patrick.net

So we need to put a mask on the dead?

China’s Top Medical Adviser Says Omicron’s Risks Same as Flu

Death rate from omicron variant of Covid 0.1%, Zhong says

Adviser’s comment follows new government line on coronavirus

ByBloomberg News
December 11, 2022, 7:53 AM UTCUpdated onDecember 11, 2022, 12:50 PM UTC

Chinese officials continued to downplay the risks of Covid-19 as restrictions are eased, with a top medical adviser saying the fatality rate from the omicron variant of the virus is in line with influenza.

Meaning, the study looked only at the patients with diagnosed myocarditis in 0 to 28 days post Pfizer jab, and compared those with the patients that were already hospitalized with a viral infection (“The adopted ICD-9-CM codes represent conditions most typically induced by a viral infection in the Hospital Authority setting”) and have been, on top, diagnosed with myocarditis while at it! Do you see the “subtle” difference? They compare the otherwise perfectly healthy recipients of the Pfizer jab in the arbitrary 0-28 days post-jab period with the morbidly sick and hospitalized viral infection patients that happen to be diagnosed with myocarditis to boot. Then they follow both categories for 6 months to see who dies and who doesn’t. See a confounder here? Because the “study” authors don’t.

What is a confounder in a study?

A Confounder is an extraneous variable whose presence affects the variables being studied so that the results do not reflect the actual relationship between the variables under study.

That takes care of the lies [4], [6], [7]. By the way, the “study” indicates that there were 240 myocarditis cases post jab, except 121 of those were outside of the 0-28 days window…

The lie [5], that the “study” somehow proved myocarditis risks post SARS-CoV-2 infection, is exposed by the fact that the “study” specifically excluded Covid-diagnosed and compared the jabbed with the viral infection patients from the 2000-2019 pre-Covid era. “The Virus”, then, has nothing to do with Covid.

Next, as we know from clinical studies, 1 in 35 (or 1 in 40) gets at least mild myocarditis following a single Pfizer booster. See my post from Oct. 26, 2022, “"COVID-19 is SEVEN Times More Dangerous for Myocarditis Than Vaccine?" Follow-Up” for further references. That takes care of the lies [1], [2], and [3].

I rest my case.

That's interesting. I had assumed that the original alpha variant was actually the most dangerous, even if not much more dangerous than the seasonal flu.

So this could explain why everyone in my office got sick in Nov 2019 but few even bothered to stay home, because it was so mild.

That's interesting. I had assumed that the original alpha variant was actually the most dangerous, even if not much more dangerous than the seasonal flu.

Yes, there is such thing as little bits of genetic code that make cells express different things

Yes, those little bits of genetic code can try to program the cell to make copies of themselves

It so happens that modern science calls those things “viruses” while at the same time vastly misrepresenting the actual findings, and greatly downplaying the fact that we don’t know a whole lot

Naturally occurring “viruses” (in quotes, as this word is just a name for a model) aren’t very good at replication, i.e. programming host cells to make perfect copies of themselves

They can try to do that—and in the process, they would temporarily distress the equilibrium and trigger an immune response. A targeted cell would make a very limited number of good copies of the “virus” but it would also spit out a large amount of genetic noise. That process would invoke an immune response and, generally speaking, we are very capable of dealing with all this, as naturally occurring “viral” bits of genetic material floating around are a part of life.

In labs, for experiments, due to how difficult it is to make a naturally occurring virus to properly replicate, the scientists routinely use the so called “viral clones,” which is not a naturally occurring “virus” but a manufactured (“constructed”) artifact

Here is an example of a study to illustrate the point — Simplified methods for the construction of RNA and DNA virus infectious clones ). When the scientists talk about “viruses” in the lab, they usually refer to artificially manufactured smudges of RNA constructed for enhanced replication, etc.

COVID pandemic: what happened there?
J.J. believes that viral clones matching the molecular properties of the model—to which everything was then compared—were sprayed or otherwise released in strategic locations in different countries. This way, the molecular signature of that specific “virus” could be actually “found” and “identified” using widely accepted methods

According to J.J., the main reason for releasing the clones was providing forensic proof of sort, “proving” that the pandemic was real. What was actually making people sick in 2020 is another matter, and it could be a number of things, possibly working in combination

During the interview, J.J. and I compared notes and theories about different factors that could have contributed to making people in select locations feel genuinely ill

Viral clones are better at replication than bit of genetic material floating naturally, and so they might have contributed to creating disease

When it comes to the intentional vs. unintentional nature of causing dramatic sickness, at the very least, we can be sure that whoever did it doesn’t care, or rather cares solely about money, power, and their ultimate goal of pulling through a large scale and very destructive scam

Alas, the UK abruptly stopped reporting on “Covid” deaths to brutally interrupt an already established tradition. How un-British!

I guess, they had it, backing up the outlandish claims with stats, only to be proven liars once and again. Now we will have to go on their word alone that “vaccines” are “safe and effective” and “save lives”.