Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Heart deaths" video.

  1. A 10% excess death rate is known as decimation.
    10
  2. Read the article. And while you're at it, read up on multivariate analysis. That is urgently needed.
    4
  3. So, . . . the studies he discusses and links aren't real, or . . . they say something different from what he says they say? I always read studies. We were lied to a lot, as it turns out. Why? Seems unnecessary.
    4
  4. If it were me, I'd improve ALL of my health habits and not worry.
    2
  5. ​ @BrownDaddy007 No, most people do not have such serious ailments by 40.
    2
  6. ​@somatotrophin1535 The study does not differentiate between COVID mortality and non-COVID mortality. If the vaccines reduce overall COVID mortality, without literally killing a lot of people, then of course they will also reduce all-cause mortality, since the latter includes COVID mortality. No one claims vaccines undermine health MORE THAN they prevent COVID death overall. I think they might in some groups, like people under 25. Why has Europe stopped pushing these vaccines for anyone under 50, for that matter? Only multivariate analysis can figure out what is really happening, and that takes time and money. And honesty. But lying pays better.
    2
  7. ​ @mandyo9690 Disagree. The protein itself is a toxin, possibly engineered to be. It can cause harm however it enters your cells. Long COVID is not necessarily from vaccines.
    1
  8. We don't know for sure. The studies that need to be done haven't been. Some doctors in Europe no longer recommend boosters because they suspect the repeated exposure, from both contracting COVID and having shots, is harmful. The fact that the vaccines do not prevent infection is a huge disappointment.
    1
  9. Given that the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes rapidly, what evidence do you have that those who have had vaccination and COVID are less likely to have this inflammatory response? We would need a careful, honest multivariate analysis to determine that, correct? And we have had NO SUCH THING yet, correct? The burden of proof is always on the proponent of the vaccine or any drug or treatment. Correct? Yes, it is.
    1
  10. No it does not. The NIH library has tons of open access, peer-reviewed articles.
    1
  11. Recent article on long COVID in children, direct quote: Danilo Buonsenso, a paediatric infectious-disease specialist at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome, says that the study design was “rigorous” but points out that it defined long COVID as the persistence of symptoms after one month, whereas the World Health Organization describes long COVID as symptoms that last for at least two months. This isn't going to be easy.
    1
  12. 17:20 "curiosity deficit disorder" Will never forget that.
    1
  13. Until we have a serious and careful multivariate analysis of the matter by unbiased researchers, we will not know. As a matter of public health, and since the Omicron variant became dominant and the original virus became extinct, many countries' ministries of health have changed their policies and their vaccine recommendations, for various reasons.
    1
  14. ​@scottekoontz Were they counting all 2020 cases as unvaccinated, or are they comparing contemporaneous populations with the same variant? Were they counting one injection as unvaccinated, or were they looking at the vaccine naive? I remember when regions that were heavily vaccinated had as much or more COVID as the unvaccinated regions, and then newspapers like the NYTimes changed the definition of vaccinated to three doses. That worked, for a while. The reality is that only a multivariate analysis can provide answers, and those are very time consuming and expensive to do. But until then, no --- we do NOT know.
    1
  15. I found several such articles on the Nature website. All had competing interests. This is sad. The government is supposed to fund this research.
    1
  16. What a shame the vaccine fails to prevent COVID. I agree.
    1
  17. ​​ @GavinLawson-v7c PRECISELY. Why do you think I suggested multivariate analysis? Too bad it is costly and time consuming, and there are such strong material disincentives to conducting a careful, thorough, and wholly unbiased multivariate analysis. Too bad, yup.
    1
  18. Here is a quote from the current CDC website: "In the first ten months that COVID-19 vaccines were available, they saved over 200,000 lives and prevented over 1.5 million hospitalizations in the United States. This is the purpose of these vaccines: to save lives and prevent severe disease. They can also reduce the risk of Long COVID." That's the most they can say for it? Seriously? You vaccine tens upon tens of millions, most of them involuntarily, and most of them at no significant risk of hospitalization or death, with a vaccine known not to prevent disease or prevent spread, and known to have significant side effects, for this? That's assuming it is true that it saved "200,000" lives. I've had people scream at me that it saved "millions of lives." The CDC today says no such thing. That said, only multivariate analysis can give us some insight into what is going on. I also suspect a lot of excess deaths are due to COVID. Perhaps multiple infections combined with multiple boosters weakens the immune system. A lot of European doctors suspect that to be a risk.
    1
  19. Because there is no evidence that the vaccine is preventing infection for more than a very, very short time, and the burden of proof is on the proponent.
    1
  20. False
    1
  21. ​ @S.Wally. You're right, it doesn't.
    1
  22. Please link to the definitive multivariate analysis on the matter.
    1
  23. Who denies that the proteins are toxins, irrespective of source?
    1