• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Conspiracy Theories & Claims

This might be one of the most ridiculous theories I've heard for a while.

BTW definitely do not copy paste that onto Facebook or you will get a time out for spreading anti-vax propaganda.

It happened to a friend. :oops:

1665951622295.png
 
A 'good honest mate' who is a top biologist with intimate knowledge of international mass poisoning on an apocalyptic scale.

I reckon someone needs to be a bit more careful with their choice of drinking buddies.
 
Read Reuters' new 'Fact Check' article about transmissibility testing and the development / roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccines to date:


https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-transmission-of-early-variants-idUSL1N31F20E
You seriously believe in Fact Checkers?

The Psychology of Fact-Checking​

Fact-checkers aim to get closer to the truth, but their biases can shroud the very truth they seek

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/
 
On the face of it this sounds a bit alarming but if you take ‘transmission’ to mean the catching & subsequent possible passing on of the virus to others, we now know for sure that having the vaccine, any of them, doesn’t stop you getting it. They may lessen the effect though.

It’ll be interesting to see how this develops.. I had the Pfizer as a booster myself a while back after the initial Astra Zeneca ones.



KavaLavaSava_2590_221012-hunter_s878x578.jpg



No sarcasm intended. It is so clear to me and I just don't understand how that can be when most on this thread believe otherwise. After the second to last post from EnolaGaia, I lost sleep because even though I don't know him, I do believe him to be forthright in what he posts. I don't believe he is just standing up for a certain point of view, he believes he is speaking the truth.

So. I started doubt myself. I started to feel very alone. Then I remembered this...

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/117/903/282/playable/800ede90a614258b.mp4

I am not alone in this. I too truly believe that we are now and have always been lied to right from the very beginning. Just follow the money.
 
You seriously believe in Fact Checkers?

The Psychology of Fact-Checking​

Fact-checkers aim to get closer to the truth, but their biases can shroud the very truth they seek

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/
I think there is nothing wrong with articles that try to derive what the basic facts are. Because the vaccine is so new and the pandemic has now evolved over 2 years, there is a myriad of information out there. It is very difficult for the regular Joe to determine which of these facts are more important than others.

Peer reviewed information is a good place to start, since people who are experienced in research look at specific results from a trial or experiment to try to identify any possible biases that may be present in the researcher's trial. When they are identified, then the trial is adjusted to minimize or take the bias out and review the new information.

Media wants an immediate concrete answer and big headlines that attract readers. It is not always accurate, nor do the article writers necessarily have the understanding of what they are reporting and so information is reported inaccurately or downright wrong.

To only look at articles or info that reflects what you already believe to be true is also not accurate.

To have to challenge your firm beliefs is very uncomfortable. I personally get a very sick feeling in my stomach and this can happen until I have resolved the conflict with myself.

But it is good to look at ideas that challenge you. It trains you to determine, better, what is important to look at and what other is just noise.
 
I too truly believe that we are now and have always been lied to right from the very beginning. Just follow the money.
When you say this do you mean there is actually no covid virus & it’s all an invention? If not, what is the ‘lie right from the very beginning?
 
When you say this do you mean there is actually no covid virus & it’s all an invention? If not, what is the ‘lie right from the very beginning?
To me? that the pandemic was actually controllable.

Lockdowns? no one even suggested them until it was too late for them to do any good. quarantine wasn't even attempted until it had failed. then Pharma is like "take this new miracle cure and the pandemic will go away!" But it didn't and the so-called cure has been shown to be potentially deadly. also, the scare tactics with finding the worst known incidents and making them sound like standard patients... then how the USCDC website used to have actual data on the virus's lethality... then scrubbed that page to add several pages telling you where to get vaccines... Why? because this data showed it to be mostly harmless. And the data predated mass testing.

So... hmm there's several for you to choose from.
 
To me? that the pandemic was actually controllable.

Lockdowns? no one even suggested them until it was too late for them to do any good. quarantine wasn't even attempted until it had failed. then Pharma is like "take this new miracle cure and the pandemic will go away!" But it didn't and the so-called cure has been shown to be potentially deadly. also, the scare tactics with finding the worst known incidents and making them sound like standard patients... then how the USCDC website used to have actual data on the virus's lethality... then scrubbed that page to add several pages telling you where to get vaccines... Why? because this data showed it to be mostly harmless. And the data predated mass testing.

So... hmm there's several for you to choose from.
OK but you seem to be overlooking the fact that vaccines didn’t appear til around April 2021. For the first year all there was was lockdowns, wash your hands, wear a mask, keep a distance. That’s all, unless you subscribed to drinking bleach or suchlike as The Don proposed.

In the UK we weren’t told the pandemic was 'actually controllable', don’t know about the US.

I don’t think Pharma has said "take this new miracle cure and the pandemic will go away!” The vaccines were aimed at prevention but failing that, minimising effects. It was a new virus & at the time not much was known about it & vaccines were developed at very short notice. Nobody is denying Pharma has made huge profits as a result though.

You say data showed it to be mostly harmless but prior to vaccines, plenty of people died from it around the world, especially in the initial stages.

So I’d say most of these points are hindsight & not ‘lies right from the very beginning’.
 
To me? that the pandemic was actually controllable.

Lockdowns? no one even suggested them until it was too late for them to do any good. quarantine wasn't even attempted until it had failed. then Pharma is like "take this new miracle cure and the pandemic will go away!" But it didn't and the so-called cure has been shown to be potentially deadly. also, the scare tactics with finding the worst known incidents and making them sound like standard patients... then how the USCDC website used to have actual data on the virus's lethality... then scrubbed that page to add several pages telling you where to get vaccines... Why? because this data showed it to be mostly harmless. And the data predated mass testing.

So... hmm there's several for you to choose from.
What are your biases? How do they affect your interpretation?
 
To me? that the pandemic was actually controllable.

Lockdowns? no one even suggested them until it was too late for them to do any good. quarantine wasn't even attempted until it had failed. then Pharma is like "take this new miracle cure and the pandemic will go away!" But it didn't and the so-called cure has been shown to be potentially deadly. also, the scare tactics with finding the worst known incidents and making them sound like standard patients... then how the USCDC website used to have actual data on the virus's lethality... then scrubbed that page to add several pages telling you where to get vaccines... Why? because this data showed it to be mostly harmless. And the data predated mass testing.

So... hmm there's several for you to choose from.

M: To me? that the pandemic was actually controllable.

EA: I don’t know what country you are in. From what I read from various news sites from different countries, there was a huge range of responses from the very beginning. Also, with more evidence, the guidance changed over time which is certainIy what I would have expected from a public health organization which actually looked at changing data. What specific measures would you have taken for a country, and why? What evidence would you have used to design your strategy?

M: Lockdowns? no one even suggested them until it was too late for them to do any good. quarantine wasn't even attempted until it had failed.

EA: Same as above response: I don’t know what country you are in. From what I read from various news sites from different countries, there was a huge range of responses from the very beginning. I suspect that IF precognition existed and epidemiologists had it, they could have devised a better response. Alas, the CDC and NIH are not precognitive. How would you, in January 2020, have controlled the pandemic with proven success? What specific measures would you have taken for a country, and why? What evidence would you have used to design your strategy?

M: then Pharma is like "take this new miracle cure and the pandemic will go away!"

EA: I have never read anything like this from the CDC. What source of evidence do you have that this rather flippant response was ever issued? The CDC never called the vaccine a miracle drug, and neither did any of the pharmaceutical companies. If you read this somewhere, please share the source with us so we may learn. The CDC also never stated that the pandemic will go away. It DID state that the symptoms would be much reduced for many people, and that for people with pre-existing health problems, this could save lives.

M: But it didn't and the so-called cure has been shown to be potentially deadly. also, the scare tactics with finding the worst known incidents and making them sound like standard patients...

EA: I have never read anything from the CDC that the worst known incidents were widespread, which they would be for “standard patients.” Can you please share with us your CDC source on this?

M: then how the USCDC website used to have actual data on the virus's lethality... then scrubbed that page to add several pages telling you where to get vaccines... Why? because this data showed it to be mostly harmless.

EA: So which is it: did the CDC site show the covid virus effects for the worst known incidents and make then sound like standard patients OR did the CDC data show the virus to be mainly harmless? You really can’t have it both ways. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

As I have posted and referred to a few times, in the US, the change in life expectancies in 2020-2021 show the most dramatic drop since world war II. So, Covid at the beginning was definitely not harmless or mostly harmless. There is an abundance of evidence refuting your claim that Covid was or is mainly harmless.

M: And the data predated mass testing.

EA: Of course the data predated mass testing, as the mass testing was only available when mass vaccinations began. Before widespread vaccinations, the only data was from the initial clinical trials with relatively few people. This is the nature of new vaccines, especially in a crisis situation.

How would YOU have gotten good data (reliable, valid, precise enough to be useful, etc.) before mass testing?
 
OK but you seem to be overlooking the fact that vaccines didn’t appear til around April 2021. For the first year all there was was lockdowns, wash your hands, wear a mask, keep a distance. That’s all, unless you subscribed to drinking bleach or suchlike as The Don proposed.

In the UK we weren’t told the pandemic was 'actually controllable', don’t know about the US.

I don’t think Pharma has said "take this new miracle cure and the pandemic will go away!” The vaccines were aimed at prevention but failing that, minimising effects. It was a new virus & at the time not much was known about it & vaccines were developed at very short notice. Nobody is denying Pharma has made huge profits as a result though.

You say data showed it to be mostly harmless but prior to vaccines, plenty of people died from it around the world, especially in the initial stages.

So I’d say most of these points are hindsight & not ‘lies right from the very beginning’.
In the US the pandemic emergency measures were presented as "beat the virus"... which they never had any hope of.

"Plenty of people died".... when you look only at mortality numbers.... some of which are inflated by counting anyone who died after being exposed and not trying to sort out only people who actually died OF Covid. Which is something you could easily see in the early CDC data. ~50% of the infected had no symptoms at all. less than 10% had serious illness, and even less than that died. How many actually died OF Covid? Even the CDC didn't have that in their data. They openly admitted the fatality data, as small as the numbers were, wasn't actually people who died OF Covid.

But... what was that data presented as in the news, or by people pushing for "increased measures"? Was it presented as people who died WITH Covid, or OF Covid?

This is what I was getting at earlier, and has been mentioned a LOT of times.
 
... Scientists at Boston University have grafted the new Omicron spike protein onto the old SARS-Cov-2 virus creating a new and deadlier version of Omicron. ...

The researchers did indeed graft the spike protein, but the result wasn't any "deadlier" version of the coronavirus. In fact, their subject mice had a lower mortality rate than mice exposed to the original Wuhan variant.

For more about this deceptive scaremongering see:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...nformation-fake-news-scams.67070/post-2214657
 
'Fortean Times' March 2017 edition. Three years prior to the declared Covid-19 outbreak.

Page 58 includes a full-page advert by FT to encourage subscribers. An enticement is a free audiobook on CD, named "Chrono Virus" by an Aaron Crocco.

X-Screenshot 2022-10-19 153012.jpg

Aaron's original first story in the series (the actual version offered free by FT) was in fact published in 2012....

Whilst there's only a superficial similarity between the title-phrase 'Chrono Virus' and the name of the particular Coronavirus (Covid-19) that is still being viewed as a menace to us all, I wonder how often the word '______VIRUS' appeared in ten-fold tall headline style, within the pages of FT, prior to March 2020?

It might be safe to say 'just as many times as that subscription offer was advertised'.

And it's a rather-unsettling free gift, implicitly, but only with the benefit of hindsight. Or was it something else?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great summary of risky covid-19 research and a quite good discussion:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marg.../irresponsible-gain-of-function-research.html

Scientists at Boston University have grafted the new Omicron spike protein onto the old SARS-Cov-2 virus creating a new and deadlier version of Omicron.

Allegedly this risky research was happening in the Wuhan lab with USA support and money.

The people behind this are insane—I'm stunned.

Scientists in Boston University's National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories pursuing 'gain of function' research have combined two strains of the Covid virus to increase lethality among subject mice to 80%.

I simply can't believe the hubris in play here.
 
Last edited:

New Boston virus​


Personally, I don't believe it is fake news, EnolaGaia.

Please share this video, this research must STOP. Gain of function research in the USA today using enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research Professor Shmuel Shapira, lead scientist, Israeli Government

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar

This should be totally forbidden, it's playing with fire Dr Richard Ebright, Rutgers University, New Brunswick The research is a clear example of gain of function research. If we are to avoid a next lab-generated pandemic, it is imperative that oversight of enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research be strengthened. It is imperative that officials at US-government agencies, who repeatedly have placed the public at risk by repeatedly violating the existing policies be held accountable.

Prof David Livermore, microbiology, University of East Anglia given the strong likelihood that the Covid pandemic originated from the escape of a lab-manipulated coronavirus in Wuhan, these experiments seem profoundly unwise Boston University's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories is one of 13 biosafety level 4 labs in the US Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron 14th October 2022 Boston University School of Medicine

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.11

Predominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1) is highly transmissible, even in fully vaccinated individuals, and causes attenuated disease compared with other major viral variants recognized to date The Omicron spike (S) protein, unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of these phenotypes We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 A chimera or chimeric virus One virus containing genetic material derived from two or more distinct viruses US Center for Veterinary Biologics;

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_hea

A new hybrid microorganism, created by joining nucleic acid fragments from two or more different microorganisms, in which each of at least two of the fragments, contain essential genes necessary for replication. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate, and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant. The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor-binding motif, yet unlike naturally occurring Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. In K18-hACE2 mice.

https://www.jax.org/strain/034860

K18-hACE2 transgenic mice express human ACE2, including airway epithelia where infections typically begin. Because K18-hACE2 are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV viruses, they are useful for studying antiviral therapies to COVID-19 and SARS. In K18-hACE2 mice Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.

New Boston virus​

 
Thing is, there are people with the knowledge of how to do this stuff, and other people who are prepared to pay them to do it.
If you were (eg) a plumber, you wouldn't just go around putting pipes on things for the hell of it.
That's why this stuff continues to be done. People keeping themselves in work by doing 'the thing'.
(okay so 'plumbers' was probably a poor analogy but you get what I mean)
 

New Boston virus​


Personally, I don't believe it is fake news, EnolaGaia.



New Boston virus​

It was someone deliberately or through incompetence cherry-picking information from a technical article and reporting false information for the purpose of attracting readers through a scary headline. As quoted above, "their subject mice had a lower mortality rate than mice exposed to the original Wuhan variant." What then do you disagree with?
 
In the US the pandemic emergency measures were presented as "beat the virus"... which they never had any hope of.

"Plenty of people died".... when you look only at mortality numbers.... some of which are inflated by counting anyone who died after being exposed and not trying to sort out only people who actually died OF Covid. Which is something you could easily see in the early CDC data. ~50% of the infected had no symptoms at all. less than 10% had serious illness, and even less than that died. How many actually died OF Covid? Even the CDC didn't have that in their data. They openly admitted the fatality data, as small as the numbers were, wasn't actually people who died OF Covid.

But... what was that data presented as in the news, or by people pushing for "increased measures"? Was it presented as people who died WITH Covid, or OF Covid?

This is what I was getting at earlier, and has been mentioned a LOT of times.

You are cherry-picking, or perhaps not understanding my questions. I at least would really appreciate it if you or @michael59 could actually answer the specific questions, with some source links; that would be helpful. As it is, you ignore the specific challenges to your conspiracy theory, and just move on to other ill-sourced aspects, which is not persuasive.

So, for example, if you reject the data from the USCDC about mortality numbers ascribed to covid, then explain the excess death rates for the years 2020-2021. From the US, Canada, UK, etc. In this instance, you and others ignore the data from different countries which indicates a very unusual death rate for those years. Or do you think that these excess death rate figures are invented as part of the conspiracy?

I have spent over 40 hours (which I will never get back :) ) reading the links and watching the videos from various conspiracy promulgators, and not found anything yet which is persuasive. Much seems ill-informed or deliberately misinterpreting publicly-available information straight from the source: for example, the CDC in the US. Instead, it appears that you do not go to the authoritative sources, but rather go to these conspiracy sites which interpret the information FOR you.

Marhawkman, please address the questions I asked you in post #3162. I actually am very interested in your responses, as they may clarify for me - and others! - more of your reasoning about this. Thanks.
 
View attachment 59883


No sarcasm intended. It is so clear to me and I just don't understand how that can be when most on this thread believe otherwise. After the second to last post from EnolaGaia, I lost sleep because even though I don't know him, I do believe him to be forthright in what he posts. I don't believe he is just standing up for a certain point of view, he believes he is speaking the truth.

So. I started doubt myself. I started to feel very alone. Then I remembered this...

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/117/903/282/playable/800ede90a614258b.mp4

I am not alone in this. I too truly believe that we are now and have always been lied to right from the very beginning. Just follow the money.

I find the graphic offensive. (and even more so for the "no sarcasm intended" comment attached.) It has no informational merit. Please quit posting this type of stuff.
 
I find the graphic offensive. (and even more so for the "no sarcasm intended" comment attached.) It has no informational merit. Please quit posting this type of stuff.
I'm curious as to why you find the graphic offensive? It's a genuine question and I've got no other motive than good old fashioned curiosity.
 
I'm curious as to why you find the graphic offensive? It's a genuine question and I've got no other motive than good old fashioned curiosity.

It is sarcastic - but this is often the thrust of public commentary.

Because it is sarcastic, it ridicules the concept or discussion, and disrespects both the object of discussion (big pharma) and the reader of the discussion. It denigrates while adding nothing to the understanding.

In this particular instance, the progression of big pharma motives is utterly untrue.

Sarcasm is often used as a means of "scoring" or putting down someone. It is rude and very often hurtful. Sarcasm, because it portrays a situation in a simplistic way, is almost always a shortcut which ignores evidence. People use it and enjoy it because: 1. It ridicules something they don't like. 2. They are rewarded for it in ordinary life. 3. It is easy and they are lazy thinkers.

As a scientist, I abhore it. Also, as someone who was trained in sarcasm from early childhood, I understand both the temptation to use and the effects of it being used upon me.
 
You are cherry-picking, or perhaps not understanding my questions. I at least would really appreciate it if you or @michael59 could actually answer the specific questions, with some source links; that would be helpful. As it is, you ignore the specific challenges to your conspiracy theory, and just move on to other ill-sourced aspects, which is not persuasive.

So, for example, if you reject the data from the USCDC about mortality numbers ascribed to covid, then explain the excess death rates for the years 2020-2021. From the US, Canada, UK, etc. In this instance, you and others ignore the data from different countries which indicates a very unusual death rate for those years. Or do you think that these excess death rate figures are invented as part of the conspiracy?
Here's the real question: are those excess deaths equal to the number of deaths attributed to Covid? that was previously discussed here.

One counting... shows the excess deaths to be greater... than what are probably inflated Covid death numbers.

As for my previous post.... you misquoted everything I said.... trying to straighten it out would require a multi-page essay.... Still thinking about if I wanna bother.
 
Saw one claiming that in Australia theirs has gone above 15k people a year... with no officially recorded cause of death. Here's some interesting OFFICIAL data:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/h...ovisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release


Err.. wait what?!?!!? The first half of the year has 4,465 deaths blamed on covid, but overall deaths are 10,757 higher than expected????

here's another thing that's... interesting....
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/adr...rves-the?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
This woman got listed as a Covid-19 casualty... but... what actually killed her was Myocarditis.. Oh and she was vaccinated BEFORE dying. She'd been exposed to the virus and caught it from her double vaxxed housemate... THEN got vaxxed.. and died a few days later.
@Endlessly Amazed BEHOLD!!!!! these excess deaths... aren't recorded as Covid fatalities....
 
Here's the real question: are those excess deaths equal to the number of deaths attributed to Covid? that was previously discussed here.

One counting... shows the excess deaths to be greater... than what are probably inflated Covid death numbers.

As for my previous post.... you misquoted everything I said.... trying to straighten it out would require a multi-page essay.... Still thinking about if I wanna bother.

I have not misquoted anything. I directly copied and pasted what you had written, and then responded to each of the points. Please do the same for the questions I have posed. I took the time to research and respond to each of your points. Please show the courtesy to do the same for me.

Maybe if you don’t “wanna bother” you should just not post. This is a discussion forum. Please discuss.

You and I have a fundamental difference in how we interpret the death data for 2020-2021. You apparently insist on better record-keeping about cause of death than public records can do, at least in the US. (How much would you be willing to have your income taxes go up from this point on to pay for this level of precision and coordination across many different communities?).

Doctors and coroners who declare cause of death do not, in the US, have a single form for this regulated or required by the Federal government. This single form would greatly clean up the overlapping categories. But in the US, we don’t do it this way.

If public records do not indicate only a single cause of death, then you and other conspiracy theorists here challenge this and reject the data as not precise enough to show that Covid was responsible. OK, even if I don’t agree, I do understand your point of view.

But then you are actually misinterpreting what the excess death rates indicate.

The excess death rate does not track the causes of death, but rather only how many people were known by the official record keepers to have died in some time period. So, tracking the deaths year after year show very clear and robust data and patterns about annual death rates. The excess death rates for 2020 and 2021 clearly show a very great increase in deaths: an anomaly. The only other anomalous event for those years, at least in the US, was covid. No big earthquakes, no other type of new infectious disease, etc. Not hundreds of thousands of people suddenly, unexpectedly dying of cancer or heart disease or whatever. The purpose of the excess death count is not to correspond with the death certificate causes of death. It is evidence of an anomaly.

The conclusion is that covid is responsible for these excess deaths. I agree with this conclusion. Nowhere in US public health is it expected that the sum of all causes of death and the death rates will match up perfectly. It never has – and before covid, nobody complained that this was evidence of a conspiracy.

It seems to me that you reject the excess death rate because it does not exactly match up with the cumulative cause of deaths.

So, here are some more questions for you and the other covid conspiracy theorists:

What were the causes of the excess death rates in 2020-2021? Be specific.
Were the reports of excess deaths actually lies? Or just big fucking mistakes?
What is the name of the agency which lied/was mistaken? Why did it do this?
Why did the excess death rates for multiple countries coincide only in 2020-2021?
Do you think that the public health authorities for Canada, UK, and Australia were co-conspirators with the US public health authorities?
Did Sweden conspire with the US about excess deaths among the elderly for this time period? (Sorry, @Ringo)
 
The excess death rate does not track the causes of death, but rather only how many people were known by the official record keepers to have died in some time period. So, tracking the deaths year after year show very clear and robust data and patterns about annual death rates. The excess death rates for 2020 and 2021 clearly show a very great increase in deaths: an anomaly. The only other anomalous event for those years, at least in the US, was covid. No big earthquakes, no other type of new infectious disease, etc. Not hundreds of thousands of people suddenly, unexpectedly dying of cancer or heart disease or whatever. The purpose of the excess death count is not to correspond with the death certificate causes of death. It is evidence of an anomaly.

The conclusion is that covid is responsible for these excess deaths. I agree with this conclusion. Nowhere in US public health is it expected that the sum of all causes of death and the death rates will match up perfectly. It never has – and before covid, nobody complained that this was evidence of a conspiracy.

It seems to me that you reject the excess death rate because it does not exactly match up with the cumulative cause of deaths.
Soo... you're assigning deaths to covid... because you don't have a different scapegoat to blame them on? that's what this looks like to me. You're not even examining causation. You're just looking at numbers and trying to scapegoat the events. For each case you need to look at why the individual died... and the statistics I linked already have that collated. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/h...ovisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release but you reject those numbers because they don't suit your perception.

What were the causes if not Covid? You ask. Ok... you want to know? Read the statistics. I actually posted a link to Australian mortality statistics. There was a lot of things. June had ~70 more people die of diabetes than the average... why? hmm... dunno. but if you want me to disregard what their death certificates say... you better give me more than just a scapegoat.

Oh and since I left this out by accident last time:
In 2022, there were 75,593 deaths that occurred by 31 May and were registered by 31 July. This is 10,757 deaths (16.6%) more than the baseline average.
Between January and May 2022 there have been 4,465 deaths due to COVID-19 that were certified by a doctor. 858 of these deaths occurred in April.
This is what we're talking about here. Mortality figures are up and not all of them are Covid. Simple as that.

also... one thing that you may not have thought about is that, by arbitrarily reassigning cause of death post autopsy, your stance is basically accusing the people writing death certificates of not doing their jobs properly. don't get me wrong, they're fallible humans, but to just blanket rewrite THOUSANDS of death certificates and go "this guy actually died of Covid"? Uh, no. and yes, this example from early 2022 has 6,292 deaths more than the historical average... none of which was assigned as a Covid-19 casualty by the medical professionals logging the cause of death.

As someone once said, the big picture is made up of a thousand little pictures. to see it clearly you need all those to be arranged properly, and to do so you need to look at them all. Kinda like an old-school stained-glass window. you make it by taking hundreds of pieces of colored glass and arranging them to make an image. You don't just throw the glass in a pile.
 
Back
Top