Monday https://www.bitchute.com/video/43uEBCF5MZqS/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X german study finds zero healthy children 5 - 18 died from covid https://duckduckgo.com/?q=german+st...y+children+5+-+18+died+from+covid&t=h_&ia=web
So if a kid got COVID and did not die he was healthy and if a kid got COVID and died he was not healthy.... is that the genius science? Let me guess, the same scientist also doscovered the more people die on crowded plane crashes than planes with less people on them...
You decide that's the take home message, Ok, to each his own, it's a free country. Also of note are the data backed observations below: "A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic." "The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially." "Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades." Know what i mean, vern?
You are pushing complete misinformation and nonsense. There are not "five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic." This is pure bullshiat. Any group of idiots can submit nonsense to pay-to-publish open access journals and Elsevier is well-known for papers containing Covid misinformation. Tens of thousands of people are dying across the globe due to Covid misinformation -- yet you continually push this nonsense. Have you no shame? Or decency?
Got a complaint there Skyler? Report it to the publisher of the scientific journal from which this study is pulled. I didn't do the science, these guys and gals did: Ronald N.KostoffaDanielaCalinabDarjaKanduccMichael B.BriggsdPanayiotisVlachoyiannopouloseAndrey A.SvistunovfAristidisTsatsakisg https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X GWB! GO GET 'EM BIG BOY! LOL. Toxicology Reports Volume 8, 2021, Pages 1665-1684 Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? Tell us how you do gwb. LOL You should probably take this big ol' stud with you, lol.
What does the science tell us? What does gwb tell us? hmmm. Yeah, the choice is clear. German Study Finds Zero Healthy Children Between 5 and 18 Died From COVID. Posted on December 6, 2021 by admin. A study conducted by researchers in Germany found that not a single healthy child between the ages of 5 and 18 died from COVID-19 in the first 15 months of the pandemic.
Not to worry --- many scientists and researchers have already complained and are demanding the paper be retracted. Let's see what Retraction Watch has to say -- as the idiot author attempts to defend his nonsense. Author defends paper claiming COVID-19 vaccines kill five times more people over 65 than they save https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10...ive-times-more-people-over-65-than-they-save/ The corresponding author of a new paper in an Elsevier journal that claims “there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic” says he “fully expected” the criticisms — and that the “real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario.” Ronald Kostoff and colleagues published “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” in Toxicology Reports in mid-September. In the paper, they colleagues conclude: A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially. About a week later, Samuel Klein, of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, began tweeting criticism of the paper, which he has now gathered at his blog. One passage: Overall, basic statistics is abused; sources misquoted, and standard knowledge and practice misrepresented, extensively, to confirm a desired result. The topline numbers claimed in the article differ by a factor of 5 million from the best serious estimates of risk/benefit analysis for the vaccines. Klein noted that the paper reminded him of a paper by Harald Walach and colleagues that claimed two people died of COVID-19 for every three vaccinated. That paper was retracted — but later republished — and Walach lost a university post over the episode. The paper was one of two of Walach’s about COVID-19 to be retracted. Kostoff told Retraction Watch: I’m well aware of the criticisms of our TR paper (which are an extremely small fraction of the copious and totally overwhelmingly positive responses), and I fully expected them. Given the blatant censorship of the mainstream media and social media, only one side of the COVID-19/”vaccine” narrative is reaching the public. Any questioning of the narrative is met with the harshest response. Front-line people (doctors, nurses, etc.) who are attempting to shed light on this situation are being fired, losing licenses, and having their reputations and finances destroyed. I went into this with my eyes wide open, determined to identify the truth, irrespective of where it fell. I could not stand idly by while the least vulnerable to serious COVID-19 consequences were injected with substances of unknown mid and long-term safety. We published a best-case scenario. The real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario, and could be the subject of a future paper. What these results show is that we 1) instituted mass inoculations of an inadequately-tested toxic substance with 2) non-negligible attendant crippling and lethal results to 3) potentially prevent a relatively small number of true COVID-19 deaths. In other words, we used a howitzer where an accurate rifle would have sufficed! One of Kostoff’s colleagues, Aristidis Tsatsakis, is the editor in chief of the journal and was originally listed as the handling editor, but Kostoff tells us that was an error by Elsevier. The paper now lists Konstantinos Poulas as handling editor, and Tsatsakis told us “an erratum is published related to the issue,” although we could not locate said erratum. Kostoff said: The Handling Editor was entered incorrectly by the Publisher. As soon as we became aware of this error, we had it corrected. All the co-authors are senior people, and we know better than to have a co-author serve as Handling Editor. Many of the tweets that criticized our efforts raised this issue, and then drew very negative conclusions. In the tweet you reference, Jeffrey Morris states initially: “When you are senior editor of a journal and handle your own paper, it is not peer review, it is an editorial”. That’s a true statement, but with the inference that this is what we did, is a strong accusation. A good researcher, or historian, or journalist, would check with primary sources before making such an accusation and drawing such conclusions. Morris could have contacted the editor and asked whether the posting was correct. Instead, he chose to run with an erroneous posting, and has (so far) offered no apology or retraction of his accusation. I don’t want to get into the business of responding to tweets/facebook/Instagram etc. criticisms of our paper. I could spend the next five years doing that, given the unlimited resources of those who are going all out to discredit our findings. I would suggest that Morris re-read Appendices A and D to see what we mean by excess deaths. Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com. Tags: COVIDFACTCHECK ANTIVAXXERCRAP COVIDCHILDREN COVIDMISINFORMATION
There ya go gwb, much better. The Truth is what's important. Keep us Posted as to the ongoing progress of this issue. meanwhile, Trust The Science, Not GWB!
While we are at it -- we can see this anti-vaxxer study being cited as an example of misinformation when outlining why pay-to-publish "pre-prints" are a problem. On Dangers of Preprints Antivaxxery in scientific literature - are preprints to blame? https://forbetterscience.com/2021/10/06/on-dangers-of-preprints/ Plus we can take a look at tweets from experts which outline the problems with this paper and the pre-print situation. “A similar contretemps seems to have occurred to “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” in the same Special Issue (Kostoff et al 2021): a paper with an author list that overlaps with the present list. According to its original table-of-contents entry, its Handling Editor was also last author Aristidis M. Tsatsakis, but again this has been updated – though so far without any Erratum to explain the mysterious change.” Let's note the following about the authors... “Same problem at Toxicology Letters, which the first and last authors previously used to promote weird 5G fantasies. Bottom Line: This paper is absurd nonsense put out by a group of self-promoting anti-vaxxers who give themselves fake credentials and run anti-vax Covid-denier groups. Tags: COVIDFACTCHECK ANTIVAXXERCRAP COVIDCHILDREN COVIDMISINFORMATION