>
Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>
Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>
Andre Jute
Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
> >
> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
> >
> Andre Jute
> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
> >
Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine

rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >
>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>> >
>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>> >
>> Andre Jute
>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>> >
>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine

Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
keep going on about?

I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.

My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
or competent.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> >
>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>> >
>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>> >
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>> >
>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>
>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>keep going on about?
>
>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.

Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
health organization) is the best I can offer.

"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
<https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>

The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
really an estimate (or best guess).

Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.

>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>or competent.

Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
pre-emptive strike might be amusing:

"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
adults, but not before."

Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
vaccines that kill Republicans.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>> >
>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>> >
>>>> Andre Jute
>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>> >
>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>
>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>keep going on about?
>>
>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>
>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>health organization) is the best I can offer.
>
>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>
>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>really an estimate (or best guess).
>
>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>
>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>or competent.
>
>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>
>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>adults, but not before."
>
>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>vaccines that kill Republicans.

But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
solely to having received a vaccination

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>>> >
>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>>> >
>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>>> >
>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>>
>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>>keep going on about?
>>>
>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>>
>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
>>
>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>>
>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>>really an estimate (or best guess).
>>
>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>>
>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>>or competent.
>>
>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>>
>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>>adults, but not before."
>>
>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
>
>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>solely to having received a vaccination

Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
which suggest uncertainty:
"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
<https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>

I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.

Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
in the year without vaccination."
This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
persist to this day in some degree.

Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
identical to 2022."
In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
country and does not represent the situation in other countries.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 12/9/2023 8:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>
> Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized...
Gosh, ya think? ;-)

> ... perhaps a
> pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>
> "Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
> Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
> "In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
> years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
> 2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
> than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
> adults, but not before."
>
> Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
> vaccines that kill Republicans.

A right wing friend of mine refused to get a COVID vaccine. He said he
didn't know what was in that vaccine.

He caught COVID; and that was back when catching it really could be a
very serious matter. So he was treated with monoclonal antibodies.

As if he knew what was in monoclonal antibodies!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>>>
>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>>>keep going on about?
>>>>
>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>>>
>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
>>>
>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>>>
>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
>>>
>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>>>
>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>>>or competent.
>>>
>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>>>
>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>>>adults, but not before."
>>>
>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
>>
>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>>solely to having received a vaccination
>
>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
>which suggest uncertainty:
>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
>
>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
>
>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
>in the year without vaccination."
>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
>persist to this day in some degree.
>
>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
>identical to 2022."
>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.

For Tom it doesn't matter whether it's the fox or the rabbit, Tommy is
faster then either.

In another post he has Bidden bombing the Nord Stream gas pipeline,
which from all I read is totally without any proof at all, although
there are rumors that it was a Ukraine plot... carried out by a group
from, Poland :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>>>
>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>>>keep going on about?
>>>>
>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>>>
>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
>>>
>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>>>
>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
>>>
>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>>>
>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>>>or competent.
>>>
>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>>>
>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>>>adults, but not before."
>>>
>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
>>
>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>>solely to having received a vaccination
>
>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
>which suggest uncertainty:
>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
>
>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
>
>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
>in the year without vaccination."
>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
>persist to this day in some degree.
>
>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
>identical to 2022."
>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.

Given the data came from the AMA, which is known to have a political
agenda, I am reminded of the fact that studies can be munipulated to
show what the people who fund the study want it to show.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:30:28 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>>>>
>>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>>>>keep going on about?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>>>>
>>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
>>>>
>>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
>>>>
>>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>>>>
>>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>>>>or competent.
>>>>
>>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>>>>
>>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>>>>adults, but not before."
>>>>
>>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
>>>
>>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>>>solely to having received a vaccination
>>
>>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
>>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
>>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
>>which suggest uncertainty:
>>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
>>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
>><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
>><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
>>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
>><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
>>
>>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
>>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
>>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
>>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
>>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
>>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
>>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
>>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
>>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
>>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
>>
>>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
>>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
>>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
>>in the year without vaccination."
>>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
>>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
>>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
>>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
>>persist to this day in some degree.
>>
>>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
>>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
>>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
>>identical to 2022."
>>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
>>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
>>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
>>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
>>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
>>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
>>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
>>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
>
>Given the data came from the AMA, which is known to have a political
>agenda, I am reminded of the fact that studies can be munipulated to
>show what the people who fund the study want it to show.

But what organization isn't interested in hiding their "short
comings".
Even the Boy Scouts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:40:36 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:30:28 -0500, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>>><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>>>>>keep going on about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>>>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>>>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>>>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>>>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>>>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>>>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>>>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>>>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>>>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>>>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>>>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>>>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>>>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>>>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>>>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>>>>>
>>>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>>>>>or competent.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>>>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>>>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>>>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>>>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>>>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>>>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>>>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>>>>>adults, but not before."
>>>>>
>>>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>>>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
>>>>
>>>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>>>>solely to having received a vaccination
>>>
>>>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
>>>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
>>>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
>>>which suggest uncertainty:
>>>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
>>>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
>>><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
>>><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
>>>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
>>><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
>>>
>>>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
>>>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
>>>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
>>>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
>>>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
>>>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
>>>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
>>>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
>>>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
>>>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
>>>
>>>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
>>>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
>>>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
>>>in the year without vaccination."
>>>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
>>>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
>>>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
>>>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
>>>persist to this day in some degree.
>>>
>>>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
>>>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
>>>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
>>>identical to 2022."
>>>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
>>>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
>>>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
>>>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
>>>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
>>>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
>>>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
>>>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
>>
>>Given the data came from the AMA, which is known to have a political
>>agenda, I am reminded of the fact that studies can be munipulated to
>>show what the people who fund the study want it to show.
>
>
>But what organization isn't interested in hiding their "short
>comings".
>Even the Boy Scouts.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:20:11 AM UTC, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:40:36 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:30:28 -0500, Catrike Rider
> ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >>>>>><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
> >>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> Andre Jute
> >>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
> >>>>>>keep going on about?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
> >>>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
> >>>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
> >>>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
> >>>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
> >>>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
> >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
> >>>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
> >>>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
> >>>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
> >>>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
> >>>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
> >>>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
> >>>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
> >>>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
> >>>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
> >>>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
> >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
> >>>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated..
> >>>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
> >>>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
> >>>>>>or competent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
> >>>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
> >>>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
> >>>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
> >>>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
> >>>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
> >>>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
> >>>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
> >>>>>adults, but not before."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
> >>>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
> >>>>
> >>>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
> >>>>solely to having received a vaccination
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
> >>>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
> >>>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
> >>>which suggest uncertainty:
> >>>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
> >>>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
> >>><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
> >>><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
> >>>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
> >>><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
> >>>
> >>>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
> >>>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
> >>>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
> >>>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
> >>>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
> >>>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
> >>>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
> >>>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
> >>>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
> >>>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
> >>>
> >>>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
> >>>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
> >>>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
> >>>in the year without vaccination."
> >>>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
> >>>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
> >>>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
> >>>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
> >>>persist to this day in some degree.
> >>>
> >>>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
> >>>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
> >>>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
> >>>identical to 2022."
> >>>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
> >>>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
> >>>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
> >>>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
> >>>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
> >>>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
> >>>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
> >>>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
> >>
> >>Given the data came from the AMA, which is known to have a political
> >>agenda, I am reminded of the fact that studies can be munipulated to
> >>show what the people who fund the study want it to show.
> >
> >
> >But what organization isn't interested in hiding their "short
> >comings".
> >Even the Boy Scouts.
> When someone says, "here is what I want you to believe," my response
> is, "what's in it for you?"
>
> One is either a skeptic or a moron.
>
It's politically incorrect to be a skeptic in 2023. You're supposed to lie back and enjoy diversity stuffing you with misinformation. -- Andre Jute
>

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:54:54 AM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:20:11 AM UTC, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:40:36 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:30:28 -0500, Catrike Rider
> > ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> > >>>>wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> > >>>>>><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
> > >>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
> > >>>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
> > >>>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>>> Andre Jute
> > >>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
> > >>>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
> > >>>>>>keep going on about?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
> > >>>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
> > >>>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
> > >>>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
> > >>>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
> > >>>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
> > >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
> > >>>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
> > >>>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
> > >>>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
> > >>>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
> > >>>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
> > >>>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
> > >>>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
> > >>>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
> > >>>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
> > >>>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
> > >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
> > >>>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
> > >>>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
> > >>>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
> > >>>>>>or competent.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
> > >>>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
> > >>>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
> > >>>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
> > >>>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
> > >>>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
> > >>>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
> > >>>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
> > >>>>>adults, but not before."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
> > >>>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
> > >>>>solely to having received a vaccination
> > >>>
> > >>>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
> > >>>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
> > >>>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
> > >>>which suggest uncertainty:
> > >>>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
> > >>>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
> > >>><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
> > >>><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
> > >>>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
> > >>><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
> > >>>
> > >>>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
> > >>>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
> > >>>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
> > >>>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
> > >>>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
> > >>>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
> > >>>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
> > >>>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
> > >>>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
> > >>>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
> > >>>
> > >>>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
> > >>>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
> > >>>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
> > >>>in the year without vaccination."
> > >>>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
> > >>>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
> > >>>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
> > >>>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
> > >>>persist to this day in some degree.
> > >>>
> > >>>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
> > >>>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
> > >>>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
> > >>>identical to 2022."
> > >>>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
> > >>>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
> > >>>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
> > >>>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
> > >>>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
> > >>>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
> > >>>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
> > >>>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
> > >>
> > >>Given the data came from the AMA, which is known to have a political
> > >>agenda, I am reminded of the fact that studies can be munipulated to
> > >>show what the people who fund the study want it to show.
> > >
> > >
> > >But what organization isn't interested in hiding their "short
> > >comings".
> > >Even the Boy Scouts.
> > When someone says, "here is what I want you to believe," my response
> > is, "what's in it for you?"
> >
> > One is either a skeptic or a moron.
> >
> It's politically incorrect to be a skeptic in 2023. You're supposed to lie back and enjoy diversity stuffing you with misinformation. -- Andre Jute
> >
What strikes me in this is that Slow Johnny, Liebermann, and Kreepy Krygowski aren't arguing with Mark Steyn's survey of studies around the world of excess mortality before, during and after COVID, as against the background of expected mortality in the aftermath of the Chinese virus, but simply take my post, and every other post, as another opportunity to try and bully Tom Kunich. That itself is stupid, because they have now failed for umpteen years to make the slightest dent in Tom's exuberant width of knowledge. What do you call a moron who cannot change his mind when the whole world knows he's been wrong all along? Answer: an obsessive compulsive moron, or, in other word, Slow Johnny, Liebermann, and Krygowski.
>
These dumbfucks don't have the brainpower or the statistical knowhow to grasp what Steyn is reporting. The only question is whether their behaviour is a cover for their embarrassment or simply their vicious natures, which we have all seen exposed here on RBT for years now. And where, oh where, is the Cowardly Flunkeymonkey, the fourth brainless berk?
>
Andre Jute
Scum is as scum does.
>

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:54:51 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:20:11?AM UTC, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:40:36 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:30:28 -0500, Catrike Rider
>> ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >>>>>><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>> >>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> Andre Jute
>> >>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>> >>>>>>keep going on about?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>> >>>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>> >>>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>> >>>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>> >>>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>> >>>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>> >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>> >>>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>> >>>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>> >>>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>> >>>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>> >>>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>> >>>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>> >>>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>> >>>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>> >>>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>> >>>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>> >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>> >>>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>> >>>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>> >>>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>> >>>>>>or competent.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>> >>>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>> >>>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>> >>>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>> >>>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>> >>>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>> >>>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>> >>>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>> >>>>>adults, but not before."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>> >>>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>> >>>>solely to having received a vaccination
>> >>>
>> >>>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
>> >>>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
>> >>>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
>> >>>which suggest uncertainty:
>> >>>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
>> >>>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
>> >>><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
>> >>><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
>> >>>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
>> >>><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
>> >>>
>> >>>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
>> >>>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
>> >>>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
>> >>>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
>> >>>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
>> >>>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
>> >>>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
>> >>>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
>> >>>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
>> >>>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
>> >>>
>> >>>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
>> >>>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
>> >>>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
>> >>>in the year without vaccination."
>> >>>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
>> >>>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
>> >>>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
>> >>>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
>> >>>persist to this day in some degree.
>> >>>
>> >>>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
>> >>>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
>> >>>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
>> >>>identical to 2022."
>> >>>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
>> >>>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
>> >>>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
>> >>>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
>> >>>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
>> >>>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
>> >>>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
>> >>>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
>> >>
>> >>Given the data came from the AMA, which is known to have a political
>> >>agenda, I am reminded of the fact that studies can be munipulated to
>> >>show what the people who fund the study want it to show.
>> >
>> >
>> >But what organization isn't interested in hiding their "short
>> >comings".
>> >Even the Boy Scouts.
>> When someone says, "here is what I want you to believe," my response
>> is, "what's in it for you?"
>>
>> One is either a skeptic or a moron.
>>
>It's politically incorrect to be a skeptic in 2023. You're supposed to lie back and enjoy diversity stuffing you with misinformation. -- Andre Jute
>>

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:56:24 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
> >
> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
> >
> Andre Jute
> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
> >
For those who have full lives and are this too busy to follow links -- and for the dumbos and slackers Slow Johnny, Liebermann and Franki-boy (and for the Cowardly Flunkeymonkey, who'll be along shortly) who're too dumb to grasp what is plain to everyone of goodwill who can read an L (life expectancy or mortality) table, here are the key paragraphs of Mark Steyn's summary of scientific studies around the world. First he quotes from a study (I've added quotation marks where Steyn has italics because Google Groups doesn't offer text formatting), then he explains what the technical term "under-smortality" means:
***
The ongoing excess deaths are at odds with the normal post-pandemic pattern, such as the Spanish Flu a century ago. The intro to this new scientific paper sets out what's meant to be happening:

"Our approach takes into account age and gender, but also under-mortality that you would expect after a period of excess mortality."

"Under-mortality" occurs because, if the Spanish Flu killed you prematurely in 1920, you weren't around to die when you otherwise would have done in 1924. Hence, excess mortality is followed by under-mortality. So:

If this under-mortality does not seem to be happening, it is actually hidden excess mortality.

That's an important point. What Eurostat identifies as an excess mortality rate in Ireland of 12.5 per cent is, as a practical matter, actually higher - because it should be measured against not the pre-Covid baseline but the under-mortality one would have expected four years on.
***
I apologise to everyone else for having to run a neddy-class in the meaning of plain English for the Stupid Four, but their foolish posts above make it necessary.

Andre Jute
I understand that there is minority of people so insecure that they cannot ever admit to being wrong on any subject whatsoever, but understanding is neither to excuse nor to accept their stupidity.
>

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:31:40 AM UTC, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:54:51 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:20:11?AM UTC, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:40:36 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 03:30:28 -0500, Catrike Rider
> >> ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >>>>>><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
> >> >>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
> >> >>>>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
> >> >>>>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>>>> Andre Jute
> >> >>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
> >> >>>>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>>>Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
> >> >>>>>>keep going on about?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
> >> >>>>>>he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
> >> >>>>>>competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
> >> >>>>>is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
> >> >>>>>continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
> >> >>>>>health organization) is the best I can offer.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>"Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
> >> >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
> >> >>>>>assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
> >> >>>>>constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
> >> >>>>>organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
> >> >>>>>became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
> >> >>>>>panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
> >> >>>>>services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
> >> >>>>>standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
> >> >>>>>you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
> >> >>>>>and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
> >> >>>>>really an estimate (or best guess).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
> >> >>>>><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
> >> >>>>>95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
> >> >>>>>For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
> >> >>>>>>deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
> >> >>>>>>or competent.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
> >> >>>>>pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>"Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
> >> >>>>>Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
> >> >>>>><https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
> >> >>>>>"In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
> >> >>>>>years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
> >> >>>>>2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
> >> >>>>>than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
> >> >>>>>adults, but not before."
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
> >> >>>>>vaccines that kill Republicans.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
> >> >>>>solely to having received a vaccination
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
> >> >>>that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
> >> >>>levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
> >> >>>which suggest uncertainty:
> >> >>>"An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
> >> >>>role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
> >> >>><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
> >> >>><https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
> >> >>>(12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
> >> >>><https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
> >> >>>"In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
> >> >>>for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
> >> >>>among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
> >> >>>wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
> >> >>>In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
> >> >>>women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
> >> >>>the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
> >> >>>move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
> >> >>>conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
> >> >>>"We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
> >> >>>mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
> >> >>>in the year without vaccination."
> >> >>>This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
> >> >>>gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
> >> >>>but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
> >> >>>fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
> >> >>>persist to this day in some degree.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
> >> >>>there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
> >> >>>annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
> >> >>>identical to 2022."
> >> >>>In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
> >> >>>and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
> >> >>>expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
> >> >>>numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
> >> >>>applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
> >> >>>numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
> >> >>>didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
> >> >>>country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
> >> >>
> >> >>Given the data came from the AMA, which is known to have a political
> >> >>agenda, I am reminded of the fact that studies can be munipulated to
> >> >>show what the people who fund the study want it to show.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >But what organization isn't interested in hiding their "short
> >> >comings".
> >> >Even the Boy Scouts.
> >> When someone says, "here is what I want you to believe," my response
> >> is, "what's in it for you?"
> >>
> >> One is either a skeptic or a moron.
> >>
> >It's politically incorrect to be a skeptic in 2023. You're supposed to lie back and enjoy diversity stuffing you with misinformation. -- Andre Jute
> >>
> "Politically correct" is one of the more disgusting forms of group
> thinking and it's been around long before the term was coined. It was
> what the Civil War was fought over and political group thinking was
> written about in the Bible, and most emphatically in the Old
> Testament.
>
> "Lets all get together and decide on what we will believe," does not
> work for me.
>
Q: What's the difference between Global Warming and Scientology?
A: Both are religions based on science fiction. But Scientology is much more intellectually respectable.
>
Andre Jute
Chinese Curse: May you live in interesting times.
>

On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>>>>
>>>>> Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>>>> keep going on about?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>>>> he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>>>> competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>>>>
>>>> Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>>>> is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>>>> continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>>>> health organization) is the best I can offer.
>>>>
>>>> "Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>>>> <https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>>>> assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>>>> constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>>>> organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>>>> became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>>>> panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>>>> services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>>>> standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>>>> you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>>>> and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>>>> really an estimate (or best guess).
>>>>
>>>> Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>>>> <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>>>> 95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>>>> For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>>>> deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>>>> or competent.
>>>>
>>>> Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>>>> pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>>>>
>>>> "Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>>>> Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>>>> <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>>>> "In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>>>> years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>>>> 2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>>>> than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>>>> adults, but not before."
>>>>
>>>> Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>>>> vaccines that kill Republicans.
>>>
>>> But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>>> solely to having received a vaccination
>>
>> Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
>> that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
>> levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
>> which suggest uncertainty:
>> "An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
>> role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
>> (12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
>> <https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
>>
>> I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
>> "In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
>> for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
>> among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
>> wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
>> In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
>> women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
>> the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
>> move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
>> conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
>>
>> Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
>> "We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
>> mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
>> in the year without vaccination."
>> This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
>> gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
>> but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
>> fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
>> persist to this day in some degree.
>>
>> Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
>> there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
>> annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
>> identical to 2022."
>> In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
>> and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
>> expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
>> numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
>> applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
>> numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
>> didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
>> country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
>
> For Tom it doesn't matter whether it's the fox or the rabbit, Tommy is
> faster then either.
>
> In another post he has Bidden bombing the Nord Stream gas pipeline,
> which from all I read is totally without any proof at all, although
> there are rumors that it was a Ukraine plot... carried out by a group
> from, Poland :-)
>
>

You don't know that. Nor do I.

A successful CIA or special services operation leaves hints
to a different conclusion such as 'Polish agents'.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 02:08:47 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What strikes me in this is that Slow Johnny, Liebermann, and Kreepy Krygowski aren't arguing with Mark Steyn's survey of studies around the world of excess mortality before, during and after COVID, as against the background of expected mortality in the aftermath of the Chinese virus, but simply take my post, and every other post, as another opportunity to try and bully Tom Kunich.

That's correct for my contribution to your thread. I analyzed the
source of Mark Styen's information and not his interpretation of what
he preferred it to have said. If you can find my initial article in
your thread, you too can read all about it. Of course, you can always
endorse Mark Styen's interpretation and not bother reading the basis
for his politicized comments. I found some difficulties with the
original authors methodology, which did NOT include any politicized
commentary such as "Chinese virus".

As for "bully Tom Kunich", for my contribution, that's somewhat
correct, except that it's not really bullying. I'm not hiding behind
a fake name or persona. I'm doing my best to encourage Tom to cease
producing and reproducing lies, distortions, and misinformation.
Disclosing his lies, distortions, mistakes, misinformation, etc is the
only way I know to do this. If you know of any other way to
demonstrate to Tom that his audience does not appreciate being lied
to, I would be interested.

As for "taking your post", you seem to have failed to notice that ALL
of your posts are immediately followed by Tom changing the topic or
hijacking the thread in a direction that he's more comfortable
discussing. For example, your current thread on:
"...explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world"
was immediately converted into a politicized discussion by Tom with
his reply:
"Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks
he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies..."
Oddly, I haven't seen you complain about Tom hijacking your threads.

Incidentally, while the Mark Styen article does mention "the world",
the original source material is limited to only the Netherlands. It's
mentioned in the initial Summary section:
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
I guess everyone missed this minor detail in his article.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 2023-12-10, John B <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> >

<snip>
>
> My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
> deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
> or competent.

Dr. John Campbell has been covering excess deaths for some time now.

In this one he is using insurance actuarial date and our world in data.
(They're in the references whatever the actual sites are).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uOxhYyfYw4

MP Andrew Bridgen in the UK was ejected from his party for talking about the
excess deaths in that Kingdom but is still an MP and still talks about it.

It seems to be one of the elephants in the room these days.

I think it's very telling to read the comments on his (Campbell's)
videos. While the problems people report post-vaccine are anecdotal, there
sure are a *lot* of them.

I'm also following Phillip McMillan of Vejon Health youtube site.

I'm afraid that there will be more the the ongoing mRNA experient, sad to
say.

Returning to bicycle content now...

pH in Aptos

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:56:28 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:14:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:19:54 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:59:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here that doughty, efficient and often successful fighter for free speech, Mark Steyn, explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world.
>>>>>>>> https://www.steynonline.com/13963/the-known-unknowns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once more we grasp that Tom was right from the beginning. Will you monkeys now apologise to Tom?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>>>> Rolling on the floor laughing out loud at the RBT clowns being taken in by that conman Fauci.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies given to them by the Democrats so that they would report only good things about Democrats. That's a lot more important to him than 13% of his relatives dead because of a poisonous vaccine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tommy, can you provide any proof of the excess Covid deaths that you
>>>>>> keep going on about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't mean some idiot on you tube blathering on about something
>>>>>> he/she/it really knows nothing about, but a proper scientific study by
>>>>>> competent people of actual confirmed deaths due to the vaccination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mortality statistics tend to be a running tabulation of deaths, which
>>>>> is usually a few months behind on publication and likely to require
>>>>> continuous corrections. Lacking anything better, the WHO (world
>>>>> health organization) is the best I can offer.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)"
>>>>> <https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that excess death calculations rely on a dubious
>>>>> assumption, that deaths from all causes other than Covid-19 remain
>>>>> constant. That's hardly the case when the statistics gathering
>>>>> organizations either shut down between 2020 and the end of 2022,
>>>>> became heavily politicized, or faked their numbers to avoid a local
>>>>> panic. There were other factors, like the shutdown of many hospital
>>>>> services, which delayed many procedures. The lack of international
>>>>> standards on collecting Covid-19 related data doesn't help much. If
>>>>> you look at the graphs in the above URL, the lines between the upper
>>>>> and lower uncertainty bounds are huge. In other words, the "data" is
>>>>> really an estimate (or best guess).
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the WHO graphs for just the USA:
>>>>> <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-daily-economist-single-entity>
>>>>> 95% uncertainty upper and 0% lower bounds are still widely separated.
>>>>> For the USA, that's current +/- 1,000 deaths per week.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
>>>>>> deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
>>>>>> or competent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, since Tom's reply is likely to be politicized, perhaps a
>>>>> pre-emptive strike might be amusing:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in
>>>>> Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (July 24, 2023)
>>>>> <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617>
>>>>> "In this cohort study evaluating 538,159 deaths in individuals aged 25
>>>>> years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December
>>>>> 2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters
>>>>> than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all
>>>>> adults, but not before."
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: Vaccines don't kill Republicans. It's the lack of
>>>>> vaccines that kill Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> But you are comparing Covid Deaths. Tom is talking about deaths due
>>>> solely to having received a vaccination
>>>
>>> Sorry, I missed that. As I understand it, the author is disappointed
>>> that the Covid death rate failed to drop to the comparatively low
>>> levels of pre-pandemic (before Jan 2023) incidence. Note the title,
>>> which suggest uncertainty:
>>> "An analysis of excess mortality based on age and sex; the possible
>>> role of Covid-19, delayed care and vaccines"
>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines>
>>> (12 pages). Note that CBS is "Statistics Netherlands":
>>> <https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb>
>>>
>>> I think the author answered his own question on Pg 4.
>>> "In this graph, as an example, we see the baseline calculated for 2020
>>> for both men and women. What is immediately striking is the sharp peak
>>> among 75-year-olds. This is a consequence of the baby boom, the birth
>>> wave in 1946 immediately after the Second World War."
>>> In other words, he discovered that more men had died during WWII than
>>> women, and that the baseline death rates are finally catching up with
>>> the baby boomers. In other words, if he can't win at football, just
>>> move the goal posts. Redefining the baseline death rates to fit his
>>> conclusions is the equivalent to moving the goal posts.
>>>
>>> Most his contentions are summarized in one sentence on Pg 9:
>>> "We see here clearly and unmistakably that there was more excess
>>> mortality in all the years in which vaccination was carried out than
>>> in the year without vaccination."
>>> This is the basis of the authors uncertain conclusion that Covid was
>>> gone by the end of 2022 which should have reduced the excess deaths,
>>> but didn't. Never mind various Covid variants, long Covid, creative
>>> fatality tracking, delayed medical care, and such, all of which
>>> persist to this day in some degree.
>>>
>>> Pg 9 again: "The risk of mortality is increasing every year, while
>>> there is hardly any corona anymore. There are obviously no complete
>>> annual figures for 2023 yet, but the figures so far paint a picture
>>> identical to 2022."
>>> In other words, he admits to guessing based on incomplete statistics
>>> and continues to adjust the baseline death rates to meet his
>>> expectations. I would have been happier if he had used the baseline
>>> numbers in the same manner as the WHO and other agencies, and then
>>> applied his assumptions. Instead, he first adjusts his baseline
>>> numbers to meet his expectations and then wonders why they still
>>> didn't produce his expected results. Also, this is for only one
>>> country and does not represent the situation in other countries.
>>
>> For Tom it doesn't matter whether it's the fox or the rabbit, Tommy is
>> faster then either.
>>
>> In another post he has Bidden bombing the Nord Stream gas pipeline,
>> which from all I read is totally without any proof at all, although
>> there are rumors that it was a Ukraine plot... carried out by a group
>> from, Poland :-)
>>
>>
>
>You don't know that. Nor do I.
>
>A successful CIA or special services operation leaves hints
>to a different conclusion such as 'Polish agents'.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 1:24:56 PM UTC-8, pH wrote:
> On 2023-12-10, John B <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rOn Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> ><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 2:56:24?PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> >
> <snip>
> >
> > My guess is that you won't reply as there is no proof of excessive
> > deaths, well except for your imagination which is neither scientific
> > or competent.
> Dr. John Campbell has been covering excess deaths for some time now.
>
> In this one he is using insurance actuarial date and our world in data.
> (They're in the references whatever the actual sites are).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uOxhYyfYw4
>
> MP Andrew Bridgen in the UK was ejected from his party for talking about the
> excess deaths in that Kingdom but is still an MP and still talks about it..
>
> It seems to be one of the elephants in the room these days.
>
> I think it's very telling to read the comments on his (Campbell's)
> videos. While the problems people report post-vaccine are anecdotal, there
> sure are a *lot* of them.
>
> I'm also following Phillip McMillan of Vejon Health youtube site.
>
> I'm afraid that there will be more the the ongoing mRNA experient, sad to
> say.
>
> Returning to bicycle content now...
>
> pH in Aptos

The Stupid 3 do not believe hard data means anything if it is delivered by a PhD in nursing. Only Anthony Fauci is authoritative enough for them. Yeah, the same Fauci that illegally paid China to develop a bioweapon via gain-of-function and then, again illegally, requested the President give emergency authorization to release untested vaccines in an entirely new format onto the public as an experimental platform. Hard medical studies showing that the government was either erasing or urging doctors not to file VAERS entries (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) that showed that instead of the CDC oft quoted 2% adverse events that the ACTUAL number was 65% doesn't ring a bell with the Stupid 3 since they are entirely unaware that for a vaccine to be considered "safe" it must have a VAERS rating of 0.01% and a preferred rating of 0.001%. So by the CDC's OWN RULES a VAERS rating of 2% would have been unreleasable and the vaccine companies REGARDLESS of emergency authorization held accountable for what would be considered a public health threat.

Even though it is a FACT that all of the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis (which in adults may or may not resolve - that is it may or may not cause permanent heart damage) the CDC is STILL recommending that the mRNA vaccines which are now forbidden in most of the world, should be used on all people including children down to 6 months which will cause permanent heart damage to children almost certainly. But wait a minute, the Stupid 3 only believe the CDC and not large studies by the most important medical universities in the world.

An emergency authorization for a shortened testing period MAY NOT be issued unless there are not safe alternative methods available. So Fauci claimed that there were no alternative means of treatment when in fact there were several drugs that were VERY effective using off-label (that means using a drug for any other reason than it was initially developed to treat) drugs. Fauci lied and people died. But this administration has already shown a complete distain for American citizens of any ilk unless they monetarily support the Democrats.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 14:35:07 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hard medical studies showing that the government was either erasing or urging doctors not to file VAERS entries (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System)

Got a link to some of these hard medical studies? I couldn't find
any.

Reminder. VAERS data is not intended to be used for demonstrating
cause and effect:
<https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html>
"The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a
vaccine caused the event."
"A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified
vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described."

>that showed that instead of the CDC oft quoted 2% adverse events
>that the ACTUAL number was 65%

I couldn't find anything with Google search that claimed 65% adverse
effects. If that were true, people who had been vaccinated would be
dropping like flied.

>...they are entirely unaware that for a vaccine to be considered
"safe" it must have a VAERS rating of 0.01% and a preferred rating of
0.001%.

Amazing. I wasn't aware that a VAERS rating was required BEFORE a
vaccine could be considered safe. That's really amazing because a
virus is not suppose to be generically available until AFTER it has
been tested and declared safe. It would be difficult to file a VAERS
report for a vaccine prior to it being declared safe for general
consumption. Got a source for those amazing numbers. "preferred
rating" for being safe seems rather odd.

>So by the CDC's OWN RULES a VAERS rating of 2% would have been
>unreleasable and the vaccine companies REGARDLESS of emergency
>authorization held accountable for what would be considered a
>public health threat.

As before, I can't seem to find anything under "VAERS approval" or
"VAERS rating". VAERS is a crowd sourced database of complaints
resulting from various vaccines. It's not a testing lab.
<https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html>
Please show me where it has become a drug safety rating system.

>Even though it is a FACT

I usually use a line like that to warn me that what follows is
unlikely to be a fact.

>that all of the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis (which in adults
>may or may not resolve - that is it may or may not cause permanent
>heart damage)

There has been some conjecture that there is a connection.
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10216497/>
"Myocarditis rates in people aged 12 to 39 years are around 12.6 cases
per million doses following the second dose of mRNA vaccination."
Doesn't seem like much of a risk.

>the CDC is STILL recommending that the mRNA vaccines which are
>now forbidden in most of the world, should be used on all people
>including children down to 6 months which will cause permanent
>heart damage to children almost certainly.

Not really. Here's what really is happening:
"FDA Takes Action on Updated mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines to Better Protect
Against Currently Circulating Variants"
<https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-updated-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-better-protect-against-currently-circulating>
Basically, the mRNA vaccines were updated for the latest variants and
the older mRNA vaccines were designated as obsolete or something like
that.

>But wait a minute,

I waited a minute, but nothing happened.

>the Stupid 3 only believe the CDC and not large studies by the most
>important medical universities in the world.

Got an example of these large studies?

>An emergency authorization for a shortened testing period MAY NOT be
>issued unless there are not safe alternative methods available.
>So Fauci claimed that there were no alternative means of treatment
>when in fact there were several drugs that were VERY effective using
>off-label (that means using a drug for any other reason than it was
>initially developed to treat) drugs. Fauci lied and people died.

Are you referring to drinking bleach or injecting disinfectant?
"Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment"
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177>

You wrote "...no alternative means of treatment". Please note that
there's a difference between treatment, which occurs after an
infection, and vaccination which is intended to prevent an infection.
Please try not to get these two terms confused. Paxlovid and Lagevrio
are currently the best post infection treatments, while the mRNA based
vaccines are currently the best method of prevention.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 12/10/2023 6:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 14:35:07 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hard medical studies showing that the government was either erasing or urging doctors not to file VAERS entries (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System)
>
> Got a link to some of these hard medical studies? I couldn't find
> any.
>
> Reminder. VAERS data is not intended to be used for demonstrating
> cause and effect:
> <https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html>
> "The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a
> vaccine caused the event."
> "A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified
> vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described."
>
>> that showed that instead of the CDC oft quoted 2% adverse events
>> that the ACTUAL number was 65%
>
> I couldn't find anything with Google search that claimed 65% adverse
> effects. If that were true, people who had been vaccinated would be
> dropping like flied.
>
>> ...they are entirely unaware that for a vaccine to be considered
> "safe" it must have a VAERS rating of 0.01% and a preferred rating of
> 0.001%.
>
> Amazing. I wasn't aware that a VAERS rating was required BEFORE a
> vaccine could be considered safe. That's really amazing because a
> virus is not suppose to be generically available until AFTER it has
> been tested and declared safe. It would be difficult to file a VAERS
> report for a vaccine prior to it being declared safe for general
> consumption. Got a source for those amazing numbers. "preferred
> rating" for being safe seems rather odd.
>
>> So by the CDC's OWN RULES a VAERS rating of 2% would have been
>> unreleasable and the vaccine companies REGARDLESS of emergency
>> authorization held accountable for what would be considered a
>> public health threat.
>
> As before, I can't seem to find anything under "VAERS approval" or
> "VAERS rating". VAERS is a crowd sourced database of complaints
> resulting from various vaccines. It's not a testing lab.
> <https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html>
> Please show me where it has become a drug safety rating system.
>
>> Even though it is a FACT
>
> I usually use a line like that to warn me that what follows is
> unlikely to be a fact.
>
>> that all of the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis (which in adults
>> may or may not resolve - that is it may or may not cause permanent
>> heart damage)
>
> There has been some conjecture that there is a connection.
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10216497/>
> "Myocarditis rates in people aged 12 to 39 years are around 12.6 cases
> per million doses following the second dose of mRNA vaccination."
> Doesn't seem like much of a risk.
>
>> the CDC is STILL recommending that the mRNA vaccines which are
>> now forbidden in most of the world, should be used on all people
>> including children down to 6 months which will cause permanent
>> heart damage to children almost certainly.
>
> Not really. Here's what really is happening:
> "FDA Takes Action on Updated mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines to Better Protect
> Against Currently Circulating Variants"
> <https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-updated-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-better-protect-against-currently-circulating>
> Basically, the mRNA vaccines were updated for the latest variants and
> the older mRNA vaccines were designated as obsolete or something like
> that.
>
>> But wait a minute,
>
> I waited a minute, but nothing happened.
>
>> the Stupid 3 only believe the CDC and not large studies by the most
>> important medical universities in the world.
>
> Got an example of these large studies?
>
>> An emergency authorization for a shortened testing period MAY NOT be
>> issued unless there are not safe alternative methods available.
>> So Fauci claimed that there were no alternative means of treatment
>> when in fact there were several drugs that were VERY effective using
>> off-label (that means using a drug for any other reason than it was
>> initially developed to treat) drugs. Fauci lied and people died.
>
> Are you referring to drinking bleach or injecting disinfectant?
> "Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment"
> <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177>
>
> You wrote "...no alternative means of treatment". Please note that
> there's a difference between treatment, which occurs after an
> infection, and vaccination which is intended to prevent an infection.
> Please try not to get these two terms confused. Paxlovid and Lagevrio
> are currently the best post infection treatments, while the mRNA based
> vaccines are currently the best method of prevention.
>
>

I heard that press conference live. Mr Trump said no such
thing.

The 'bleach' quip was by a TeeVee comedian later that day
and just as Gerald Ford, a graceful accomplished athlete,
skier, dancer was pegged as 'clumsy' by a comedian, the
label outlived the truth.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:16:24 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 02:08:47 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
><fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>What strikes me in this is that Slow Johnny, Liebermann, and Kreepy Krygowski aren't arguing with Mark Steyn's survey of studies around the world of excess mortality before, during and after COVID, as against the background of expected mortality in the aftermath of the Chinese virus, but simply take my post, and every other post, as another opportunity to try and bully Tom Kunich.
>
>That's correct for my contribution to your thread. I analyzed the
>source of Mark Styen's information and not his interpretation of what
>he preferred it to have said. If you can find my initial article in
>your thread, you too can read all about it. Of course, you can always
>endorse Mark Styen's interpretation and not bother reading the basis
>for his politicized comments. I found some difficulties with the
>original authors methodology, which did NOT include any politicized
>commentary such as "Chinese virus".
>
>As for "bully Tom Kunich", for my contribution, that's somewhat
>correct, except that it's not really bullying. I'm not hiding behind
>a fake name or persona. I'm doing my best to encourage Tom to cease
>producing and reproducing lies, distortions, and misinformation.
>Disclosing his lies, distortions, mistakes, misinformation, etc is the
>only way I know to do this. If you know of any other way to
>demonstrate to Tom that his audience does not appreciate being lied
>to, I would be interested.
>
>As for "taking your post", you seem to have failed to notice that ALL
>of your posts are immediately followed by Tom changing the topic or
>hijacking the thread in a direction that he's more comfortable
>discussing. For example, your current thread on:
>"...explains the Post-COVID excess deaths around the world"
>was immediately converted into a politicized discussion by Tom with
>his reply:
>"Lou was just telling us that he doesn't like Trump because CNN thinks
>he's a meany for cutting off their government subsidies..."
>Oddly, I haven't seen you complain about Tom hijacking your threads.
>
>Incidentally, while the Mark Styen article does mention "the world",
>the original source material is limited to only the Netherlands. It's
>mentioned in the initial Summary section:
><https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herman-Steigstra/publication/375774174_An_analysis_of_excess_mortality_based_on_age_and_sex_the_possible_role_of_Covid-19_delayed_care_and_vaccines/links/655c7aecce88b87031fbc73a/An-analysis-of-excess-mortality-based-on-age-and-sex-the-possible-role-of-Covid-19-delayed-care-and-vaccines.pdf>
>I guess everyone missed this minor detail in his article.

The discussion above, in it's most basic form appears to be about
"Bullying Tom" which would seem to give birth to the question,"is
telling the truth bullying"?

As all of the anti-Tom posts, that I've seen, seem to say, in essence,
"can you prove your assertions?" Which (from memory) Tom has either
not answered, or if answered , then by insulting the individual who
posted the question (usually with even more lies).

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:30:05 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 14:35:07 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hard medical studies showing that the government was either erasing or urging doctors not to file VAERS entries (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System)
>
>Got a link to some of these hard medical studies? I couldn't find
>any.
>
>Reminder. VAERS data is not intended to be used for demonstrating
>cause and effect:
><https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html>
>"The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a
>vaccine caused the event."
>"A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified
>vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described."
>
>>that showed that instead of the CDC oft quoted 2% adverse events
>>that the ACTUAL number was 65%
>
>I couldn't find anything with Google search that claimed 65% adverse
>effects. If that were true, people who had been vaccinated would be
>dropping like flied.
>
>>...they are entirely unaware that for a vaccine to be considered
>"safe" it must have a VAERS rating of 0.01% and a preferred rating of
>0.001%.
>
>Amazing. I wasn't aware that a VAERS rating was required BEFORE a
>vaccine could be considered safe. That's really amazing because a
>virus is not suppose to be generically available until AFTER it has
>been tested and declared safe. It would be difficult to file a VAERS
>report for a vaccine prior to it being declared safe for general
>consumption. Got a source for those amazing numbers. "preferred
>rating" for being safe seems rather odd.
>
>>So by the CDC's OWN RULES a VAERS rating of 2% would have been
>>unreleasable and the vaccine companies REGARDLESS of emergency
>>authorization held accountable for what would be considered a
>>public health threat.
>
>As before, I can't seem to find anything under "VAERS approval" or
>"VAERS rating". VAERS is a crowd sourced database of complaints
>resulting from various vaccines. It's not a testing lab.
><https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html>
>Please show me where it has become a drug safety rating system.
>
>>Even though it is a FACT
>
>I usually use a line like that to warn me that what follows is
>unlikely to be a fact.
>
>>that all of the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis (which in adults
>>may or may not resolve - that is it may or may not cause permanent
>>heart damage)
>
>There has been some conjecture that there is a connection.
><https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10216497/>
>"Myocarditis rates in people aged 12 to 39 years are around 12.6 cases
>per million doses following the second dose of mRNA vaccination."
>Doesn't seem like much of a risk.
>
>>the CDC is STILL recommending that the mRNA vaccines which are
>>now forbidden in most of the world, should be used on all people
>>including children down to 6 months which will cause permanent
>>heart damage to children almost certainly.
>
>Not really. Here's what really is happening:
>"FDA Takes Action on Updated mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines to Better Protect
>Against Currently Circulating Variants"
><https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-updated-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-better-protect-against-currently-circulating>
>Basically, the mRNA vaccines were updated for the latest variants and
>the older mRNA vaccines were designated as obsolete or something like
>that.
>
>>But wait a minute,
>
>I waited a minute, but nothing happened.
>
>>the Stupid 3 only believe the CDC and not large studies by the most
>>important medical universities in the world.
>
>Got an example of these large studies?
>
>>An emergency authorization for a shortened testing period MAY NOT be
>>issued unless there are not safe alternative methods available.
>>So Fauci claimed that there were no alternative means of treatment
>>when in fact there were several drugs that were VERY effective using
>>off-label (that means using a drug for any other reason than it was
>>initially developed to treat) drugs. Fauci lied and people died.
>
>Are you referring to drinking bleach or injecting disinfectant?
>"Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment"
><https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177>
>
>You wrote "...no alternative means of treatment". Please note that
>there's a difference between treatment, which occurs after an
>infection, and vaccination which is intended to prevent an infection.
>Please try not to get these two terms confused. Paxlovid and Lagevrio
>are currently the best post infection treatments, while the mRNA based
>vaccines are currently the best method of prevention.

I keep asking Tom for proof of all the vaccination deaths as Thailand
has vaccinated about 80% of the population and after reading Tom's
frantic warnings I asked a doctor at the largest hospital in N.E.
Thailand - some 4,000 patients seen a day, about vaccination deaths
and he said that the hospital has seen none. He went on to say that he
and his wife and kids had taken the full vaccination series.

Strangely... Tom never responds with any proof at all.

--
Cheers,

John B.