Richard D. Wolff@profwolff Reality check. GDP growth in 2020: US growth was negative (-2.8%) & China's positive (+2.2%). 2021: US grew 5.9% & China 8.1%. 2022: US grew 2.0% & China 3%. Covid in US killed 1.1M & in China it killed 18K. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas...m_campaign=newsletter_axioschina&stream=china https://www.conference-board.org/research/us-forecast#:~:text=This outlook is associated with,to 1.7 percent in 2024. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality How does mortality differ across countries? One of the most important ways to measure the burden of COVID-19 is mortality. Countries throughout the world have reported very different case fatality ratios – the number of deaths divided by the number of confirmed cases. Differences in mortality numbers can be caused by: Differences in the number of people tested: With more testing, more people with milder cases are identified. This lowers the case-fatality ratio. Demographics: For example, mortality tends to be higher in older populations. Characteristics of the healthcare system: For example, mortality may rise as hospitals become overwhelmed and have fewer resources. Other factors, many of which remain unknown.
It's remarkable how temporal correlation becomes proof and where. From a scientific POV it is clear. Only proper diagnostics including labs can determine long COVID. Anything else remains temporal correlation. And only properly designed studies can deliver proof, generally. You either have to find SARS-COV-2 specific auto antibodies attacking other receptors needed for proper body functions or parts of the virus left which poke the immune system.(Found there / within specific cells where they can poke it.) But even if found those you have to differentiate if the cause was a natural infection or the vaccination. We all know the mRNA is a blueprint to make a part of the virus, the S protein, which is alone capable of doing both as well!!! Those tests are still specific and only specialized labs can do them. Here for instance: https://www.celltrend.de/en/pots-cfs-me-sfn/important-publications/ If you find nothing 'left' what would conclude a previous SARS-COV-2 infection (or vaccination) then one cannot prove long COVID at all... Leaving now the scientific POV and moving to MSM logic we see a completely different picture. Temporal correlation becomes proof there where it fits to their narrative and is strictly denied as a proof where it does not fit! Being exhausted a longer time after being tested positive for COVID (temporal correlation) = long COVID (proof). No labs done, no exclusion to the vaccine spike etc etc., no tests for other pathogens, other inflammation processes. Suffering from myocarditis and other severe 'events' such as GB syndrome AND symptoms which belong also to the set of long COVID symptoms after vaccination (temporal correlation) ≠ vaccine (proof). A statistic that shows less hospitalisations after vaccination (temporal correlation) = proof. No other factors for instance Omicron variants are taken into account, no study available where the vaccines explicitly have been tested against hospitalisations...mostly due to the fact that the control has been eliminated by the mass vaccinations. By posting that I do not say it is the one or other way! I simply demonstrate how temporal correlation becomes easily proof and where.
C'mon, Yen, most of these people were tested and had it and some couldn't recover, some for more than a year, some never... Some even died, whereas with their usual preexisting conditions they could have coped with their usual medication... We know the C-19 virus attacks the brain, lungs, heart, kidneys... Or do you want to negate that, too? We know it may subvert our immunity system... We know long Covid exists. But we now want to nitpick, right... A few cases left or right.. OK, when one really wants to "prove" one's preconceived ideas - what's to stop one...?
About a year+ ago I was listening to the radio and a 30+ executive director of a serious company called in, some 10 months after the outbreak, having the most miserable time of her life, not knowing if she'll be able to recover from long-Covid, as she couldn't return to her high-rolling, demanding job, since she couldn't concentrate as before, she was forgetful, functioning in a haze, seriously tired, not being able to breathe, a short walk would exhaust her etc. All the "little things" that are now conveniently "forgotten", as if they never happened, as if they do not happen, as if we're all dumb... She was on her way to France, for some high-powered exec skiing holidays but her flight was too early, so she had to sleep at the airport. That evening, 7 flights from Wuhan landed and a lot of the Chinese also went to her hotel... The UK Tory (conservative) gov knew about the issues and did nothing. They knew by then that the Chinese did not want to acknowledge the virus' nasty nature and numbers etc. Every serious country criticised them for it and yet, being a totalitarian society they didn't want to know... But we all knew by then (Christmas period) and many ignored it, many on purpose, as it is difficult to react when you're in Gov... The double whammy we in the UK had was thanx to our idiotic govs: too slow to react at first and then too quick to remove the measures too soon - in part or in full etc. My wife, prior to that, worked for the EU centre for disease prevention and control, so I followed it closely, plus I continued later on...
It's not about nitpicking. It's about fundamental correlations and how they become proof. Each EUA has to be evaluated about if it is still justified! This means the risk benefit analyses have to be done dynamically as new data evolve. Consider... ALL the vaccines still contain the blueprint to make the ORIGINAL Wuhan hu-1 spike!!!! So naturally the original virus is gone already ONLY the vaccines are responsible that original parts are still present in human body and are still made every day!!! AND we know that Wuhan hu1 was the most dangerous variant!!! (Not to speak about that THIS part actually comes from a lab as a product of gain of function research). So when you constantly mention how bad long COVID is / was then it also MUST be clarified which part of ('longer') suffering comes from the fact that people still have to make the most toxic Wuhan hu-1 spike by vaccination!!! (AKA vaccine adverse events)... Even German MSM (ZDF) reported about "Long COVID after vaccination" CFS, circulatory disorders after vaccine: How people suffer from vaccine adverse events...Fatigue-Syndrom, Durchblutungsstörungen: Wie Menschen unter Impfnebenwirkungen leiden - YouTube OK now something to learn and evaluate oneself. We all have an idea how the vaccines are / were...and the UK is known to have proper scientific data. I have chosen 2 values... So now make a guess (to check if your picture of the vaccines matches reality): What do you think, how many people do you need to vaccinate (especially here the autumn boost 2022) to prevent ONE severe hospitalization? In the age group 20 to 29? And as comparison in the age group 70+ Think about it, note it down before you click the spoiler and compare. Spoiler: click me At the group 20-29 you have to vaccinate 706,500 people to prevent one serious hospitalization! At the group 70+ you have to vaccinate 7,500 people to prevent one serious hospitalization! Here some more for your curiosity. Spoiler: more data Code: Calculation of numbers needed to vaccinate (NNV) Table 3: NNV for prevention of hospitalisation for different programmes. In brackets for prevention of severe hospitalisations. 20 – 29 Years, Autumn booster No risk group, 169,200 (706,500) In a risk group, 7,500 (59,500) 50 – 59 Years, Autumn booster No risk group, 43,600 (256,400) In a risk group, 3,100 (18,600) 60 – 69 years, Autumn booster 3,600 (27,300) 70 + Autumn booster 800 (7,500) The lowest value found is btw 800. Keep 800 in mind! Appendix 1: estimation of number needed to vaccinate to prevent a COVID-19 hospitalisation for primary vaccination, booster vaccination (3rd dose), autumn 2022 and spring 2023 booster for those newly in a risk group (publishing.service.gov.uk) And now compare this to the recent Pfizer / Moderna combined data analyses. I had posted this already. They found 12.5 severe adverse events per 10,000 shots, means one serious adverse event per 800 shots. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed (nih.gov) The lowest number is 800!!! This applies to the group 70+ NNV (NumbersNeededtoVaccinate) to prevent ONE hospitalization! AT any other group this value is far higher! This compares to one severe adverse event out of 800 vaccinations. So the best risk benefit ratio the vaccines still have is: They prevent ONE hospitalization while they also cause ONE severe adverse event!!! At any other group it (risk/benefit) is FAR worse! For instance at 20-29 years group you need to vaccinate 706,500 people to prevent one serious hospitalization while you have to expect 883 (706,500/800) severe vaccine adverse events at the same time!!! The risk benefit ratio there is 883 to 1 on the risk side!!!! Are you aware of this? Are you really aware of what the vaccines are taking into account???? And you are talking about nitpicking... It's not clear yet how beneficial the vaccines were. But what's clear for sure is: IF they once were beneficial they WILL turn into the opposite if we do not stop them! And if they were not beneficial at all, they never are and never will be.
New Study: How Ivermectin Kills Prostate Cancer Cells popularrationalism.substack.com/p/new-study-how-ivermectin-kills-prostate pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36050295/
Date disaster exposes big pharma, big tech, media Revelations By The Top Pfizer Executive Jordan Tristan Walker | Project Veritas theaustralian.com.au/commentary/date-disaster-exposes-big-pharma-big-tech-media/news-story/a88100c0c0d8c5308d2dafeb0b79f5bd?amp
Come on @MS_User what's the point saying a published NIH study is 1000% fake news???? Do you have enough skills to even come to that conclusion that it's fake? Here a clickable link since OP could not post links yet (his 2nd to the pubmed source he's posted) Integrated analysis reveals FOXA1 and Ku70/Ku80 as targets of ivermectin in prostate cancer - PubMed (nih.gov) You only appear being ridiculous by doing that ..even those who said IVM has no targets for COVID-19 did that better (although they were wrong, too). So tell me what is wrong at figure 8 where all mechanisms are summarized? P.S.: I respect you as member of MDL therefore a personal hint.... sometimes it is better to shut up rather than posting.
i call that intuition plus that shady link he posted .....by a member here who just created this handle to post more conspiracy and BS
Yeah, well.... The source is as it is, regardless of who has posted it. If I had found it I probably posted it, too. It's actually known that IVM also has anti-cancer activities...as you can read there as well.. "Ivermectin is a widely used antiparasitic drug and shows promising anticancer activity in various cancer types." The authors claimed that their study showed that IVM has an anti-cancer effect at prostate-cancer. Science doesn't care about how a drug has been discredited in the past AKA 'horse-dewormer'...your named conspiracy BS has been there, but you missed the 'sides'... Nobody knows if IVM will become a successful drug against prostate-cancer, but anything at science starts with results obtained from such experiments and as an conclusion an announcement as a new approach for a successful treatment has been made there. Conspiracy BS then happens if one ignores the results and bends them to fit a narrative. The same happened with IVM at COVID. Unfortunately many people were not able to look thorough that, even members of the scientific community, never-mind.
@Yen Long Covid was here long before the vaccines, so all of this is nonsense - at least up until the moment when vaccines came to the scene... Now, when vaccines hit the deck - together with measures - mortality fell and the illness was lighter for a great majority. No BS here! Revisit the numbers! I kept posting them here, excess deaths, plus deaths per day, the figures were through the roof, so please... Yes, some (small numbers) reacted badly - most substances the pharma industry makes are like that. Plus the time factor was a real significant issue... Lab origin is still a presumption - you should know better, that Science requires proof! Qualifying such statements would be preferable, if we are trying to talk seriously... As I said, if one wants to insist on one's preconceived ideas - what's to stop one... Sure, we should continue investigating and learning from it, the system must be improved. But I fear that for as long as the military and various ABC agencies are running riot in the background, the sociopathic race for dominance to the point of potential self-annihilation is on the cards... Will Humanity learn IN GOOD TIME how to disempower such a-holes is a crucial point in today's world as such and with this kind of Science in particular, given how powerful it has become!!!
I believe R2deetoo posted this link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00846-2 Sobering stuff... Stretching it to imply that vaccines are responsible is - irresponsible, to say the least, as initially vaccines were not about and Long Covid certainly was from the start! Some never recovered from it... Abstract Long COVID is an often debilitating illness that occurs in at least 10% of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. More than 200 symptoms have been identified with impacts on multiple organ systems. At least 65 million individuals worldwide are estimated to have long COVID, with cases increasing daily. Biomedical research has made substantial progress in identifying various pathophysiological changes and risk factors and in characterizing the illness; further, similarities with other viral-onset illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome have laid the groundwork for research in the field. In this Review, we explore the current literature and highlight key findings, the overlap with other conditions, the variable onset of symptoms, long COVID in children and the impact of vaccinations. Although these key findings are critical to understanding long COVID, current diagnostic and treatment options are insufficient, and clinical trials must be prioritized that address leading hypotheses. Additionally, to strengthen long COVID research, future studies must account for biases and SARS-CoV-2 testing issues, build on viral-onset research, be inclusive of marginalized populations and meaningfully engage patients throughout the research process. Introduction Long COVID (sometimes referred to as ‘post-acute sequelae of COVID-19’) is a multisystemic condition comprising often severe symptoms that follow a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. At least 65 million individuals around the world have long COVID, based on a conservative estimated incidence of 10% of infected people and more than 651 million documented COVID-19 cases worldwide1; the number is likely much higher due to many undocumented cases. The incidence is estimated at 10–30% of non-hospitalized cases, 50–70% of hospitalized cases2,3 and 10–12% of vaccinated cases4,5. Long COVID is associated with all ages and acute phase disease severities, with the highest percentage of diagnoses between the ages of 36 and 50 years, and most long COVID cases are in non-hospitalized patients with a mild acute illness6, as this population represents the majority of overall COVID-19 cases. There are many research challenges, as outlined in this Review, and many open questions, particularly relating to pathophysiology, effective treatments and risk factors. Hundreds of biomedical findings have been documented, with many patients experiencing dozens of symptoms across multiple organ systems7 (Fig. 1). Long COVID encompasses multiple adverse outcomes, with common new-onset conditions including cardiovascular, thrombotic and cerebrovascular disease8, type 2 diabetes9, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)10,11 and dysautonomia, especially postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)12 (Fig. 2). Symptoms can last for years13, and particularly in cases of new-onset ME/CFS and dysautonomia are expected to be lifelong14. With significant proportions of individuals with long COVID unable to return to work7, the scale of newly disabled individuals is contributing to labour shortages15. There are currently no validated effective treatments. Fig. 1: Long COVID symptoms and the impacts on numerous organs with differing pathology. The impacts of long COVID on numerous organs with a wide variety of pathology are shown. The presentation of pathologies is often overlapping, which can exacerbate management challenges. MCAS, mast cell activation syndrome; ME/CFS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome; POTS, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.
No, it's no nonsense. You completely missed my argument. Of course long COVID was here before the vaccines. My argument IS: The vaccines contain a blueprint to make a part of the original virus, the S protein! The S protein alone is capable of causing long COVID. The virus has weakened constantly from Wuhan hu1 to Omicron. But still the vaccines have a blueprint to make the original spike! CFS and circular disorders are known vaccine adverse events. Both symptoms belong to the set of symptoms of long covid. Most of the people having long COVID are also vaccinated. A proper differentiation is mostly never made. Anecdotal 'evidence' is mostly made like: Anything is assigned to the illness without proper scientific evaluation. There is actually nothing to improve. It should be applied what science has already!! Anything is there at science already. When we have data clearly showing that at best the vaccines prevent one hospitalisation while they cause one serious adverse event (NNV obtained from UK data of the autumn 2022 booster) then it is a must to withdraw their EUA! Other vaccines have been withdrawn by far less! The only thing that has to be done is to verify the data, the signal is there, though. What's also already there at proper science (pharmacovigilance) is: As soon as there is a signal, withdrawal has to be ordered until it either can be confirmed or invalidated. At the latter the EUA can continue. Proof is only one means of science. To say science requires proof is BS. Science deals with a lot of other means such as theories / hypothesis, correlation, significance, etc etc.. I never said it is proven. It is the most likely hypothesis. There never will be proof. No other beta corona virus naturally found has got a furin cleavage site. All the more not one which sequence is a proprietary one (man made)! The tech to insert such a 'site' comes from the US. There is proof that the Wuhan lab has received this tech. They are capable of such inserting and they are working on gain of function research! The 'natural' origin has never been found so far. At SARS and MERS it took no long time until they found it! You have now 2 choices. Saying all that is coincidence or accepting the hypothesis as most likely fact. The a-holes why it's not happening are the capitalists making lots of money from the vaccines, the big-pharma and their moneymakers. BTW: Vit D. is now conclusive! Since its mechanism is not dependent on variants (it works systemically on the IS) there is no 'waning' to be expected nor is it unsafe! Means: Protection to get infected: RR=0.46 = 54% Protection against fatal outcome. RR= 0.49 = 51% Protection against ICU admission: RR= 0.28 = 72% Dr: Campbell shared his feelings about and I totally agree. BTW: @gorski What you have posted above ("Will Humanity learn IN GOOD TIME how to disempower such a-holes is a crucial point in today's world as such and with this kind of Science in particular, given how powerful it has become!!!") .....is no 'kind of Science'!!! It has nothing to do with Science at all. It's solely about making money!!! BTW: Congrats to all who are taking vitamin D or have taken it during the pandemic. It is a life saver. It is irresponsible, yes criminal not to have recommended it! I blame any medical authority for that!
No medical authority would or will do that, they serve to their masters interests (vaccines). The master even has a manual for its mechanism of propaganda: apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/352029/WHO-EURO-2022-3471-43230-60590-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Dr. Campbell from the video above was appalled, too. At the end of the video he remained a sort of speechless....me2. Vitamin D is very cheap, safe and effective. There is no money to make...public health is not at first place, that's the entire issue. Sad..
Yes, Yen, it's science, it's called Humanities and the part you don't know much about. Similar to "it's criminal not to have recommended vit D" - but in my area... (Btw, I was and I am using vit D all the time, in a significant dose.) But the main point: I have not missed your point/argument but I poked a big hole in it. You are pushing one aspect of the story above and beyond the story itself. Why? Preconceived ideas. And we know where you got them. You're forcing facts/phenomena to fit the preconceived ideas... "Ye shall find where ye shall search" in Biblical terms. You are sifting through reality for various bits that fit the narrative you are following... "Aha! See, I told you so..." Not very productive... P.S. Of course we need to examine all aspects of this terrible sh&te and the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should be the only guide that leads us. But we are also not naive to think that various players won't push their interests. Mine is the wellbeing of Humanity and disempowerment of sociopaths.
One more thing: the MIC is another factor. In this case, pharma ind. is not the driving force but the militarist gang of gene-bending goons!!! For power and dominance only! Not for money! These are sick, seriously and supremely sick minds!!!