Italian Health Minister Under Investigation for Murder for Concealing COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

a reply to: MRX212

features in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization that Dr Ioannidis criticised heavily for providing unrealistic predictions of fatality rates initially in the pandemic.

If Dr Ioannidis is getting the Andrew Wakefield treatment, he should get in contact with Del Bigtree and do an interview on the Highwire.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: MRX212

features in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization that Dr Ioannidis criticised heavily for providing unrealistic predictions of fatality rates initially in the pandemic.

If Dr Ioannidis is getting the Andrew Wakefield treatment, he should get in contact with Del Bigtree and do an interview on the Highwire.

Just have a look at the papers I linked.
He was criticised because he didn't offer the doom and gloom scenarios of Covid annihilation.

Dr Ioannidis criticised heavily the World Health Organization for their very inflated predictions in relation to the fatality rates from Covid. Yet after three + years he is the one of the most cited scientists in the world and the paper below is the most cited that I know of, featuring in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization!

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data
John P A Ioannidis. Bull World Health Organ. 2021.

All the attempts to smear him have failed.

a reply to: MRX212

I don't see how this paper relates to the Italian Health Ministers court case? The minister has already knew this vax program was trouble before it started. Not the only one.

Where the problem is in how this minister covered up the data about fatalities as it came in to avoid 'vaccination hesitancy'.

What Dr John P A Ioannidis has to say about this is what is important.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: MRX212

I don't see how this paper relates to the Italian Health Ministers court case? The minister has already knew this vax program was trouble before it started. Not the only one.

Where the problem is in how this minister covered up the data about fatalities as it came in to avoid 'vaccination hesitancy'.

What Dr John P A Ioannidis has to say about this is what is important.

The natural flow of the conversation sometimes goes a little off topic. It started when misleading claims were made about the fatality rates of Covid-19 on this thread based on misleading claims that were made earlier in the pandemic. These have been corrected as well as proven wrong by scientists such as Dr Ioannidis and others.

It's a good parallel by the way to the misleading claims that were made about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines by politicians, the media,band some scientists that went along to promote the vaccines.

Covering up the data about vaccine injuries and fatalities must be a serious crime and those responsible must be indicted and go to jail.

a reply to: MRX212

The natural flow of the conversation sometimes goes a little off topic.

Yes it does. Keep calm and carry on.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: MRX212

features in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization that Dr Ioannidis criticised heavily for providing unrealistic predictions of fatality rates initially in the pandemic.

If Dr Ioannidis is getting the Andrew Wakefield treatment, he should get in contact with Del Bigtree and do an interview on the Highwire.

Getting struck off for falsifying research?

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Getting struck off for falsifying research?

Getting struck off for questioning the financial gravy train.

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: koolkikitty
No, chronaut, just no.

So many of us who refused to get the vaccine and were chided, belittled and lost jobs over refusal to take a vaccine that wasn't properly vetted will not forgot all of this treatment by people like you.

Perhaps you people are the ones that should be rounded up? After all, you and your ilk pushed a dangerous product.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nobody should be rounded up.

You still don’t get it do you? This is why we will lose.
You think they’re dumb. They think you’re evil.
You both have it backwards.
People like the ex-con troll know exactly what they’re doing and it’s small victory after small victory. We’re being slowly boiled and there is no reason for them to stop because as you say “nobody should be rounded up”
Andrew Cuomo alone murdered 19,000. But nobody should be rounded up.
The only reason evil exists is because good men allow it.

a reply to: ksihkahe

I know this is weeks old now, but I don't come here for weeks at a time sometimes and I'm just coming across this absolute thrashing of the vax cult. Bravo.

The thing is, you'll never get most of them to admit they were wrong. They were SO sure they were in the right. They thought they were smart and we were stupid, because they had "the experts" and "the science" on their side. The way their ironically simplistic thinking works, if we (the dumb ones) were right, that would make them uberdumb, and they simply can't handle that. So they will cling to their at-this-point-religious belief--because that's all it is, a belief, a faith, unsupported by evidence--because the alternative in their simplistic thinking is that they were inconceivably stupid, even dumber than us "vaccine deniers"--which most of us aren't.

They don't realize that none of this necessarily makes them stupid. As I recall, in fact, stage magicians have repeatedly said that the smartest people in the audience are typically the easiest ones to fool.

But keep spreading the truth. You won't get through to some posters on here. Their minds are closed and sealed tighter than a gnat's ass. But there are lots of lurkers here who you will get through to, so it's worth it to keep posting truth and debunking the vax cult.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Getting struck off for falsifying research?

Getting struck off for questioning the financial gravy train.

By questioning you mean attempting to jump on said gravy train by lying?

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gradcrop

Will they also be investigating the COVID-19 deniers and super-spreaders who refused to take actions against the disease and encouraged others to do likewise?

You seem to be a vaccine apologist who refuses to admit that these vaccines have caused a range of serious adverse reactions and deaths following vaccine mandates, lies and propaganda, by the mainstream media that pushed the government narratives.

Nobody will be investigating those who refused to get 'vaccinated' and refused to peddle the government narratives and dogma. They are on the right side of history and haven't committed any crimes.

I suppose that the court case will come down to a comparison between the numbers saved by the immunizations, and the numbers harmed by the immunizations.

Already reasonably sound estimates are out that give us a figure for how many lives were saved by the immunizations.

All they have to do is prove that there were more deaths caused by the immunizations and they automatically win the case.

COVID vaccines saved 20 million lives in first year, study says

How many people have died as a result of a COVID-19 vaccine?

If you are referring to the statements spoon fed to us such as “if I hadn’t taken the vaccine my Covid symptoms would have been much worse.”

Then my reply would be “If I had taken the vaccine my Covid symptoms would have been much worse.”

Prove me wrong.

You can’t.

Which shows the complete bullsh!t people will believe and repeat.

I remember when a vaccinated guy died and they still told his family it would've been worse if he was unvaxxed...

a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, then publish a link to the credible alternate statistics.

No one can do that, that I am aware of. Since the CDC did not count the number of vaccinated infection and the number of unvaccinated infection separately. Nor did they count the number of vaccinated deaths and unvaccinated deaths separate.

That's like running a business and only counting the money coming in, and not the money going out. You will surely show a massive profit with that accounting method. Speaking of accounting and accountable. There wasn't any reason to count anyone dying from the vaccine, like they did with covid. Die within two weeks of diagnosis of covid., and it was covid that killed them, even if they were hit by a train. Because there was no accountability of the vaccine maker, they have immunity. You can file a claim and say you were injured. Buts that all that will come of it.

originally posted by: CosmicVibe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScarletDarkness

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gradcrop

Will they also be investigating the COVID-19 deniers and super-spreaders who refused to take actions against the disease and encouraged others to do likewise?

Denying of what ? A cold that has a 99% survival rate?!

A 99% survival rate means that one person out of every hundred dies.

However, the pooled case fatality ratio in 1st world countries was closer to 10%, which means a survival rate of 90%, prior to the immunizations. That meant ten out of every hundred people who had COVID-19, died.

Case fatality rate of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

I refused to be 'afraid' of something that wasn't a threat, and I refused to be injected with an expermental 'vaccine' pushed under threats by people who do not care whether I live or die.

Fair enough.

You want to avoid one 'threat' to your life that was at worst one in a million, by risking another that was one in ten.

But you are probably right. The people involved don't even know who you are.

I'm also pretty sure that no one but funeral companies make any coin out of you being dead. I'd recommend that you avoid it, you know, for the friends and family, at least.

You are misleading the audience by assuming that 99% survived the infection and 1% died or by recalling the case fatality rate which is very misleading itself by all metrics. In epidemiology we used the infection fatality rate and that's the most important number to have in mind as it gives us a true estimate or how many are surviving the infection and that's close to 99.85%

In a few words for every 10,000 infections we have approximately 9985 people who survived and 15 who died. Mostly people who are over 70 years old and and/or people with various comorbidities in various risks groups.

The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 0.15% and that's was estimated long time before the 'vaccines' came out and despite the massive propaganda and misinformation and disinformation from the mainstream media that you are still trying to push even though your arguments have bern repeatedly refuted.

The infection fatality rate was calculated by Dr John Ioannidis and colleagues from Stanford University. Dr Ioannidis is one of the top epidemiologists in the world and we'll accepted for his work. It's now acceptable that the infection fatality rate is close to 0.15% and that's was known a few months after the pandemic started thanks to many scientists around the world who did the math.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Conclusions
All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

You should not be engaging in propaganda and disinformation.

Ironically, the information you posted here was also published by Fauci early on. I believe it was March or April of 2020. He published a study with 2 or 3 other authors showing that if you counted the number of people who had Covid but never reported because they were asymptomatic, the fatality rate was extremely low, on par with the flu.

That was before certain people realized Covid could be exploited for political gain though...

originally posted by: Virion2
You clearly show lack of understanding of the most basics.

You'll find this common among the fascist left. They have a fanatical religious-level belief in what they're saying on subjects they don't know the first thing about.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: CosmicVibe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScarletDarkness

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Gradcrop

Will they also be investigating the COVID-19 deniers and super-spreaders who refused to take actions against the disease and encouraged others to do likewise?

Denying of what ? A cold that has a 99% survival rate?!

A 99% survival rate means that one person out of every hundred dies.

However, the pooled case fatality ratio in 1st world countries was closer to 10%, which means a survival rate of 90%, prior to the immunizations. That meant ten out of every hundred people who had COVID-19, died.

Case fatality rate of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

I refused to be 'afraid' of something that wasn't a threat, and I refused to be injected with an expermental 'vaccine' pushed under threats by people who do not care whether I live or die.

Fair enough.

You want to avoid one 'threat' to your life that was at worst one in a million, by risking another that was one in ten.

But you are probably right. The people involved don't even know who you are.

I'm also pretty sure that no one but funeral companies make any coin out of you being dead. I'd recommend that you avoid it, you know, for the friends and family, at least.

You are misleading the audience by assuming that 99% survived the infection and 1% died or by recalling the case fatality rate which is very misleading itself by all metrics. In epidemiology we used the infection fatality rate and that's the most important number to have in mind as it gives us a true estimate or how many are surviving the infection and that's close to 99.85%

In a few words for every 10,000 infections we have approximately 9985 people who survived and 15 who died. Mostly people who are over 70 years old and and/or people with various comorbidities in various risks groups.

The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 0.15% and that's was estimated long time before the 'vaccines' came out and despite the massive propaganda and misinformation and disinformation from the mainstream media that you are still trying to push even though your arguments have bern repeatedly refuted.

The infection fatality rate was calculated by Dr John Ioannidis and colleagues from Stanford University. Dr Ioannidis is one of the top epidemiologists in the world and we'll accepted for his work. It's now acceptable that the infection fatality rate is close to 0.15% and that's was known a few months after the pandemic started thanks to many scientists around the world who did the math.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Conclusions
All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

You should not be engaging in propaganda and disinformation.

Ironically, the information you posted here was also published by Fauci early on. I believe it was March or April of 2020. He published a study with 2 or 3 other authors showing that if you counted the number of people who had Covid but never reported because they were asymptomatic, the fatality rate was extremely low, on par with the flu.

That was before certain people realized Covid could be exploited for political gain though...

originally posted by: Virion2
You clearly show lack of understanding of the most basics.

You'll find this common among the fascist left. They have a fanatical religious-level belief in what they're saying on subjects they don't know the first thing about.

Can you link to this study?

originally posted by: Unknownparadox
a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, then publish a link to the credible alternate statistics.

No one can do that, that I am aware of. Since the CDC did not count the number of vaccinated infection and the number of unvaccinated infection separately. Nor did they count the number of vaccinated deaths and unvaccinated deaths separate.

That's like running a business and only counting the money coming in, and not the money going out. You will surely show a massive profit with that accounting method. Speaking of accounting and accountable. There wasn't any reason to count anyone dying from the vaccine, like they did with covid. Die within two weeks of diagnosis of covid., and it was covid that killed them, even if they were hit by a train. Because there was no accountability of the vaccine maker, they have immunity. You can file a claim and say you were injured. Buts that all that will come of it.

The funny part is they will pass that off as an "error" or "oversight" when it's complete common sense and there's no way they didn't know doing it that way would lead to skewed data that misled the public.

It wasn't an accident. That was the intent.

Same way they knew counting people who died WITH covid as people who died FROM covid. We said they were at the time, they denied it and called us conspiracy theorists. Then a few years later they come out and admit they were indeed doing that but it was just an innocent mistake...

An innocent mistake would've been caught when they double-checked it when they were initially accused of doing it. They didn't double-check it though. They didn't need to. They knew they were doing it. It was done intentionally to mislead the public.

originally posted by: Unknownparadox
a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, then publish a link to the credible alternate statistics.

No one can do that, that I am aware of. Since the CDC did not count the number of vaccinated infection and the number of unvaccinated infection separately.

They did, actually (as did medical and statistical authorities in many other countries):

COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections Reported to CDC — United States, January 1–April 30, 2021

Of course, with unreported and asymptomatic infections, it is anyone's guess as to how many infections there have actually been. They can only go on the data that they have been able to collect, which has been the point of the last few posts where the relevance of CFR/IFR numbers are being debated.

Nor did they count the number of vaccinated deaths and unvaccinated deaths separate.

They did, as noted in this article:

Why Do Vaccinated People Represent Most COVID-19 Deaths Right Now?

That's like running a business and only counting the money coming in, and not the money going out. You will surely show a massive profit with that accounting method. Speaking of accounting and accountable. There wasn't any reason to count anyone dying from the vaccine, like they did with covid. Die within two weeks of diagnosis of covid., and it was covid that killed them, even if they were hit by a train. Because there was no accountability of the vaccine maker, they have immunity. You can file a claim and say you were injured. Buts that all that will come of it.

There were numerous adverse events databases around the world to try and capture anything that did not show up during the clinical trials.

... and these databases did show that there were a few risks that had not been previously identified, so the adverse reactions databases are doing their job, as expected, and finding the rare conditions in all the data that were missed in the limited clinical trials.

The thing is, that in the media (and especially the social media) in the few cases where it has been established that there are reasonable links to the vaccines as cause, they are repeated and telegraphed around the world and the perception among some is that this is happening to everyone, when it isn't.

... and so this topic thread about a hoax case that isn't, comes about.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: Unknownparadox
a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, then publish a link to the credible alternate statistics.

No one can do that, that I am aware of. Since the CDC did not count the number of vaccinated infection and the number of unvaccinated infection separately. Nor did they count the number of vaccinated deaths and unvaccinated deaths separate.

That's like running a business and only counting the money coming in, and not the money going out. You will surely show a massive profit with that accounting method. Speaking of accounting and accountable. There wasn't any reason to count anyone dying from the vaccine, like they did with covid. Die within two weeks of diagnosis of covid., and it was covid that killed them, even if they were hit by a train. Because there was no accountability of the vaccine maker, they have immunity. You can file a claim and say you were injured. Buts that all that will come of it.

The funny part is they will pass that off as an "error" or "oversight" when it's complete common sense and there's no way they didn't know doing it that way would lead to skewed data that misled the public.

It wasn't an accident. That was the intent.

Same way they knew counting people who died WITH covid as people who died FROM covid. We said they were at the time, they denied it and called us conspiracy theorists. Then a few years later they come out and admit they were indeed doing that but it was just an innocent mistake...

An innocent mistake would've been caught when they double-checked it when they were initially accused of doing it. They didn't double-check it though. They didn't need to. They knew they were doing it. It was done intentionally to mislead the public.

As an aside in the "died with or from" debate, did US President Kennedy die with gunshot wounds, or from gunshot wounds?

John F. Kennedy Autopsy Report

He was breathing when they got him into hospital (evidenced by blood bubbles coming from the throat wound when they opened it up to perform a tracheostomy). The surgeon then made two incisions at the top front of his chest wall and they pumped him full of blood and oxygen. Cardiac arrest occurred after that.

The official time of death was half an hour after he was shot.

Additionally, there was no toxicology screening done at the autopsy, but we know that Kennedy was on a cocktail of drugs at the time (codeine, Demerol, methadone, Ritalin, meprobamate, librium, barbiturates, thyroid hormones and gamma globulin).

The autopsy report concludes essentially that he was brain-dead after the shooting, but the concussive effect upon brain tissue would have been instant. So my contention is that he seemed to hang around too long and only died after a sequence that included fairly invasive surgery, plus the blood replacement with unadulterated blood which may have caused shock, and he had several preexisting conditions such as sodium imbalance (which could cause loss of sinus rhythm), all of which could be contributory to his death.

originally posted by: Myhandle
Andrew Cuomo alone murdered 19,000. But nobody should be rounded up.
The only reason evil exists is because good men allow it.

This.
The entire world should be raging over what these people did.
They told us we should die. They told us that hospitals should refuse to care for us. They told us our children deserved to die. They told us we should be exiled from society. They told us our freedoms didn't matter. They told us we deserved to suffer. They locked elderly parents up in their rooms and refused to let anyone come see them or comfort them when they passed. They locked children up in their homes with their abusers. They destroyed thousands upon thousands of small businesses that people spent their lives creating. They came to break up masked and socially distanced church services with armed men. They allowed shoulder to shoulder unmasked protests so long as the cause was leftist approved.

Cuomo's decision to house infected people with the elderly should be treated as a crime against humanity and he should face the noose for it. All of them should hang in the streets. Enough is enough.

a reply to: chr0naut

They did, as noted in this article:

The data from this chart come from the CDC, which collects data on the number of deaths by vaccination status from 30 health departments (including states and cities) across the country.

30 health departments including states and cities that many? I thought there were 50 states.

I'm not sure why the need to count anything since this was said.

Rochelle Walenksy, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Wednesday that fully vaccinated people were "safe" from all variants of COVID-19

Now it turns out, vaccinated people are dying. Maybe not so safe after all.