I saw it was long and only now got around to reading it. At least this guy is a real doctor, not part of the mass hysteria crowd. I looked for evidence he is also a research scientist but didn't find it if it does exist. (Not spending too much time on it.) I did see he came across the Ioannidis seroprevalence study and was hesitant to argue against it as Ioannidis is one of the most published and cited epidemiologists in history.
The importance of this study (and other covid-19 seroprevalence studies) in the early days was to learn if the virus was risk stratified, and if so the percent of death according to risk stratification, and looking for the prevalence of antibodies across the entire population.
Covid-19 is/was very risk stratified, as is now clear, affecting mostly the elderly, whose immune systems are weaker for two reasons, age, and in addition poor lifestyle choices (which is more common in the US than any other developed world population).
The risk of death from infection was much lower in middle age, and a statistical zero in children under age about 14 (if I recall the exact age). So resistance to the virus is a smooth plot according to age and immune system strength.
On a side note "Immune System" is a bit of a misnomer, there is no specific anatomical system for immunity, the entire body is involved , to varying degrees.
What are the 12 systems of the human body?
They are Integumentary System, Skeletal System, Muscular System, Nervous System, Endocrine System, Cardiovascular System, Lymphatic System, Respiratory System, Digestive System, Urinary System, and Reproductive System (Female and Male).
These seroprevalence studies, along with other established pandemic science, are the entire rationale for protecting the elderly, allowing children to stay in school, not giving vaccines to children under 12, and allowing the middle aged to continue work activities according to personal choice.
There were no independent studies at that point for the safety and efficacy of the new mRNA tech, and none of the three authors of the GB Declaration have ever been "antivaxx" in any way.
Some call any resistance to any vaccine "antivaxx", a completely anti-science stance. Many vaccines in history have been withdrawn for safety reasons. The only bodies saying vaccines are universally safe and effective are the profiteers. I'm surprised when rational people agree with that bias.
These studies also demonstrated the virus was spreading very quickly, much too quickly to stop in its tracks. It became clear then what we know now, basically every one has been exposed, and the majority to the point of symptoms.
And standard epidemiological science is that viral pandemics are a natural disaster. We cannot stop volcanos, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc, and pandemics. We can however use science to reduce destructivity, with risk stratification etc.
Zero Covid was an invention of some marketing department, or at best, wishful thinking.
And the rationales for a total lock down and vaccines for everyone are an invention of BigP. The vaers vaccine injury system alone is sufficient evidence the roll out would have been stopped early in previous years on the basis of safety concerns. And now we have independent studies coming in from around the globe confirming significant safety issues.
The US Vaers reporting system (vaccine adverse event reporting system), and similar systems in nearly every country across the globe, suggest mRNA vaccine tech is quite dangerous relative to the commonly accepted standards for vaccine safety.
Finally a note about "studies" done by or for BigP (you've heard this before) are completely invalid on that one point alone - profit bias is "built in". Other biases are the participation of anyone involved with any kind of drug development invalidates studies. The only medical studies that can be trusted are completely independent. These are the only studies I pay attention to, and by that measure we've suffered ongoing censorship of medical information for at least a decade prior to the pandemic.
A lot of people that do follow independent studies re the pandemic are saying this has been a crime against humanity. In my opinion it has not risen to that level, but censorship of real scientific debate, censorship of information, ignoring basic epidemiological science, and mandates enforced by loss of livelihood, approach that level. What remains to be seen is the sum result of independent studies of vaccine related injury/death rates, and those studies are being done, but not by the pharma industry...no surprise there.
Meanwhile what happened during the pandemic is potentially still happening...the all cause mortality rates across most of the globe in 2022 and 2023 are off the chart, while deaths from covid ave fallen to an effective nil. In the developed west (where BigP is in control of legislative bodies) there is massive resistance to looking into this issue.
Meanwhile my point of view is not a rush to judgement, and patience.
I will also say I do not understand why all things pandemic were politicized liberal and conservative. That to me says neither side should be listened to.
Let's continue to listen to independent research scientists.
Fortunately full censorship of the global internet is as yet not possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment