Deaths From “Unknown” Causes Are Now the Leading Killer in Alberta

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

The actual mortality rate is disputed, so I will throw in a low ball figure, say 1/2 a percent.

That's 128,000 people.

In order for the US to gain heard immunity without a vax, around 128,000 people will die.

That's the equivalent of dropping a tactical nuclear warhead onto a city.

Where we disagree here is that 128,000 would mainly be the old and high risk, and if they were vaccinated then we would see a much lower death count of maybe 10% of that, or how about a normal flu season?

a reply to: Xtrozero

this, but hey that is how things work anyways in as debate.

So you x would likely agree that a healthy debate in regards to the risk
factors involved, with this whatever this injection is? If debated upon
at some conference and involved Virologists from around the world
with media present. You would agree a debate between virologists
from both sides of the extreme opinions on this jab. Do you believe
such a debate before the world would have been far more prudent?

in terms of gaining the trust of a population that everyone on the
planet knew was already deeply divided on the issue of vaccines?
And do you agree that even in the so called medical emergency
situation we were in. Should not such a debate not only have
occurred? But would have been an absolute if the profiteers of
the jabs had the full confidence in their product as we seen
displayed initially?

Personally in my view such an option as it were ignored for in it's
stead the more tyrannical ultimatum that politicians chose to enact
upon the whole GD world's reality? Was a decision made not above
the level of the severely mentally handicapped. And there by in
itself a provocation that left billions of human beings highly
suspicious and rightfully so. Especially when a simple debate
between the two factions where one side or the other would have
to concede was all that was needed. What say you my brother?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

The actual mortality rate is disputed, so I will throw in a low ball figure, say 1/2 a percent.

That's 128,000 people.

In order for the US to gain heard immunity without a vax, around 128,000 people will die.

That's the equivalent of dropping a tactical nuclear warhead onto a city.

Where we disagree here is that 128,000 would mainly be the old and high risk, and if they were vaccinated then we would see a much lower death count of maybe 10% of that, or how about a normal flu season?

This is an extremely low ball estimate for herd immunity without a vax.

Based on figures from the EU (A higher than 0.5 percent mortality rate), without the vax about 330,000 Americans would be dead before heard immunity was reached. But I know that a bunch of people here will dispute that number, so I'm just going to use the lower figure for now. If you can call 128,000 people a low figure.

Yes, the old and people with comorbidity would form the bulk of that, but in the US, things like obesity and diabetes are quite common. Meaning that several 10s of thousands of middle aged people would also die.

In the US about 8 percent of all African American children have their grandparents as their primary guardians. So that's an awful lot of children going into the foster care system.

It's also not just about deaths. At the current infection rate it would take several years to reach heard immunity, and over that time some people would be infected a couple of times. The economic loss to the country of so many people getting sick would be worse than the economic cost of locking down and vaxxing. Which is why the government chose to lock down and vax instead of to simply wait for heard immunity.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
Now, you know my stance in general, but I'm tired of the numbers game, I don't trust anyones numbers, through a lot of this numbers were given, without full disclosure/context in many cases. Not lying, but not giving the full picture, oversold, undersold..etc, etc..for our own good..in their minds

originally posted by: Randyvine2

So you x would likely agree that a healthy debate in regards to the risk
factors involved, with this whatever this injection is? If debated upon
at some conference and involved Virologists from around the world
with media present. You would agree a debate between virologists
from both sides of the extreme opinions on this jab. Do you believe
such a debate before the world would have been far more prudent?

So maybe, we have well over a year of data from 100 countries now, so what are you trying to solve here? What would be the end result of a debate?

in terms of gaining the trust of a population that everyone on the
planet knew was already deeply divided on the issue of vaccines?
And do you agree that even in the so called medical emergency
situation we were in. Should not such a debate not only have
occurred? But would have been an absolute if the profiteers of
the jabs had the full confidence in their product as we seen
displayed initially?

That trust with many is gone, not getting it back, so where do we go from here. I personally feel if Trump won we would not be having such heated discussion on all this. Biden and team has failed on so many levels to the point I really do not care what they say anymore.

Personally in my view such an option as it were ignored for in it's
stead the more tyrannical ultimatum that politicians chose to enact
upon the whole GD world's reality? Was a decision made not above
the level of the severely mentally handicapped. And there by in
itself a provocation that left billions of human beings highly
suspicious and rightfully so. Especially when a simple debate
between the two factions where one side or the other would have
to concede was all that was needed. What say you my brother?

I agree 100% here. The government pulled things out of their butts daily and labeled them as facts and then changed them a week later over and over. How can anyone to include me trust anything they say?

As to big pharma they are truly a trust but verify type situation. We need to trust they want to do good, but also we need to understand they also want to make billions, so we really need to be on them to make sure they are doing what is 100% in our best interest and not just theirs. This administration has really dropped that ball too.

This OP post is a great example of the consequences of such actions as the article he used is verifiability 100% false as I have shown in an earlier post. Is it his fault that is how he sees things today, no, its the administrations fault that has created such anti-trust issues that we end up with this as a result.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

This is an extremely low ball estimate for herd immunity without a vax.

I don't understand this point. Total deaths under 40 years of age is about 25k since 2019, and I would bet the vast majority of that 25k is younger people with high risk. If we wanted to say under 50 that would be about 75k now as total deaths in like 2 years, and once again high risk taking up most of them.

So we have the vax and we give it to the high risk of any age.... Everyone else gets immune when they get the virus, or choose to get the vaccine, and you think I'm low balling?

Based on figures from the EU (A higher than 0.5 percent mortality rate), without the vax about 330,000 Americans would be dead before heard immunity was reached. But I know that a bunch of people here will dispute that number, so I'm just going to use the lower figure for now. If you can call 128,000 people a low figure.

Once again you are assuming ZERO vac and so your 330,000 more is 330,000 high risk cases that would get the vac, not healthy people.

You are missing my point in well over 200+ million Americans really do not need the vaccine and will do fine when they get the virus. about 40% of the population is not vacced and most of that 40% are out of the 200+ million that are young and healthy.

So we are looking at 25k deaths out of 200 million, and we do not know how many of those 25k were very high risk which we could assume most. That leave what 5k deaths out of 200 million? Do you think they really need the vaccine based on that?

a reply to: Xtrozero

So maybe, we have well over a year of data from 100 countries now, so what are you trying to solve here? What would be the end result of a debate?

First I applaud your grounded opinion often. So I was curious what your
thoughts might be in regards to the two existing roads (debate or tyrannical
force) and the road of tyranny that was favored. The road of forced injection
was obviously taken in spite of other obvious choices. And debating the
opposition should have been a no brainer. As it were the chosen road even
tho a child would see as more provocative was indeed where they took the
ball. Therefore fueling suspicion even more as an avoidance to a simple
debate. That would've proved far more effective unless it would've exposed
something.

Discussing the jab for the whole world before the whole world. That was
preemptively divided on the issue wasn't even considered. As if they didn't
have the brains to consider it. And that was total crap.

So don't you see the road they avoided was obviously a dead end for what
they had in mind. Which if was not destruction and death to humanity? It
might as well have been because that's what at least half the world feared.

This is what in my mind makes it obvious that a controlling group. That it
would be absurd to believe give a GD about the population us. I don't get
the big stretch to seeing the goal they truly had in mind as possibly mass
murder.

Are people so mind f#$$ed that if they don't see Dr. Evils clothes on these
obvious weirdos they must be okay? GDWTF? How does that seem so far
fetched I don't get it for the life of me. I just don't. Do you for example
have even the slightest suspicion that those in control might actually
consider deviousness as such at all?

How is an issue of trust in wackos classified as paranoia?

originally posted by: Randyvine2

First I applaud your grounded opinion often. So I was curious what your
thoughts might be in regards to the two existing roads (debate or tyrannical
force) and the road of tyranny that was favored. The road of forced injection
was obviously taken in spite of other obvious choices. And debating the
opposition should have been a no brainer. As it were the chosen road even
tho a child would see as more provocative was indeed where they took the
ball. Therefore fueling suspicion even more as an avoidance to a simple
debate. That would've proved far more effective unless it would've exposed
something.

What I see is two debates mixed together and I like to keep them separate. The first one is as you said above that everyone but the loony left will agree with, but the problem is this get mixed in what I call the second debate.

That other debate is whether the vaccines have helped at what level and what risks do they have?

Discussing the jab for the whole world before the whole world. That was
preemptively divided on the issue wasn't even considered. As if they didn't
have the brains to consider it. And that was total crap.

Is this really a whole world issue or just a US issue due to our crappy Goverment, or maybe even a small percent of the US issue? One person on the internet can be seen as 1000, just saying. We do have whole world data and for me that beats out any discussion. Even the Supreme Court can not agree on anything 100% and they are the SC...lol

So don't you see the road they avoided was obviously a dead end for what
they had in mind. Which if was not destruction and death to humanity? It
might as well have been because that's what at least half the world feared.

If this happened in 2005 would the world even care about it, would the world just get their shots without even one thought like we have done for 100 years? Did we create all of this in our wacky minds using this newer thing called social media to fuel it like gas on a fire? Do we really need minute by minute information, can we even handle it? What created this fear other than social media and our Goverment feeling they needed to keep up with social media and failed. How true is any of it outside of one guy in a basement somewhere creating it all. Just google one thing and you get 10,000 hits ALL saying the same damn thing, so that was one person saying it and then 10,000 people/sites picked it up and repeated it word for word, and so then it becomes the truth, and the reality is some person just pulled it out of their ass.

This is what in my mind makes it obvious that a controlling group. That it
would be absurd to believe give a GD about the population us. I don't get
the big stretch to seeing the goal they truly had in mind as possibly mass
murder.

Has there really been mass murder, if that was their goal they failed rather miserably. I tend to think it is more inline with inept people freaking out, and big pharma seeing money raining from the skies. This doesn't mean that there wasn't very honest, good, smart people working to get a vaccine to market. It doesn't ALL need to be bad or ALL good. You can have many mixes , in the vaccine could be a huge success story, with many other things being failures.

Are people so mind f#$$ed that if they don't see Dr. Evils clothes on these
obvious weirdos they must be okay? GDWTF? How does that seem so far
fetched I don't get it for the life of me. I just don't. Do you for example
have even the slightest suspicion that those in control might actually
consider deviousness as such at all?

How is an issue of trust in wackos classified as paranoia?

No clue and I really do not waste too much time on it. I get on with my life, and it is a good life. Once again how much of all this is generated within social media with no real reality there outside of the social media part. Isn't it strange all this only started happening when social media became big? hmmm

a reply to: Xtrozero

You remain consistent in well grounded answers, Still I don't
see my perspective as as anything less than warranted.

Thank you X

originally posted by: abigredneck
And yet here you are.


a reply to: Middleoftheroad

What's a "gredneck?"

a reply to: Xtrozero

People might not die, but they can still get sick, and far too many people simply cannot afford that right now. It's not just the cost of missing a couple of shifts, if you need oxygen or something it can cost several months income even for people who aren't on the breadline.

Then there's the fact that virus mutate and the more people who have covid the more it can produce dangerous variants.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

People might not die, but they can still get sick, and far too many people simply cannot afford that right now. It's not just the cost of missing a couple of shifts, if you need oxygen or something it can cost several months income even for people who aren't on the breadline.

Then there's the fact that virus mutate and the more people who have covid the more it can produce dangerous variants.

These young people are not having issues. My son at college had COVID parties and for about 2 weeks their college was the hottest COVID zone in the world with like 10,000 of them all having it and they all got over it in 3 to 5 days, and this was Delta too. Extremely low rate of anything past a simple flu. People get sick all the time with the shots too, so sick with or without is still sick. The key is to try and prevent getting really sick to where you need further care past a normal flu, or to at least prevent death and we are once again taking about the high risk people not young healthy people. Now with Omicron it is extremely more infectious and much less extreme than delta, so what are we trying to do here with this one outside of extreme high risk. What we are now talking about is more of a seasonal flu shot and not some pandemic type approach of heard immunity.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

People might not die, but they can still get sick, and far too many people simply cannot afford that right now. It's not just the cost of missing a couple of shifts, if you need oxygen or something it can cost several months income even for people who aren't on the breadline.

Then there's the fact that virus mutate and the more people who have covid the more it can produce dangerous variants.

These young people are not having issues. My son at college had COVID parties and for about 2 weeks their college was the hottest COVID zone in the world with like 10,000 of them all having it and they all got over it in 3 to 5 days, and this was Delta too. Extremely low rate of anything past a simple flu. People get sick all the time with the shots too, so sick with or without is still sick. The key is to try and prevent getting really sick to where you need further care past a normal flu, or to at least prevent death and we are once again taking about the high risk people not young healthy people. Now with Omicron it is extremely more infectious and much less extreme than delta, so what are we trying to do here with this one outside of extreme high risk. What we are now talking about is more of a seasonal flu shot and not some pandemic type approach of heard immunity.

Why do you need a flu shot when 99.9% can handle the weakened form with no issue? Why didnt the CDC ever recommend vitamin D or very basic things like that that have a huge impact? The vulnerable can use front line drugs like ivermectin. With that very basic approach there was never any need for a vaccine and it would have killed the same number of people as the flu. The reason some died is because they told them to do nothing, waiting until they were very sick and then murdered them with the remdesivir / vent combo. Hospitals and big pharma still made a lot of money from their death.

Your putting your trust in an institution that has been corporate captured by big pharma completely.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

Why do you need a flu shot when 99.9% can handle the weakened form with no issue?

You need whatever can help if you are high risk and so in an already bad situation.

Your putting your trust in an institution that has been corporate captured by big pharma completely.

Did you actually read my post you responded too...lol

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hospitals in the UK made no money from folks' "death" as treatment here is free thanks to our NHS.

To suggest that thousands and thousands of hardworking NHS doctors, nurses and support staff are somehow guilty of or complicit in murder not only beggars belief it is also grossly insulting to hardworking health workers who I know from experience are kind and caring people. In the case of nurses etc, grossly underpaid too.

What utter bs. Again.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Didn't nurses tell children to be quiet when Jimmy visited?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

So they are all evil, eh?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Following the mysterious 84% increase in all cause mortality, excess deaths are being observed everywhere and seem to show up as being from "unknown causes." Nobody is quite sure what is causing them, but compared to pre-pandemic levels, deaths from unknown causes in Alberta is now 7 times higher. The leading theories seem to be climate change, excess TV watching, and the shock from high energy bills. There is one more, but we can, uh, rule that out without investigation.

Public health officials in the Canadian Province of Alberta are sounding the alarm after they recorded an unprecedented rise in deaths from “unknown” or “ill-defined” causes in 2020 and 2021.

According to the most recent data published by the Government of Alberta, deaths from “unknown” causes became the leading killer in the province – claiming more lives than heart disease, diabetes, and strokes, COMBINED – in 2021. When compared to pre-pandemic data the total number of deaths without a known cause is a staggering 7x higher than it was in 2019.

In total, there were 3,362 of these deaths in 2021, which is more than double the 1,464 in 2020. In 2019, there were only 522.

Ill-defined and unknown causes (3,362)

Dementia (2,135)

Covid-19 (1,950)

Chronic ischemic heart disease (1,939)

Malignant neoplasms of the trachea, bronchitis, and lung (1,552)

Acute myocardial infarction (1,075)

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1,028)

Diabetes Mellitus (728)

Stroke (612)

Accidental poisoning by and exposure to drugs and other substances (604)

LINK TO DATA

SOURCE

The Gateway Pundit is a far right news source & has been caught countless times posting bogus news If the AP or Reuters reports on this then there can be a proper topic on this Until then , posting stuff from the Gateway Pundit is similar to getting USA news from TASS in Russia

a reply to: InnerSpeciesPredator

Last November it was a twenty percent increase in all-cause mortality. Now it is eighty-four percent. Seven months it has climbed by sixty-odd percent. So it is climbing by about ten percent a month. By this November it will be a hundred percent increase on the pre covid five-year average. Insurance companies will be scrambling for waivers soon.

originally posted by: InnerSpeciesPredator

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Following the mysterious 84% increase in all cause mortality, excess deaths are being observed everywhere and seem to show up as being from "unknown causes." Nobody is quite sure what is causing them, but compared to pre-pandemic levels, deaths from unknown causes in Alberta is now 7 times higher. The leading theories seem to be climate change, excess TV watching, and the shock from high energy bills. There is one more, but we can, uh, rule that out without investigation.

Public health officials in the Canadian Province of Alberta are sounding the alarm after they recorded an unprecedented rise in deaths from “unknown” or “ill-defined” causes in 2020 and 2021.

According to the most recent data published by the Government of Alberta, deaths from “unknown” causes became the leading killer in the province – claiming more lives than heart disease, diabetes, and strokes, COMBINED – in 2021. When compared to pre-pandemic data the total number of deaths without a known cause is a staggering 7x higher than it was in 2019.

In total, there were 3,362 of these deaths in 2021, which is more than double the 1,464 in 2020. In 2019, there were only 522.

Ill-defined and unknown causes (3,362)

Dementia (2,135)

Covid-19 (1,950)

Chronic ischemic heart disease (1,939)

Malignant neoplasms of the trachea, bronchitis, and lung (1,552)

Acute myocardial infarction (1,075)

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1,028)

Diabetes Mellitus (728)

Stroke (612)

Accidental poisoning by and exposure to drugs and other substances (604)

LINK TO DATA

SOURCE

The Gateway Pundit is a far right news source & has been caught countless times posting bogus news If the AP or Reuters reports on this then there can be a proper topic on this Until then , posting stuff from the Gateway Pundit is similar to getting USA news from TASS in Russia

Nice emojis they make your point MORE valid.


USA today was caught creating numerous fake articles and they are one of the #1 "fact checkers." Aka big pharma hired narrative pushers.

The mainstream media lies about everything, I'll take TGP over your NWO mainstream bs media.