CDC: Covid is sole cause of death in only 5 percent of cases.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
They could have paid the healthcare workers more to stay secluded for a while till a decent vaccine came out to protect those at high risk, sort of like how people at risk get the pneumonia vaccine.

Or, they could have promoted the use of know safe and potentially effective treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin, and saved 95% of those that died, quickly, and without most ever having to be admitted to the hospital.

No jab required.

Plain old coffee contains quinones which help to inhibit viral infections.

Then there is Neem, which is a natural source of chemistry similar to Ivermectin which is effective at reducing covid risk too. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

If you know a little about natural medicines and want to find natural ways to do things, there is evidence out there that can inform you if things will work or not. Now, They tested the neem as a way of reducing risk, not to treat the disease once it turned covid. That is important to note in the article I provided.

Here is another article dealing with neem in relation to the virus that causes covid. Add up all the natural ways and it proves that this virus is not as bad as they are making it out to be. www.researchsquare.com...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Any evidence of that?

You mean, like a placebo controlled randomized clinical trial?

No, no I don't.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Any evidence of that?

You mean, like a placebo controlled randomized clinical trial?

No, no I don't.

Any evidence at all would be good, otherwise it sounds a lot like you just made it up.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Any evidence at all would be good, otherwise it sounds a lot like you just made it up.

No. I suggested it was a distinct possibility almost a year ago, but asked if there was anyone out there who knew how to test the theory and had access to the raw data needed to do so. No one spoke up.

It is one of the few things that would explain a lot of the things that just don't add up - empty hospitals, intentionally ignoring and demonizing extremely safe and apparently very effective therapeutics just so they can get their EUA for an untested, unproven experimental gene therapy posing as a vaccine resulting in the deaths of a whole lot of vulnerable people, doom/fear-porn non-stop for a virus that has a 0.1% CFR, fake narratives (mandatory facemasks now proven to not only not work better than a placebo as advertised, they have a major negative impact on the wearers health) and constantly moving goalposts (2 weeks to flatten the curve).

Then I read a report online from someone in the field that was ridiculed and quickly disappeared validating that this was in fact happening.

So, forgive me if I simply accept the fact that it is most likely happening, without RDBPCT level proof.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Any evidence at all would be good, otherwise it sounds a lot like you just made it up.

No. I suggested it was a distinct possibility almost a year ago, but asked if there was anyone out there who knew how to test the theory and had access to the raw data needed to do so. No one spoke up.

It is one of the few things that would explain a lot of the things that just don't add up - empty hospitals, intentionally ignoring and demonizing extremely safe and apparently very effective therapeutics just so they can get their EUA for an untested, unproven experimental gene therapy posing as a vaccine resulting in the deaths of a whole lot of vulnerable people, doom/fear-porn non-stop for a virus that has a 0.1% CFR, fake narratives (mandatory facemasks now proven to not only not work better than a placebo as advertised, they have a major negative impact on the wearers health) and constantly moving goalposts (2 weeks to flatten the curve).

Then I read a report online from someone in the field that was ridiculed and quickly disappeared validating that this was in fact happening.

So, forgive me if I simply accept the fact that it is most likely happening, without RDBPCT level proof.

It doesn't have a 0.1% CFR

That is something else you just made up.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: tanstaafl
It doesn't have a 0.1% CFR

That is something else you just made up.

Really?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: tanstaafl
It doesn't have a 0.1% CFR

That is something else you just made up.

Really?

Yes really.

Ron Paul on face book doesn't change reality

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Ron Paul on face book doesn't change reality

No, but the information he points out is from the CDC's own website - so, it is the realityunlike your delusional beliefs in the MSM fake narrative.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Ron Paul on face book doesn't change reality

No, but the information he points out is from the CDC's own website - so, it is the realityunlike your delusional beliefs in the MSM fake narrative.

The CDC report both deaths from covid and covid cases. These show you claim of a 0.1% CFR to be wrong. That isn't a matter of opinion, you are factually wrong.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The CDC report both deaths from covid and covid cases. These show you claim of a 0.1% CFR to be wrong. That isn't a matter of opinion, you are factually wrong.

Actually, no, I'm not...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The CDC report both deaths from covid and covid cases. These show you claim of a 0.1% CFR to be wrong. That isn't a matter of opinion, you are factually wrong.

Actually, no, I'm not...

600k deaths 34 million cases.

Perhaps you can show your workings to get 0.1%?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Perhaps you can show your workings to get 0.1%?

Perhaps you can revisit the meaning of the Subject of this thread?

Perhaps you can understand just how badly skewed they are just by virus of the fact that more than one third of them were old folks in group/nursing homes?

Perhaps you can understand that 90+% of these deaths were preventable, had they used available treatments early on (like HCQ and Ivermectin)?

Perhaps you can understand the meaning of these stats, wherein you'll find this little gem:

"Based on these random samples, the Stanford professor of medicine, epidemiology, biomedical data science, and statistics concluded that the fatality rate ranges from 0.02% to 0.40%. That is a range of seven times less deadly or 2.8 times more deadly than seasonal influenza."

Perhaps you'll actually open your eyes, and see that you have been lied to all along.

Or, perhaps, monkeys will fly out of my butt.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Perhaps you can show your workings to get 0.1%?

Perhaps you can revisit the meaning of the Subject of this thread?

Perhaps you can understand just how badly skewed they are just by virus of the fact that more than one third of them were old folks in group/nursing homes?

Perhaps you can understand that 90+% of these deaths were preventable, had they used available treatments early on (like HCQ and Ivermectin)?

Perhaps you can understand the meaning of these stats, wherein you'll find this little gem:

"Based on these random samples, the Stanford professor of medicine, epidemiology, biomedical data science, and statistics concluded that the fatality rate ranges from 0.02% to 0.40%. That is a range of seven times less deadly or 2.8 times more deadly than seasonal influenza."

Perhaps you'll actually open your eyes, and see that you have been lied to all along.

Or, perhaps, monkeys will fly out of my butt.

The subject iof this thread seems to be how many people on this site don't understand what co morbidity means

If it was seven times less deadly than the flu we wouldn't have 600k deaths from it, a figure that is backed up by the excess deaths figure.

You made a claim of a 0.1% CFR and can't even begin to back up that claim. It clear that I am being lied to, by you. Fortunately you seen to be very bad at it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If it was seven times less deadly than the flu we wouldn't have 600k deaths from it, a figure that is backed up by the excess deaths figure.

Yes, a figure that has clearly been heavily manipulated.

You made a claim of a 0.1% CFR and can't even begin to back up that claim.

I just linked to a new study that shows that the real number is somewhere between 0.02 and 0.4.

Question: does 0.1 fall between those two numbers?

It clear that I am being lied to, by you. Fortunately you seen to be very bad at it.

No, you are lying to yourself. You're pretty bad at it too, but unfortunately for you, you apparently are still falling for it.

Keep trying to deny ignorance. You'll get it... eventually...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If it was seven times less deadly than the flu we wouldn't have 600k deaths from it, a figure that is backed up by the excess deaths figure.

Yes, a figure that has clearly been heavily manipulated.

You made a claim of a 0.1% CFR and can't even begin to back up that claim.

I just linked to a new study that shows that the real number is somewhere between 0.02 and 0.4.

Question: does 0.1 fall between those two numbers?

It clear that I am being lied to, by you. Fortunately you seen to be very bad at it.

No, you are lying to yourself. You're pretty bad at it too, but unfortunately for you, you apparently are still falling for it.

Keep trying to deny ignorance. You'll get it... eventually...

You linked to an article (not a study) discussing a non peer review study about the IFR (not CFR) of a subset of the population.

It couldn't be any clearer that you just made up your claim of 0.1% . With that in my mind why should anyone take anything you say on tihis topic seriously?

ETA its also from May last year, not a new study.

a reply to: rickymouse

Or use the native America remedy for viral infections including during the flu season, Pine needle tea.

Interesting.