patrick.net

the planners need to be prosecuted

After three years of studiously ignoring obvious patterns, The Science inches closer to acknowledging that viral interference is a thing

A news article at Science throws water on the prospect of an impending SARS-2, RSV and influenza “tripledemic”, pointing to “a growing body of epidemiological and laboratory evidence” which suggests that “SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses often ‘interfere’ with each other.” There is therefore little chance that all three viruses “will peak together and collectively crash hospital systems.”

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.