Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 151
  1. #136
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,358
    Thanks (Given)
    4841
    Thanks (Received)
    4730
    Likes (Given)
    2726
    Likes (Received)
    1653
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    Just skimmed beginning, but my reaction to it and the like, "Very interesting, needs follow-up. Lots here to look into, I don't trust government either." It's a starting point, not an end.
    If this were the 1st study that pointed this way, i'd agree. but it's not.
    If other experts and docs on the ground had not already been reporting and officially labeling deaths as being caused by the shots. then i'd agree.
    It's not a start. Other studies & experts have already worked it out to their satisfaction.
    It's already out there, this is just the start of it coming above water for many people.

    Again very Similar to the smoking causes cancer situation. Many studies had proven it well enough and many doctors knew it LONG before many "official" studies started to confirm the reality for the public and most of the medical community.
    We have to remember Big Tobacco funded counter studies for decades, making the links to cancer seem Inconclusive. (free market collision)
    ("But somebody would have talked!" some did but they weren't believed for decades)
    Today Big Pharma funds most studies in GENERAL, just sayin'.
    Last edited by revelarts; 06-09-2024 at 06:43 AM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  2. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  3. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,943
    Thanks (Given)
    24240
    Thanks (Received)
    17745
    Likes (Given)
    9906
    Likes (Received)
    6371
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
    and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

    FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

    He's not being honest.
    If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
    Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
    that's all.
    He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
    But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

    the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
    Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
    not Short term rise in Strokes.
    not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
    not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
    not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
    not Crippling Neurological diseases
    etc etc etc

    He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
    He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
    But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
    Sorry.

    Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
    If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
    And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

    Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
    or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
    or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
    and leave it there.
    I think you misinterpret what fj is saying, which has much more to your presentation of your 'facts' or 'laundry list' or whatever one calls it. I personally have stopped arguing with specifics regarding issues being presented as 'science based.' Sure I have my preferences, based upon scientific method or the 'ivory tower' approach or whatever one wishes to call it. I don't expect anyone to give up their 'search for the truth' or whatever one calls it. Nor should they expect anyone else to be changing their minds based on whomever they've been following for years or believe to be the most respected and knowledgeable in any field.

    Truly it's not Covid or vaccines that I feel this way about. Same with Climate Change or Global Warming or Global Cooling or Population Bombs or Ozone Holes or whatever.

    I try to at least skim posts, I do not watch videos, the most I'd likely post is 'interesting' or 'really.' It's about all I can manage. Addressing some post about agreeing with fj, that's usually because he has written something like, 'I'm waiting for more results, but interesting.' or 'You've got to be kidding me? Why keep repeating the same?' I agree about results which has to do with further testing and replication. If someone is insisting that something is 'fact' because they've been studying/following writer/Dr for a long time and know so much more than others, (You do NOT do that), I'll probably 'like' or 'agree' because I do.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  4. Thanks fj1200 thanked this post
    Likes Mr. P liked this post
  5. #138
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,190
    Thanks (Given)
    4363
    Thanks (Received)
    4759
    Likes (Given)
    1464
    Likes (Received)
    1186
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
    and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

    FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

    He's not being honest.
    If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
    Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
    that's all.
    He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
    But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

    the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
    Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
    not Short term rise in Strokes.
    not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
    not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
    not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
    not Crippling Neurological diseases
    etc etc etc

    He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
    He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
    But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
    Sorry.

    Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
    If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
    And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

    Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
    or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
    or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
    and leave it there.
    Oh good lord. You have to be obstinately not reading what I post or purposely misreading what I post. I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported. You're wrong because you present conclusions that are not supported. You can't say that they reached any conclusion that they don't say that they reached. If it was supported I'm sure that they would have made the conclusion but the only thing that they looked at was excess deaths. If it was convincingly shown that vaccines were the issue then it would have said so and Dalgliesh and you would have pointed that out. But you can't. It's not there. Read that again please. It might be in a subsequent study when they have access to more and better information and make comparisons of specific populations against control groups but as of right now this study does not show what you keep attempting to point out as the conclusion. Whether it's the excess deaths of 47 developed countries and increased cancer deaths in Japan; those two things do not prove what you say that they do. If they did you would have posted it.

    I'm not going to address your laundry list because they are not germane to the discussion. Are they reasons that you think that these studies will eventually show that vaccines are a leading factor? Sure they are but those things are not at issue right here.

    Did the GBD attempt to draw out every single factor that should be considered and might happen? No. If they turned a 1-page declaration into a 25 page in-the-weeds paper with potentially unsupported factors then it would not have carried the weight it did IMO. IIRC they were less than one year into covid, and prior to the vaccine release, so it's folly to make it out to be more than it was.

    It would be nice if we could keep the discussion to the relevant because then you won't have to infer what I'm thinking. FWIW if I see someone relying on what I think is bad science then I will point it out. If I think there is grasping then I will point it out. Show me a relevant fact on the table and I won't dodge it. When a laundry list is presented just because I don't specifically address it doesn't mean it's not acknowledged. I just won't address the same laundry list 10 times in one thread.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  6. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
    Likes Mr. P liked this post
  7. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,943
    Thanks (Given)
    24240
    Thanks (Received)
    17745
    Likes (Given)
    9906
    Likes (Received)
    6371
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Oh good lord. You have to be obstinately not reading what I post or purposely misreading what I post. I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported. You're wrong because you present conclusions that are not supported. You can't say that they reached any conclusion that they don't say that they reached. If it was supported I'm sure that they would have made the conclusion but the only thing that they looked at was excess deaths. If it was convincingly shown that vaccines were the issue then it would have said so and Dalgliesh and you would have pointed that out. But you can't. It's not there. Read that again please. It might be in a subsequent study when they have access to more and better information and make comparisons of specific populations against control groups but as of right now this study does not show what you keep attempting to point out as the conclusion. Whether it's the excess deaths of 47 developed countries and increased cancer deaths in Japan; those two things do not prove what you say that they do. If they did you would have posted it.

    I'm not going to address your laundry list because they are not germane to the discussion. Are they reasons that you think that these studies will eventually show that vaccines are a leading factor? Sure they are but those things are not at issue right here.

    Did the GBD attempt to draw out every single factor that should be considered and might happen? No. If they turned a 1-page declaration into a 25 page in-the-weeds paper with potentially unsupported factors then it would not have carried the weight it did IMO. IIRC they were less than one year into covid, and prior to the vaccine release, so it's folly to make it out to be more than it was.

    It would be nice if we could keep the discussion to the relevant because then you won't have to infer what I'm thinking. FWIW if I see someone relying on what I think is bad science then I will point it out. If I think there is grasping then I will point it out. Show me a relevant fact on the table and I won't dodge it. When a laundry list is presented just because I don't specifically address it doesn't mean it's not acknowledged. I just won't address the same laundry list 10 times in one thread.
    I think we stated just about the same.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  8. #140
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,358
    Thanks (Given)
    4841
    Thanks (Received)
    4730
    Likes (Given)
    2726
    Likes (Received)
    1653
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    I think you misinterpret what fj is saying, which has much more to your presentation of your 'facts' or 'laundry list' or whatever one calls it. I personally have stopped arguing with specifics regarding issues being presented as 'science based.' Sure I have my preferences, based upon scientific method or the 'ivory tower' approach or whatever one wishes to call it. I don't expect anyone to give up their 'search for the truth' or whatever one calls it. Nor should they expect anyone else to be changing their minds based on whomever they've been following for years or believe to be the most respected and knowledgeable in any field.

    Truly it's not Covid or vaccines that I feel this way about. Same with Climate Change or Global Warming or Global Cooling or Population Bombs or Ozone Holes or whatever.

    I try to at least skim posts, I do not watch videos, the most I'd likely post is 'interesting' or 'really.' It's about all I can manage. Addressing some post about agreeing with fj, that's usually because he has written something like, 'I'm waiting for more results, but interesting.' or 'You've got to be kidding me? Why keep repeating the same?' I agree about results which has to do with further testing and replication. If someone is insisting that something is 'fact' because they've been studying/following writer/Dr for a long time and know so much more than others, (You do NOT do that), I'll probably 'like' or 'agree' because I do.
    Kath,
    Did I at anytime, ask FJ to Agree with me even 99%.
    Did I call him any names for not agreeing with me?

    He feels free to claim that I'm reaching, using bad science, just as bad as those that were wrong. says the experts I've pointed to are jumping to conclusions, and that they & I are wrong. That's what it looks like to him.
    Do I have the same freedom?
    I think he's wrong. I've made points to make my case WHY I think so. And pointed out that I think he's dodged facts, and pointed out that FJ LOOKS LIKE he's not open the POV that vaccines are the primary cause.
    So why do sassy & I get tarred with,
    "You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser."?

    FJ
    You have a perfect a right to be wrong.
    But You don't have a right to honestly say that all the CUMULATIVE evidence so far is NOT pointing in the direction of vaccines as the cause.
    When the case is SO MUCH so that many experts have already concluded that it is.
    At this point It seems FJ, that you are trying to narrow it down to the OPEN language of each study. Fine.
    As I said before let more studies be done.

    But I SUSPECT (my opinion) that you'll look for any opening in those that will allow you say that the excess death were primarily caused by OTHER factors.
    That's my opinion.
    But until then enjoy being wrong in general.
    Last edited by revelarts; 06-09-2024 at 08:37 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  9. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  10. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,943
    Thanks (Given)
    24240
    Thanks (Received)
    17745
    Likes (Given)
    9906
    Likes (Received)
    6371
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Kath,
    Did I at anytime, ask FJ to Agree with me even 99%.
    Did I call him any names for not agreeing with me?

    He feels free to claim that I'm reaching, using bad science, just as bad as those that were wrong. says the experts I've pointed to are jumping to conclusions, and that they & I are wrong. That's what it looks like to him.
    Do I have the same freedom?
    I think he's wrong. I've made points to make my case WHY I think so. And pointed out that I think he's dodged facts, and pointed out that FJ LOOKS LIKE he's not open the POV that vaccines are the primary cause.
    So why do sassy & I get tarred with,
    "You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser."?

    FJ
    You have a perfect a right to be wrong.
    But You don't have a right to honestly say that all the CUMULATIVE evidence so far is NOT pointing in the direction of vaccines as the cause.
    When the case is SO MUCH so that many experts have already concluded that it is.
    At this point It seems FJ, that you are trying to narrow it down to the OPEN language of each study. Fine.
    As I said before let more studies be done.

    But I SUSPECT (my opinion) that you'll look for any opening in those that will allow you say that the excess death were primarily caused by OTHER factors.
    That's my opinion.
    But until then enjoy being wrong in general.
    Because we keep getting, "I've researched and know, someday you'll catch up. Maybe." Perhaps not name calling, but if done in reverse, it's called condescending. Regardless, using the tone along with false premise, doesn't equal being correct or following 'science.'


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  11. Thanks fj1200 thanked this post
  12. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,528
    Thanks (Given)
    5603
    Thanks (Received)
    6648
    Likes (Given)
    5457
    Likes (Received)
    4045
    Piss Off (Given)
    36
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
    and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

    FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

    He's not being honest.
    If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
    Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
    that's all.
    He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
    But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

    the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
    Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
    not Short term rise in Strokes.
    not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
    not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
    not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
    not Crippling Neurological diseases
    etc etc etc

    He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
    He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
    But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
    Sorry.

    Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
    If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
    And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

    Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
    or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
    or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
    and leave it there.
    The sad thing is that all this info was available 4 years ago and got censored off the internet. Some of us saw it (like the 2 doctors from Bakersfield, or Dr. Ryan Cole) before it was taken down.

    I posted a link here to "Plandemic" at the very beginning and was told that it was just a conspiracy. Which is what the Deep State (CDC, NIH, WHO, Fauci, Brix, big pharma, government) wanted the public to believe. Keep the truth hidden and people have to believe what's allowed to be shown on MSM.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  13. Likes revelarts liked this post
  14. #143
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,190
    Thanks (Given)
    4363
    Thanks (Received)
    4759
    Likes (Given)
    1464
    Likes (Received)
    1186
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    I think we stated just about the same.
    I thought words in a different order would be helpful. Seems not.

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    FJ
    You have a perfect a right to be wrong.
    But You don't have a right to honestly say that all the CUMULATIVE evidence so far is NOT pointing in the direction of vaccines as the cause.
    When the case is SO MUCH so that many experts have already concluded that it is.
    At this point It seems FJ, that you are trying to narrow it down to the OPEN language of each study. Fine.
    As I said before let more studies be done.

    But I SUSPECT (my opinion) that you'll look for any opening in those that will allow you say that the excess death were primarily caused by OTHER factors.
    That's my opinion.
    But until then enjoy being wrong in general.
    Please tell me how I'm wrong when I've done nothing other than point out what the analysis said? Until then suspect what you like no matter the words I use nor the order I put them in. Your mind is made up.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  15. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
  16. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,358
    Thanks (Given)
    4841
    Thanks (Received)
    4730
    Likes (Given)
    2726
    Likes (Received)
    1653
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    I thought words in a different order would be helpful. Seems not.



    Please tell me how I'm wrong when I've done nothing other than point out what the analysis said?
    QUOTE=fj1200
    "I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported."

    He's not supporting his conclusions ONLY on the text of one or 2 studies. He talks about other research, his own experience and the experience of other oncologist he's been in contact with world wide.
    A laundry list of info to support his conclusion FJ.

    As i said, if you want to keep your focus on the open language of each individual study and draw no conclusions. fine.

    Enjoy.
    Last edited by revelarts; 06-10-2024 at 10:28 AM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  17. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,358
    Thanks (Given)
    4841
    Thanks (Received)
    4730
    Likes (Given)
    2726
    Likes (Received)
    1653
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075398

    Default

    interesting research for those who want to look.
    Denis Rancourt - Charts All-Cause Mortality over time - International Crisis Summit 4 - Nov 2023
    VIDEO
    https://rumble.com/v3xoina-denis-ran...15ngam&mrefc=2
    Transcript: https://tinyurl.com/5fm8wh5b

    Excerpt from transcript:
    Okay, I'm going to talk about something quite different. I'm going to talk about all-cause mortality. I'm not going to be concerned about what caused the death. We're just going to count deaths. And I'm going to show you data for Romania as well. And all of the graphs and results that I will be presenting are in several scientific reports that I've, myself and collaborators have been writing for the last three or more years. And they can be found on this website, the scientific reports. And these are my main collaborators on the all-cause mortality research. And two of them are in the room here with us. They're from Prague. And another place that I told them I wouldn't forget the name of, and I just did, I'm sorry about that, Jérémie.

    And so I want to start the historic record, almost 1900. I'll show some data starting in 1900. I'm going to start really at the beginning of COVID if you like. Now all-cause mortality, you're just counting deaths. And this is the case of France from 1946 on, just after the Second World War. And what you find everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere is that death is higher, is larger in the wintertime and it comes down in the summertime. And so it has a seasonal pattern that's very regular. This has been known for more than a hundred years. And I would argue that it's not completely understood. I would argue that it's far from completely understood, but this is what the pattern looks like by month. So we're looking at mortality by month in France. And if you integrate by year, by cycle year around each winter from summer to summer in France, it looks like this. So there can be an intense winter followed by a lower winter and so on. And the pattern looks like that.

    So since the end of the Second World War, mortality on a population basis has been decreasing mostly. And it's typically 1% of the population that dies in a given year. So this is the kind of data we're going to deal with. And that last year is the first year of the so-called pandemic. And now if we go to the USA, to give another example, I can do all-cause mortality. This is by year now for a particular age group. This is the 15 to 24 year old age group. And I've separated into male and female. So you've got the two colors there. And this graph allows us to illustrate what you can see when you measure mortality, which is a hard figure. Nobody can tell you that the government didn't count the deaths correctly because they're very serious about counting deaths and it's a legalistic process. And so this is hard data. And this is what you see.

    You see that there was an event in 1918, that event was recovered by the CDC and called the Spanish Flu. I know, and there are several scientific articles that show that this was not a viral respiratory disease. No one over 50 years old died in that huge peak of mortality. Only young adults and families and teenagers died in that peak. And the rich didn't die in that period. So that was 1918. And then in the United States you have something called the Great Depression. Huge economic collapse followed by an economic related the Dust Bowl, which was an environmental catastrophe partly. And those were the big hardships, recent hardships in the USA. And you can see the mortality there in both men and women in those periods. Then in the Second World War, you see that men have a mortality, whereas women do not. And I think we all understand why. And in the Vietnam War period, you can see that there's a hump in mortality for the men. This is what you can see in all-cause mortality.

    And so in conclusion, I've been studying all-cause mortality extensively in more than a hundred countries on all the continents except Antarctica obviously, and in great detail by unit time, by week, by day, by month, by age group, by sex. And I can tell you that the only thing you can see in all-cause mortality data are the following things. Seasonal variations, like I explained. A maximum in the winter and in the southern hemisphere it's reversed. Their winter is our summer. That's when they have a maximum of mortality. In the equatorial region, there is no seasonal variation in mortality. There's no spikes, it's a flat line. So there's seasonal variation that follows the hemispheres. You can see wars, like I mentioned. You can see economic collapses, huge economic collapses that affect populations. You can see summer heat waves in northern latitudes that are not used to having a very hot period in the summer, that kills people, sometimes because they fall down the stairs when it's really hot, but it kills people. And you can see a peak that lasts about a week in one of these hot spells....

    ...And my time's up and I didn't even get to the vaccines or Romania. So I'll just show you the Romania data. Okay. So again, this is years of work, more than 30 scientific reports about science related to COVID that you could find on my various websites, on our websites and the one I gave. And so if we look at, this is how we prove that the vaccines were actually causing the death, is that every time you rolled out a dosed, you got immediately following an excess mortality. So this is the case of Israel. So doses one and two, then the first booster, the second booster, and so on. And you can do it by age group like we're doing it here. You start with the most elderly and you go down by age....

    ..... so that's the conclusions about vaccines. So from this work, we're able to calculate how many people would've died globally, given that we've studied so many countries now and we find that 17 million people were killed by the vaccines on the planet. That's our number. And I'm going to ignore that buzzer because I want to show you Romania. This is the data for Romania by age group. This is the correlation between the vaccine roll outs in dark blue and these huge peaks in excess mortality in Romania. There's no initial peak like you see in the western countries. There's that one with the question mark that we have hypotheses about and something very horrible happened in Romania to explain that. We have ideas about it. And then you have the vaccine deaths, and the last one is the booster. And so in Romania we did a preliminary analysis of that booster and it is killing, you get one death per five or 10 injections in the 80 plus year olds in Romania from the boosters. That's our conclusion, preliminary conclusion on the Romanian data...






    Denis Rancourt speaking at The International Crisis Summit 4 on November 18, 2023.
    https://www.internationalcovidsummit.com/
    Denis has a PhD in Physics (1984, University of Toronto), is a former tenured Full Professor (University of Ottawa), and has published over one hundred articles in leading science journals. Denis’ reports and articles can be found here:
    https://correlation-canada.org/research/

    Denis Rancourt: Realities Of Health (Interesting & Important)
    https://rumble.com/v3x6q0o-denis-ran...teresting.html


    Deadly Quiet: The Wall Of Silence Surrounding Excess Deaths (A COVID-19 Documentary)
    https://rumble.com/v4k9zlw-deadly-qu...-19-docum.html
    Last edited by revelarts; 06-10-2024 at 11:10 AM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  18. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  19. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,190
    Thanks (Given)
    4363
    Thanks (Received)
    4759
    Likes (Given)
    1464
    Likes (Received)
    1186
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    "I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported."

    He's not supporting his conclusions ONLY on the text of one or 2 studies. He talks about other research, his own experience and the experience of other oncologist he's been in contact with world wide.
    A laundry list of info to support his conclusion FJ.

    As i said, if you want to keep your focus on the open language of each individual study and draw no conclusions. fine.

    Enjoy.
    He specifically mentions the Japanese study which I'm guessing is the Japanese study that you posted previously which has the same caveat that the 47 country study does. Those studies make no attempt at a control group that would be necessary to confirm actual causal relationships. If my presumption is true then his statement is wrong.

    A newly published Japanese study confirms UK Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London Angus Dalgleish’s concerns about mRNA injections causing cancer:

    "A paper was published out of Japan and it was the Japan's Office of National Statistics, which don't hide, meddle, fiddle...But it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program. They've correlated it absolutely beautifully.
    If he bases it on other research then he can reference his other research. If he wants to base it on his experiences and others experiences then he can say he has concerns but should acknowledge that his experience is anecdotal. Don't tell me that I'm somehow focusing on "open language" when you're pouncing on any language that even slightly resembles support for your viewpoint. The problem with your laundry lists you like to post is that you post them as proven whether they are or not and sometimes they are just relevant to the discussion.

    My focus is on supportable statements not knee jerk reactions.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  20. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,823
    Thanks (Given)
    745
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    1152
    Likes (Received)
    834
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203904

    Default

    I have a very vivid mental image of a dog chasing its tail.
    Just sayin.
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  21. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
    Likes fj1200, revelarts liked this post
  22. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,358
    Thanks (Given)
    4841
    Thanks (Received)
    4730
    Likes (Given)
    2726
    Likes (Received)
    1653
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075398

    Default

    For those who are interested
    "Using official government data for deaths in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022, former BlackRock portfolio manager Ed Dowd and his partners at Phinance Technologies found that excess death rates from cardiovascular diseases were up 13% in 2020, 30% in 2021, and 44% in 2022, which "point to a worrying picture of an even greater acceleration in coming years of deaths & disabilities."
    "What's more, they found that "deaths per year from cardiovascular diseases had been trending lower from 2010 to
    2019, with a significant downward slope," until 2020, when the trend reversed. They also found that in 2022, men began outpacing women in cardiovascular diseases."
    https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/ex...ens-aged-15-44

    But don't jump to conclusions... some studies should be done.
    Maybe it's Vaping
    Last edited by revelarts; 06-10-2024 at 05:32 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  23. Thanks Black Diamond thanked this post
  24. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,190
    Thanks (Given)
    4363
    Thanks (Received)
    4759
    Likes (Given)
    1464
    Likes (Received)
    1186
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173686

    Default

    These are extreme events that we believe need a thorough investigation.
    Very true.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  25. #150
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,358
    Thanks (Given)
    4841
    Thanks (Received)
    4730
    Likes (Given)
    2726
    Likes (Received)
    1653
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075398

    Default

    Another study

    DNA Contamination in Pfizer COVID Vaccine Exceeded 500 Times Allowable Levels, Study Finds

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...owable-levels/

    https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/7/3/41
    ...2. Conclusions
    The available information and data indicate that the ready-to-use mRNA vaccine Comirnaty contains DNA impurities that exceed the permitted limit value by several hundred times and, in some cases, even more than 500 times, and that this went unnoticed because the DNA quantification carried out as part of batch testing only at the active substance level appears to be methodologically inadequate when using qPCR, as explained above. Because of the conditions during the production of the mRNA active substance of Comirnaty, the applied qPCR is designed so that a massive under-detection of DNA impurities appears to be the result. Here, we have to remember that qPCR is matchless if specific DNA sequences are being quantified, but this is not the case if the aim is the quantification of the total DNA content. However, DNA contamination in Comirnaty is about total DNA, regardless of the sequences that it contains. Accordingly, it can be assumed that a fluorescence spectrometric measurement of the total DNA in the end product, analogous to the quantification of the mRNA active ingredient, a process that is, in fact, carried out in the end product, is not associated with a risk of under-detecting DNA contaminations but rather provides reliable values and thus satisfies the required level of drug safety.
    Against this background, experimental testing of the total DNA contained in the ready-to-use diluted vaccine Comirnaty® via fluorescence spectrometric measurement, which is to be carried out by the authorities as part of the legal mandate for official batch testing, appears to be essential. Why this was systematically omitted by the European control laboratories according to the statements by the German Federal Government cited above should therefore be the subject of extensive expert discussions and reconsiderations.
    Further, it should also be taken into account that DNA impurities in Comirnaty® are apparently integrated into the lipid nanoparticles and are thus transported directly into the cells of a vaccinated person, just like the mRNA active ingredient. What this means for the safety risks, particularly the possible integration of this DNA into the human genome, i.e., the risk of insertional mutagenesis, should be a secondary focus of the discussion required, which must go far beyond what could have been considered years before the so unexpected introduction of mRNA pharmaceuticals into the global market....
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums