By all means let us all bow down in deference before the Great God of academese buzz words. Or maybe not.HouseMD wrote: ↑January 15th, 2023, 12:32 pmI saw a lot of people die or nearly die of COVID that were under 65. The majority were unvaccinated people in their 40s and 50s that were smokers or diabetics, but some were just really unlucky- had one kid that was on ECMO for months that was a healthy first responder. He ultimately lived, but his lungs were so ravaged he'll never be able to do his work again. I'm not doing your work for you, if you don't know how to do a basic google scholar or pubmed search I don't know what to tell you. And I can't provide you with the preliminary data as it is unpublished and I don't have the legal rights to release it (academic medicine is a legal minefield when it comes to publishing rights, but you can request personal copies of prelim data for analysis to assess for data integrity), but I've run various regression analyses and evaluations to assess for unusual variances to determine the data is, in fact, legitimate. You could reach out to any of the authors of any of the papers you find and request the preliminary data yourself and probably get it like I did, but I doubt you've got the calculus and statistics background to actually do anything with itgsjackson wrote: ↑January 15th, 2023, 12:03 pmWell, we've got... what ... about 50 pages of anecdotes just in this thread, including my own -- four jab deaths, two strokes. Feel free to cite the countervailing data, on the off chance that somebody here can understand it, maybe even Cornfed with his biology degree.
Did you see anybody at all under Medicare age -- 65 -- "die of covid?" The Medicare patients came with the $13K bonuses provided by Uncle Sam, with another $39K if they were put on the death ventilators. Did you see anybody at all "die of covid" who was not on a ventilator?
Since you won't summarize the data you're invoking, or even provide a hint as to what it deals with, let alone provide a citation so that we can look at it ourselves, I guess we are to assume that it is some sort of study that assesses outcomes of people who had a positive PCR test beginning in 2021 -- in some country? the world? -- and compares it to outcomes in 2020.
First problem there, as has been discussed so many times here, there and everywhere, is the validity of the PCR test. I've seen studies that show an over 90 percent false positive rate. And when the cycle rate is dialed up to over 35, as it was often by financially incentivized hospitals, the results are meaningless, as even Fauci admitted in one of his rare moments of inadvertent candor.
And then there's the problem of the "covid" environment after the "vaccines" were introduced. For most of that time the great bogeyman was the "omicron variant," which data showed to be little more than a head cold. Most of the highly vulnerable elderly had been killed off by that time by the ventilators -- a 94 percent death rate when they were used, I believe, -- and even venal hospital administrators by 2021 must have realized that gravy train had to end.
For a lot of reasons any such study purporting to find better covid outcomes after the vaccines were introduced is going to be highly problematic.
Dr Fauci is the new Josef Mengele. He should be promptly executed for financing and developing the "gain of function" of the COVID 19.