| | | I've seen no new information... that changes anything in a proper analysis of risks...
The data also show that mortality from "the virus" now is essentially non-existent... at least in any statistically relevant way. So, 99% of nothing... is still pretty close to nothing.
That is certainly all the more true if you are living in a place with adequate health care delivery... which, by itself, is sufficient to ensure you will not die. Basically, no one is dying of Covid any more... since they have figured out how to manage patient care without killing people... The rest seems it is social engineering of a fad... that appears to have great intensity and insistence behind it... for some reason that is NOT valid concern with the public interest... or caring about people individually.
The "99% of" statistic... is pretty clearly lying with statistics.
First, "99% of deaths from new cases"... is oddly phrased ? Why add the caveat about "new cases" ? What is the mortality rate among "used cases" ? Or, among ALL cases... Mortality numbers are valid as a percent of the population, or even of a differentiable sub-population ... but not when worked backwards... to say that "of all those who died" their risk of death is higher ?
Second, what is the percent mortality of inoculated persons... right now, given changing risks... and how have those percents and risks changed recently ? The justification for the jab... is REDUCED now relative to what it was ? And what percent mortality is required to exist... for there to be any legitimate public interest in addressing those risks by any other than routine means... leaving people to decide things for themselves ?
What is the percent mortality of un-inoculated persons... as a percent of the population... and as a percent of the cases... or by sub-group, as a percent of cases of un-inoculated persons... which is valid to ask, as long done properly.
It's also STILL true if you simply manage your own affairs well enough... you can avoid becoming infected... which is really not all that hard to accomplish. Mostly only requires adequate nutrition... but, a bit of care in washing hands after being in public. etc., is still prudent... as it always true. Get enough sleep, enough exercise to be improving basic health.... etc. Don't bother wearing a mask... unless it is an N100... but, also. having a hepa filter in your house, or car... won't hurt anything ?
Oddly, there are not many MSM publishing statistics on rates of infection or mortality among people who are not getting the jab... but ARE taking proper care of themselves... with adequate quantities of vits A, C, D, E and zinc... elderberry... quercitin... or the other things known to provide additional protection that prevents infection... even if you are exposed ?
If, in spite of all that... you do suspect you have managed to become infected, and taking a bit of extra D, zinc, and maybe some Methylene Blue, or one of the other known functional virus propagation blockers... doesn't end symptoms within an hour or two... don't wait to see what happens next... but seek treatment immediately... as early treatment greatly alters the risks... And, Ivermectin seems it works... as a curative.
A good question to ask... re the statistics... how many of the deaths counted in those stats... sought early treatment... and how many got an early dosage of Ivermectin... and how many failed to seek early treatment... and failed to be treated with Ivermectin ?
That risk there is... is further modified... by quality of care and proper choices of care... which are also in your control... Do your own due diligence.
Which matters more, statistically, in those fatal outcomes... as a percent of the total cases: having had the shot... or being treated with Ivermectin ?
So what is that "risk" that you speak of... when properly calculated... and properly reported... given the odds of catching it are low... and the odds of it mattering if you do, and receive proper care, are also low ?
There are also still MANY risks they are NOT telling you about... from getting the jab(s)...
Those risks are not all known... some of which is the always present routine in the risk of unknowns that will exist in all medical experiments... as the "vaccines" they're administering are experimental drugs... not approved treatments for anything, yet... including that they are not yet properly RISKED as per the benefit versus the long term costs in risks created by getting them...
The current generation of "vaccines" might never qualify for FDA approval ? I'll wait for one that qualifies.
I will consider getting a proper immunization ONLY when one is available... and right now none are.
There is no valid reason, currently, to even consider getting an "immunization"... that does not even confer immunity. It appears the current round of "non-immunity conferring immunizations"... the legitimate need for which, even given a functional immunization, is obviated by having small molecule drugs that work as preventives... have as a primary goal "creating repeat customers" for a product that doesn't work... while secondary goals appear to include things equally or more nefarious... all while ignoring real risks, both known and unknown.
I won't voluntarily participate in medical experiments... or support imposition of medical serfdom...
I will continue to opt out of these medical experiments... mine being VERY well informed dissent...
Currently, it appears that the risk of mortality, IF you do fail to avoid the bug, and get it... is the same or VASTLY LESS than that from a routine flu bug... which Fauci claims to be 0.1%...
And, they've been lying about the mortality numbers... so you can't trust them about risks or their calculations ? |
|
