FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Hmmm, I thought you were a fan of logic a few posts ago...

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

Although I suppose in the case of SARS-Cov-2 it should be called non-survivorship bias.

What loop of logic links my post to yours? are you going off on some tangent that you want to because I can't see the link.

Some people have thought they were healthy enough to survive Covid with no effects, and some have died. As I have used the word 'some' it implies that there are others that may have had health issues.

Clearly the fact that 'some' very healthy people have gotten ill or even died suggests that no one knows if it is going to affect them in a bad way or not. Its your roll of the dice, go for it.

Sure, and SOME people who want to become rockstars actually make it, many thousands don't.

If you can't follow the logic in that, well, it explains a lot really.

hah! Hilarious, you are a tool and you don't even realise why. I think I know why you are a tool, but you are probably not sure yourself.

After just trying to lecture me on survivor-bias, you are basing your chances of survival on the ones that survive Covid with no legacy issues.... because they have survived. Survivor-bias. Hah!

Uh, survivor-bias is when you present a view based on the minority result.
So, good work, you just backed up my statement on your logical fallacy.
Or are you trying to say that most people who get SARS-COV-2 die?

What's that? You based your 'counter arguement' on the word 'survivor'?
You need to sort out your comprehension skills, or stop drinking, grandpa.

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Hmmm, I thought you were a fan of logic a few posts ago...

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

Although I suppose in the case of SARS-Cov-2 it should be called non-survivorship bias.

What loop of logic links my post to yours? are you going off on some tangent that you want to because I can't see the link.

Some people have thought they were healthy enough to survive Covid with no effects, and some have died. As I have used the word 'some' it implies that there are others that may have had health issues.

Clearly the fact that 'some' very healthy people have gotten ill or even died suggests that no one knows if it is going to affect them in a bad way or not. Its your roll of the dice, go for it.

Sure, and SOME people who want to become rockstars actually make it, many thousands don't.

If you can't follow the logic in that, well, it explains a lot really.

hah! Hilarious, you are a tool and you don't even realise why. I think I know why you are a tool, but you are probably not sure yourself.

After just trying to lecture me on survivor-bias, you are basing your chances of survival on the ones that survive Covid with no legacy issues.... because they have survived. Survivor-bias. Hah!

Uh, survivor-bias is when you present a view based on the minority result.
So, good work, you just backed up my statement on your logical fallacy.
Or are you trying to say that most people who get SARS-COV-2 die?

What's that? You based your 'counter arguement' on the word 'survivor'?
You need to sort out your comprehension skills, or stop drinking, grandpa.

Well, given that you started it by quoting Wiki text... surprisingly exact word for word but without actually quoting it, I can quote it for you too. This time I can leave in the part that you chose to leave out. (Poor form using something word for word without even representing it as taken from somewhere else too...)

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

"Another example of a distinct mode of survivorship bias would be thinking that an incident was not as dangerous as it was because everyone communicated with afterwards survived. Even if one knew that some people are dead, they would not have their voice to add to the conversation, leading to bias in the conversation."

You have totally missed the meaning. Totally. Survivor-bias is not on the minority, it is just a bias because you have effectively filtered out people or things that did not get through. It could be the minority or it could be the majority.

I can't believe you read the wiki page, partly quoted it word for word, and still don't understand it. Maybe you should stay away from using your own words?

^^^^The generator for power on Christmas island turns off at midnight so he wont reply till its back on in the morning, as long as the boat arrives with fuel for the generator tomorrow.

As a AZ vaXXinated, I can answer this Japie. Unfortunately I don't have any links or memes as my response is based on the actual experience.

1. Four pages/duplicates of signing off on medical history, medicare#, confirm who you are etc... Signed consent is required to proceed to GO.
2. There is no discussion about possible, hypothetical or even dystopian outcomes. I doubt they had time for a chin wag as they were busy working. Just polite conversation, a quick jab and for me, went to the local and had a beer.
3. Turn around was less than an hour.

To be honest, most people in the facility appeared rather jovial. When my Prodigy-Breathe ring tone went off, some fellow humans looked over and we did a seated mini-mosh, head bang. Good times...

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Hmmm, I thought you were a fan of logic a few posts ago...

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

Although I suppose in the case of SARS-Cov-2 it should be called non-survivorship bias.

What loop of logic links my post to yours? are you going off on some tangent that you want to because I can't see the link.

Some people have thought they were healthy enough to survive Covid with no effects, and some have died. As I have used the word 'some' it implies that there are others that may have had health issues.

Clearly the fact that 'some' very healthy people have gotten ill or even died suggests that no one knows if it is going to affect them in a bad way or not. Its your roll of the dice, go for it.

Sure, and SOME people who want to become rockstars actually make it, many thousands don't.

If you can't follow the logic in that, well, it explains a lot really.

hah! Hilarious, you are a tool and you don't even realise why. I think I know why you are a tool, but you are probably not sure yourself.

After just trying to lecture me on survivor-bias, you are basing your chances of survival on the ones that survive Covid with no legacy issues.... because they have survived. Survivor-bias. Hah!

Uh, survivor-bias is when you present a view based on the minority result.
So, good work, you just backed up my statement on your logical fallacy.
Or are you trying to say that most people who get SARS-COV-2 die?

What's that? You based your 'counter arguement' on the word 'survivor'?
You need to sort out your comprehension skills, or stop drinking, grandpa.

Well, given that you started it by quoting Wiki text... surprisingly exact word for word but without actually quoting it, I can quote it for you too. This time I can leave in the part that you chose to leave out. (Poor form using something word for word without even representing it as taken from somewhere else too...)

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

"Another example of a distinct mode of survivorship bias would be thinking that an incident was not as dangerous as it was because everyone communicated with afterwards survived. Even if one knew that some people are dead, they would not have their voice to add to the conversation, leading to bias in the conversation."

You have totally missed the meaning. Totally. Survivor-bias is not on the minority, it is just a bias because you have effectively filtered out people or things that did not get through. It could be the minority or it could be the majority.

I can't believe you read the wiki page, partly quoted it word for word, and still don't understand it. Maybe you should stay away from using your own words?

It's good that I could teach you something finally.

Doesn't change the fact that you are the one who it applies to more; you're the one focusing on the minuscule amount of people who have died, as a comparison to all those that have caught the virus.
Yeah yeah, get your hand off it, a lot of people have died globally, but as a percentage of all that have caught it, it is still much more likely for someone to get over it than die.

Good try at twisting it though. Well no it it wasn't.
Try again grandpa.

lotofwind said..
^^^^The generator for power on Christmas island turns off at midnight so he wont reply till its back on in the morning, as long as the boat arrives with fuel for the generator tomorrow.

Yeah nah, the generator stays on, but if we don't go to bed we won't get our rations the next day.
But then none of us want to stay up reading this thread all night with our hand on it like you do.

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Hmmm, I thought you were a fan of logic a few posts ago...

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

Although I suppose in the case of SARS-Cov-2 it should be called non-survivorship bias.

What loop of logic links my post to yours? are you going off on some tangent that you want to because I can't see the link.

Some people have thought they were healthy enough to survive Covid with no effects, and some have died. As I have used the word 'some' it implies that there are others that may have had health issues.

Clearly the fact that 'some' very healthy people have gotten ill or even died suggests that no one knows if it is going to affect them in a bad way or not. Its your roll of the dice, go for it.

Sure, and SOME people who want to become rockstars actually make it, many thousands don't.

If you can't follow the logic in that, well, it explains a lot really.

hah! Hilarious, you are a tool and you don't even realise why. I think I know why you are a tool, but you are probably not sure yourself.

After just trying to lecture me on survivor-bias, you are basing your chances of survival on the ones that survive Covid with no legacy issues.... because they have survived. Survivor-bias. Hah!

Uh, survivor-bias is when you present a view based on the minority result.
So, good work, you just backed up my statement on your logical fallacy.
Or are you trying to say that most people who get SARS-COV-2 die?

What's that? You based your 'counter arguement' on the word 'survivor'?
You need to sort out your comprehension skills, or stop drinking, grandpa.

Well, given that you started it by quoting Wiki text... surprisingly exact word for word but without actually quoting it, I can quote it for you too. This time I can leave in the part that you chose to leave out. (Poor form using something word for word without even representing it as taken from somewhere else too...)

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

"Another example of a distinct mode of survivorship bias would be thinking that an incident was not as dangerous as it was because everyone communicated with afterwards survived. Even if one knew that some people are dead, they would not have their voice to add to the conversation, leading to bias in the conversation."

You have totally missed the meaning. Totally. Survivor-bias is not on the minority, it is just a bias because you have effectively filtered out people or things that did not get through. It could be the minority or it could be the majority.

I can't believe you read the wiki page, partly quoted it word for word, and still don't understand it. Maybe you should stay away from using your own words?

It's good that I could teach you something finally.

Doesn't change the fact that you are the one who it applies to more; you're the one focusing on the minuscule amount of people who have died, as a comparison to all those that have caught the virus.
Yeah yeah, get your hand off it, a lot of people have died globally, but as a percentage of all that have caught it, it is still much more likely for someone to get over it than die.

Good try at twisting it though. Well no it it wasn't.
Try again grandpa.

So, in summary you said:

" I used something and I really didn't understand what I was saying "

" but I taught you something finally "


No, you didn't teach me anything. I already figured out you were a fool.

I hope 'twisting it' is like 'wall of text', i.e. clever use of logic that you have no hope of understanding.

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Take a look at the data on infection fatality rates from Stanford. Across 32 different locations the median infection fatality rate was .27%. Less than 3 people in 1000,

Medication using the irrefutably effective protocols established by doctors worldwide reduce that by between 74 and 86%. Less than one person in 1000.

We know that those chaps that die usually have co morbidities. Vitamin D deficiency, Zinc, diabetes, stuffing your face disease etc..

I have none of those, I've cycled over 200 K's in the past week and run over 20.

I don't THINK it is not an issue for me,

I know it is not.

Oh and I have a box of ivermectin in my desk drawer!

Japie, which one of these do you think was not as fit as you, and which ones do you think might have been fitter than you?

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/super-fit-twin-brother-dies-of-covid-after-refusing-covid-jab/news-story/53bc99404607526f007514148f794aea

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/influencer-33-who-thought-covid-didnt-exist-dies-after-catching-the-virus/news-story/56dc92f704419cf0bcd2bf8f9ef4392d

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-australia-researchers-warn-of-longterm-covid19-side-effects/news-story/65bc5e986281d6e0fbb690d3513a5369

I'm not as fit as most of them, so I will stick to the vaccine.

Unlike you I have only done about 120kms on the bike in the last week, and I hate running. I am not sure how many kms on the bike will keep me 'Covid immune', so I will take my chance with the jab.

Ivermectin mate. Ivermectin

Prophylaxis

This situation we are in and look like being in in perpetuity could be but a distant memory had we taken the medicate instead of vaccinate route.

I have mentioned this before,... prophylaxis... you need to use it before catching Covid, so how is it going to do you any good in your desk drawer? I am going to ignore the dosage required to show any effect, but that's between you and your life.

You are taking Ivermectin now? If not, why not, and why the mention of prophylaxis? If you are taking it, good luck.

Right from the get go the WHO's recommendation for anyone who caught Covid was stay at home until you turn blue then present to the hospital.

Because it is novel and cannot be treated.

Fortunately for them many people have been saved from a pretty nasty death by a small percentage of doctors who realised that this advice was utter nonsense. They treated Covid for what it is as they had experience with respiratory diseases and through trial and error they have become world experts in its treatment.

The treatment is simple and efficient. Early diagnosis and intervention improves the success rate exponentially. Funny how that works. Pretty much a standard for any medical condition.
Unless you listen to the WHO.

If you follow WHO guidelines you get a much better fatality rate.
The doctors who have promoted their knowledge have been roundly criticised by government agencies and mainstream media.

If that doesn't ring warning bells for you then you're seriously lacking in comprehension.

I know why this has happened and it is really simple to deduce.
The "vaccines" were given emergency authorisation on the basis that there was no alternative.
That narrative had to be maintained.

So there has been an all out attempt to keep the knowledge from spreading.

But the truth has the habit of spreading which is why there is so much distrust of the people promoting the "vaccines".

What has this got to do with the question I asked, or was it just a convenient place to put your rant on emergency use of vaccines?

Me, comprehension? Did you read my question? I asked you if you were taking Ivermectin, and taking it now, i.e. as in using it as a prophylaxis.

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Take a look at the data on infection fatality rates from Stanford. Across 32 different locations the median infection fatality rate was .27%. Less than 3 people in 1000,

Medication using the irrefutably effective protocols established by doctors worldwide reduce that by between 74 and 86%. Less than one person in 1000.

We know that those chaps that die usually have co morbidities. Vitamin D deficiency, Zinc, diabetes, stuffing your face disease etc..

I have none of those, I've cycled over 200 K's in the past week and run over 20.

I don't THINK it is not an issue for me,

I know it is not.

Oh and I have a box of ivermectin in my desk drawer!

Japie, which one of these do you think was not as fit as you, and which ones do you think might have been fitter than you?

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/super-fit-twin-brother-dies-of-covid-after-refusing-covid-jab/news-story/53bc99404607526f007514148f794aea

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/influencer-33-who-thought-covid-didnt-exist-dies-after-catching-the-virus/news-story/56dc92f704419cf0bcd2bf8f9ef4392d

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-australia-researchers-warn-of-longterm-covid19-side-effects/news-story/65bc5e986281d6e0fbb690d3513a5369

I'm not as fit as most of them, so I will stick to the vaccine.

Unlike you I have only done about 120kms on the bike in the last week, and I hate running. I am not sure how many kms on the bike will keep me 'Covid immune', so I will take my chance with the jab.

Ivermectin mate. Ivermectin

Prophylaxis

This situation we are in and look like being in in perpetuity could be but a distant memory had we taken the medicate instead of vaccinate route.

I have mentioned this before,... prophylaxis... you need to use it before catching Covid, so how is it going to do you any good in your desk drawer? I am going to ignore the dosage required to show any effect, but that's between you and your life.

You are taking Ivermectin now? If not, why not, and why the mention of prophylaxis? If you are taking it, good luck.

Right from the get go the WHO's recommendation for anyone who caught Covid was stay at home until you turn blue then present to the hospital.

Because it is novel and cannot be treated.

Fortunately for them many people have been saved from a pretty nasty death by a small percentage of doctors who realised that this advice was utter nonsense. They treated Covid for what it is as they had experience with respiratory diseases and through trial and error they have become world experts in its treatment.

The treatment is simple and efficient. Early diagnosis and intervention improves the success rate exponentially. Funny how that works. Pretty much a standard for any medical condition.
Unless you listen to the WHO.

If you follow WHO guidelines you get a much better fatality rate.
The doctors who have promoted their knowledge have been roundly criticised by government agencies and mainstream media.

If that doesn't ring warning bells for you then you're seriously lacking in comprehension.

I know why this has happened and it is really simple to deduce.
The "vaccines" were given emergency authorisation on the basis that there was no alternative.
That narrative had to be maintained.

So there has been an all out attempt to keep the knowledge from spreading.

But the truth has the habit of spreading which is why there is so much distrust of the people promoting the "vaccines".

Personally i see an argument for these protcols and vaccines. But only one is being promoted and one is being openly censored and / or ridiculed.

Given vaccination does not eliminate contracting it again, (most get less symptoms but some are still dieing if pre exisiting co morbidity factors are present), nor does it stop transmission then the protocols (which do involve pre treatment before infection as well which can reduce symptoms) could be investigated as another form of treatment.

Alongside this should be education on how to improve and strengthen your natural immune system as well.


But all we read and hear is about the vaccine and "what is the alternative?". There are complimentary alternatives which are not being supported nor investigated through official channels.
that is my bug bear. The issue is far too complex and their are far too many unknowns for a one size fits all.
the issue and arguments cannot be a binary choice.

FormulaNova said..

lotofwind said..
^^^^The generator for power on Christmas island turns off at midnight so he wont reply till its back on in the morning, as long as the boat arrives with fuel for the generator tomorrow.

To be fair, I do get sucked in. I assume that he speaks and understands English, but then I realise its probably some 16 year old kid from Sri Lanka using his English primer to practice words with people. Its only then that I appreciate how much effort he puts in. Well done kiterboy!

Do you even remember a time that you ever had a bit of intelligence and weren't a drone regurgitating the propaganda you so eagerly slurp from the authoritarian dong?

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Hmmm, I thought you were a fan of logic a few posts ago...

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

Although I suppose in the case of SARS-Cov-2 it should be called non-survivorship bias.

What loop of logic links my post to yours? are you going off on some tangent that you want to because I can't see the link.

Some people have thought they were healthy enough to survive Covid with no effects, and some have died. As I have used the word 'some' it implies that there are others that may have had health issues.

Clearly the fact that 'some' very healthy people have gotten ill or even died suggests that no one knows if it is going to affect them in a bad way or not. Its your roll of the dice, go for it.

Sure, and SOME people who want to become rockstars actually make it, many thousands don't.

If you can't follow the logic in that, well, it explains a lot really.

hah! Hilarious, you are a tool and you don't even realise why. I think I know why you are a tool, but you are probably not sure yourself.

After just trying to lecture me on survivor-bias, you are basing your chances of survival on the ones that survive Covid with no legacy issues.... because they have survived. Survivor-bias. Hah!

Uh, survivor-bias is when you present a view based on the minority result.
So, good work, you just backed up my statement on your logical fallacy.
Or are you trying to say that most people who get SARS-COV-2 die?

What's that? You based your 'counter arguement' on the word 'survivor'?
You need to sort out your comprehension skills, or stop drinking, grandpa.

Well, given that you started it by quoting Wiki text... surprisingly exact word for word but without actually quoting it, I can quote it for you too. This time I can leave in the part that you chose to leave out. (Poor form using something word for word without even representing it as taken from somewhere else too...)

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

"Another example of a distinct mode of survivorship bias would be thinking that an incident was not as dangerous as it was because everyone communicated with afterwards survived. Even if one knew that some people are dead, they would not have their voice to add to the conversation, leading to bias in the conversation."

You have totally missed the meaning. Totally. Survivor-bias is not on the minority, it is just a bias because you have effectively filtered out people or things that did not get through. It could be the minority or it could be the majority.

I can't believe you read the wiki page, partly quoted it word for word, and still don't understand it. Maybe you should stay away from using your own words?

It's good that I could teach you something finally.

Doesn't change the fact that you are the one who it applies to more; you're the one focusing on the minuscule amount of people who have died, as a comparison to all those that have caught the virus.
Yeah yeah, get your hand off it, a lot of people have died globally, but as a percentage of all that have caught it, it is still much more likely for someone to get over it than die.

Good try at twisting it though. Well no it it wasn't.
Try again grandpa.

So, in summary you said:

" I used something and I really didn't understand what I was saying "

" but I taught you something finally "


No, you didn't teach me anything. I already figured out you were a fool.

I hope 'twisting it' is like 'wall of text', i.e. clever use of logic that you have no hope of understanding.

You tell yourself what you have to, grandpa. Doesn't change the fact that you still can't understand logic, no matter how much you profess to it.
You can fool yourself, but you aren't fooling anyone else.

Congratulations. I would be pretty proud if I were that fluent in a second language at your age. Go kiterboy! You may not know what you are saying, but words are the first step.

You should be aiming to be fluent in coherent thought first. Leave the languages for later.

www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/rising-number-of-breakthrough-delta-infections-among-fully-vaccinated-20210825-p58lmp.html


The new data released on Tuesday involved more than 43,000 reported infections among Los Angeles County residents aged 16 and older. Of them, 10,895, or 25.3 per cent occurred in fully vaccinated persons, and 1,431, or 3.3 per cent, were in partially vaccinated persons. The majority of infections, however, were among the unvaccinated: 30,801 cases, or 71.4 per cent of the cohort.

The vaccines did, however, protect individuals from more severe symptoms. According to the study, only 3.2 percent of fully vaccinated individuals who tested positive for coronavirus were hospitalised, just 0.05 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.25 per cent were placed on a ventilator.
Among the unvaccinated who caught COVID, 7.5 per cent were hospitalised, 1.5 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.5 per cent required breathing support with a mechanical ventilator.

eppo said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..
If you are unlucky enough to be exposed to the virus...
I hope for most people this does not become an issue.

FTFY

I hope you can 'fix' your own health if you end up getting sick from Covid. Clearly the people that have died or even gotten severely ill from Covid never thought it would be an issue for them. Its human nature that ' it's not going to happen to me... blah blah, I eat macro nutrients, and am not overweight '.

Take a look at the data on infection fatality rates from Stanford. Across 32 different locations the median infection fatality rate was .27%. Less than 3 people in 1000,

Medication using the irrefutably effective protocols established by doctors worldwide reduce that by between 74 and 86%. Less than one person in 1000.

We know that those chaps that die usually have co morbidities. Vitamin D deficiency, Zinc, diabetes, stuffing your face disease etc..

I have none of those, I've cycled over 200 K's in the past week and run over 20.

I don't THINK it is not an issue for me,

I know it is not.

Oh and I have a box of ivermectin in my desk drawer!

Japie, which one of these do you think was not as fit as you, and which ones do you think might have been fitter than you?

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/super-fit-twin-brother-dies-of-covid-after-refusing-covid-jab/news-story/53bc99404607526f007514148f794aea

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/influencer-33-who-thought-covid-didnt-exist-dies-after-catching-the-virus/news-story/56dc92f704419cf0bcd2bf8f9ef4392d

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-australia-researchers-warn-of-longterm-covid19-side-effects/news-story/65bc5e986281d6e0fbb690d3513a5369

I'm not as fit as most of them, so I will stick to the vaccine.

Unlike you I have only done about 120kms on the bike in the last week, and I hate running. I am not sure how many kms on the bike will keep me 'Covid immune', so I will take my chance with the jab.

Ivermectin mate. Ivermectin

Prophylaxis

This situation we are in and look like being in in perpetuity could be but a distant memory had we taken the medicate instead of vaccinate route.

I have mentioned this before,... prophylaxis... you need to use it before catching Covid, so how is it going to do you any good in your desk drawer? I am going to ignore the dosage required to show any effect, but that's between you and your life.

You are taking Ivermectin now? If not, why not, and why the mention of prophylaxis? If you are taking it, good luck.

Right from the get go the WHO's recommendation for anyone who caught Covid was stay at home until you turn blue then present to the hospital.

Because it is novel and cannot be treated.

Fortunately for them many people have been saved from a pretty nasty death by a small percentage of doctors who realised that this advice was utter nonsense. They treated Covid for what it is as they had experience with respiratory diseases and through trial and error they have become world experts in its treatment.

The treatment is simple and efficient. Early diagnosis and intervention improves the success rate exponentially. Funny how that works. Pretty much a standard for any medical condition.
Unless you listen to the WHO.

If you follow WHO guidelines you get a much better fatality rate.
The doctors who have promoted their knowledge have been roundly criticised by government agencies and mainstream media.

If that doesn't ring warning bells for you then you're seriously lacking in comprehension.

I know why this has happened and it is really simple to deduce.
The "vaccines" were given emergency authorisation on the basis that there was no alternative.
That narrative had to be maintained.

So there has been an all out attempt to keep the knowledge from spreading.

But the truth has the habit of spreading which is why there is so much distrust of the people promoting the "vaccines".

Personally i see an argument for these protcols and vaccines. But only one is being promoted and one is being openly censored and / or ridiculed.

Given vaccination does not eliminate contracting it again, (most get less symptoms but some are still dieing if pre exisiting co morbidity factors are present), nor does it stop transmission then the protocols (which do involve pre treatment before infection as well which can reduce symptoms) could be investigated as another form of treatment.

Alongside this should be education on how to improve and strengthen your natural immune system as well.


But all we read and hear is about the vaccine and "what is the alternative?". There are complimentary alternatives which are not being supported nor investigated through official channels.
that is my bug bear. The issue is far too complex and their are far too many unknowns for a one size fits all.
the issue and arguments cannot be a binary choice.

HCQ was first muted by Trump as a potential solution very early on. In an instant the Orange Man Bad army did their utmost to destroy it. Which they did quite successfully with the aid of the fraudulent trial results published, (subsequently retracted) in the Lancet.

The fact that HCQ is effective probably came from here:

"The Virology Journal - the official publication of Dr. Fauci's National Institutes of Health - published what is now a blockbuster articleon August 22, 2005, under the heading - get ready for this - "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread."(Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers: "We report . that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.""

Then Prof Borody released findings that Ivermectin was showing promise in August last year and that basically received exactly the same treatment.

There are a couple of points which everyone should be aware of in this regard.

1. The fact that both these medicines as components of wider protocols are now irrefutably proven effective in treating the disease means that everyone who died of Covid and was denied treatment is a victim of malfeasance which eclipses the crimes tried at Nuremberg.

2. The only reason we are having this debate about vaccines is because their manufacture and use was made possible on the basis that there was no alternative.

That is it really. Nothing further needs to be said.

traditioninaction.org/Cultural/E107_Fau.htm

Moron

FlySurfer said..

unfortunately video belongs here.


not even there