underlying hesitancy to get vaccinated against COVID-19 may be associated with increased risks of traffic accidents..The study found unvaccinated adults accounted for 1,682 traffic crashes (25%)” That means 75% were vaccinated
Tales from the Conspiratum 
