I spoke with the second smartest guy in the world again today, and he pointed out to me that contrary to the media and official narrative, Canada has in fact not experienced a pandemic from COVID.
I'm a Canadian. Our government has eliminated all our rights citing "public health". The CCP operative otherwise known as Canada's chief public health officer has said a number of contradictory things and stupid things, most notably, to wear masks during sex. Police have arrested and jailed pastors for holding church services, restaurant owners for serving food and/or allowing patrons to use the bathroom. A 12-year-old kid was attacked by a cop for skate boarding outdoors. Journalists reporting the truth about the police thuggery are pepper sprayed and ticketed. We have arrows on the floors of the walmart that we have to follow or face a scolding by the employees. Very few people outside of nursing homes have died of COVID. Many young people now have permanent injury from the vaccine. Perfectly healthy people are put in hotel quarantine jails that we have to pay for when we return from abroad. I hate our government with a visceral hatred that is difficult to adequately communicate. I am moving to Mexico in December and will never return. Right now I believe the Mexican government is the least corrupt government in North America.
I’m a Brit and have been truly shocked at dear Canada’s decline although matching the UK’s in many ways. It’s most upsetting to see Christians being persecuted, particularly in a Christian country, and for no good reason other than to make way for a less benign philosophy.
Please accept my best wishes for your move to Mexico. I imagine you must have read Russell’s “Retirement Secrets of Mexico” and maybe joined the FB group. In the unlikely event you haven’t, I do recommend.
Well, what a lively exchange! You obviously feel that your methodology of calculating deaths is "better" than the one used by pretty much everyone, which is YOY. I have been unable to find any studies that use your superior methodology. Could you kindly direct me to them so I can see how many researchers use your methodology versus YOY? You have already conceded that the total YOY increase in deaths is in fact .04, so that isn't contentious. But you're also claiming that is a flawed way of calculating excess mortality, so I want to see what percentage of researchers agree with your methodology by using it.
And remember, the current 26k total deaths from "covid" as per Canadian gov are unadjusted, whereas the CDC was finally forced to admit that 5% of the 600k alleged "covid" deaths in USA are from death certs that state "only covid". So current USA deaths are at a mere 30k total -- this is a tiny rounding error of additional deaths and certainly no "pandemic".
Now, if Canada ever comes clean, they will only be able to show around 1,300 deaths at most. And if Canada a la recent Lisbon court ruling shows 0.9% of ‘verified cases’ died of COVID, which is most likely closer to this % vs 5%, then we are really jiving with the 0.04% mortality increase in 2020.
Of course if some disingenuous PSYOP-19 sufferer wants to design a byzantine stats methodology in an attempt to "debunk" any of the above, they will yet again end up looking just as foolish as all of the other junk science cultists out there peddling fascism and medical tyranny.
I had to ask, because in the past I've had my comments deleted on other sites because the owner didn't like what I had to say (it went against their narrative).
OK, I dug into it a bit more. Basically, you're saying that yes, the 0.04% number is correct. And looking at the numbers for prior years, it appears to me that every year you see somewhere around that percentage increase in mortality, with some expected fluctuations. So basically, the 0.04% increase in 2020 is about what we saw in 2018 and 2019 increases (with 2019 being a particularly mild flu year).
Using that logic, every year mortality increases by 0.04% should be referred to as a pandemic. Or conversely, every year there is a pandemic in Canada that increases mortality by 0.04% (because something did!). Both of these statements are clearly nonsense, unless the word pandemic is going to lose all meaning. My take is that there was an extremely tiny (statistically nearly insignificant) increase in mortality, just as there was the year before, and the year before that. With me so far? You can parse all the numbers however you like, but the blunt fact is that the number of Canadians dying in 2020 is pretty close to 2019, which was pretty close to 2018, etc. I think that was the article's point, and nothing you wrote debunks or refutes that, unless I am missing some nuance that wasn't clarified in the post. The cause of death listed was different, but the numbers were nearly identical. Thus, at best, your rebuttal is a Rube Goldberg machine of explanation of why the numbers may well be what they are but don't mean what is stated, and at worst is several thousand words of rationalization and defense of the official narrative that isn't supported by the data.
I do appreciate the effort you put into explaining your reasoning, though. Thanks for that. Without folks checking to keep me honest, I would quickly get into all sorts of mischief, I'm sure.
Daniel concludes rather laughably, "If, after having read this very carefully, somebody still denies that a pandemic occurred in Canada, here is a task: get them to pick any other year in the last 100 (besides 1918) when hospitals were flooded with people suffocating to death — so flooded with cases that all non-emergency surgeries were cancelled, and that these will take 3 years to catch up on."
According to Daniel's "logic" every year is a "pandemic" year at around 0.04% mortality increases which is statistically the norm, or thereabouts.
Every year "people [are] suffocating to death" from flu and pneumonia, just like in 2020.
The reason "all non-emergency surgeries were cancelled, and that these will take 3 years to catch up on" is because of the very same criminal gov policies that instituted deadly lockdown measures, also prevented the hospitals from operating as they did in previous years. This is the real tragedy, when the government's evil agenda is deployed against the populace under cover of "helping" said populace, when in fact it is quite literally destroying innocent and gullible people. These are real crimes against humanity.
I have no narrative, other than a search for the truth.
I've briefly read your reply, and thank you for it. A couple of things stick out, though. First is that several areas appear to be defending official positions, rather than addressing data. An example would be the observation that vaccines typically use RRR and thus the 95% claim is correct. Nobody said it was incorrect, but rather that it was incomplete and thus misleading, as the ARR is more like 1%. Both claims are in fact correct, and asserting that I claimed it was incorrect is a logical fallacy, specifically creating a straw man.
Another area I take issue with is that you admit that the 0.04% claim is correct. But you then state that you feel a different set of assumptions should be used rather than the preceding years. That may or may not be reasonable, but it in no way invalidates or debunks that 0.04% claim, which is in fact correct. Until I did into it further, it seems that you are basically saying that the article is correct in its statements, but that you feel they should be framed differently using different assumptions, which would then lead one to a different conclusion. That may be true, however I'm not there quite yet.
You also have made a number of claims I have a problem with, namely that lockdowns and masking have made a considerable difference and more would have died had they not been implemented. This flies in the face of the data that has accrued on the efficacy of lockdowns and masks over the last year. If you look at the curves, the analysis shows basically no impact of either. That isn't contentious. It is clear. So positing that it would have been way worse and then taking countries with radically different demographics and weather and health care (and their worse numbers) like the US or Brazil makes as much sense to me as taking countries that did basically nothing, like most of Northern Africa, which has negligible mortality, and saying that had Canada done nothing like them, the numbers would have been better. Again, it's a logical fallacy and poor reasoning. All that we know is what is, not claims about what might have been.
You make a reasonable case for why your assumptions are preferable, but that isn't a debunking, it's moving the goalposts, perhaps reasonably, or perhaps not. I'll leave it to bigger brains than mine to determine which. I will say, however, that the 0.04% is correct and accurate. Your point that it is still a lot of people dead in no way alters that, nor is your appeal to authority (another logical fallacy, BTW) WRT the media, the government, anecdotes from health care workers, etc. Nobody is making any statement about that 0.04% other than that it does NOT constitute any legitimate description of a pandemic. I believe that statement to be accurate. You may disagree. Again, I will leave it to others to parse the nuance. One man's pandemic can be another's tempest in a teacup. To whit, there were 14,714 total deaths attributed to COVID during 2020. Another 12K (approximately) have died in 2021, when one might expect all the lockdown, masking, vaccination to have made a significant impact on mortality if your theory that they are effective were true. But that isn't what we are seeing. Canada is currently on track to see a far worse 2021 mortality total than 2020, unless the virus miraculously disappears. I would also direct you to Worldometers, where I pulled the data (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/canada/ ), and where you can clearly see that, just like the seasonal flu (which has apparently completely disappeared in Canada), it spikes during "flu season" and then drops in the summer months - a startling coincidence, one must admit, and one that isn't lost on me.
So here is what I feel comfortable stating at this point: every death is regrettable. But 0.04% is not a pandemic by any stretch, no matter how one tortures the reasoning or shifts the assumptions.
In addition to those, I took special note of some of the lockdowns in various countries:
- Italy (where my brother lives), started March 16 - their COVID numbers were increasing at a very concerning rate, but after the strict lockdown was implemented, case numbers started falling. I was watching this one very carefully.
- UK (where I'm from) - implemented 3rd strict lockdown on January 6; cases started falling.
- Canada (where I live) - cases started falling from 3rd wave after strict lockdown implemented.
These observations together with the science are quite undisputable. Lockdowns are effective. Damaging to the economy, of course, but they reduce cases. Failure to slow down the spread of the virus, with lots more virus-related deaths would have been even more damaging to the economy.
Finally, my analysis of this "pandemic in Canada" article is spot on, and I have consensus from an educated community including professionals and scientists (11 upvotes, only one downvote from a known idiot):
I couldn't find them (I looked for a while) - could you please post them here?
Here is a study that just came out showing that lockdowns (i.e. severe mobility restrictions) work (and note also what I observed directly for Italy, UK, and Canada):
PS you wrote, ""Finally, my analysis of this "pandemic in Canada" article is spot on, and I have consensus from an educated community including professionals and scientists ". What exact consensus did you receive and from which "scientists" and "professionals" exactly? Please post the analyses corroborating that 0.04% increase is mortality proves there is a "pandemic".
There are far more robust studies with larger sample sizes proving that masks and lockdowns do zero for "covid" prevention, and establish that they are harmful and increase mortality. I linked a metastudy of this with many citations that you may review again.
In my article on Medium, I presented graphs from raw data showing that the mortality in the categories you're talking about (suicides, etc) are either DOWN in 2020, or unchanged. Your comments about Canada are baseless and nonsense, and I've proven it.
Go on that blog post I linked to, and you can do your own research on each person who upvoted me (12 now). It doesn't matter *exactly* who they are, but they're highly educated people, including scientists.
Russell, your "2nd smartest guy" has been a disrespectful asshat this entire conversation.
The correct conclusion is that there has been a pandemic in Canada, with a 9.6% increase in death rate compared to the previous 10-year average. And it would likely have been a lot worse, had it not been managed to some degree.
If you want to argue against it, present a reasoned argument, not insolence.
The reason there was the rounding error sized 0.04% increase in mortality is precisely because lockdowns did work in terms of damaging human lives, and as such increased mortality. Without lockdown measures the mortality for 2020 would have been LESS than 0.04%.
The "total takedown" of my 0.04% was that there was.....0.04%! How's that for an exercise in derangement?
Next up: the "delta" variant was caused by those refusing the "vax" -- this is the tortured and insane "logic" of individuals pushing the false PSYOP-19 narratives. Unbelievable that people are this brainwashed.
PS in any given normal non-"pandemic" year a 0.04% increase in mortality is in no way outside the general trends for the last many decades. There is no spin, nor rationalizing necessary for such a small increase in mortality, especially when adjusting for population.
So all of these mental acrobatics are ultimately futile, as the original point was that 0.04% in ANY YEAR does NOT constitute a "pandemic", mental contortions of logic, or lack thereof notwithstanding.
Congrats, you wasted all of that time to prove the point that there was a 0.04% increase in Canadian mortality in 2020, and thus there was never a pandemic!
Definition of pandemic (Entry 1 of 2)
1: occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population
pandemic malaria
The 1918 flu was pandemic and claimed millions of lives.
0.04% is NOT affecting a significant proportion of the population in terms of mortality, or even sickness overall. What we have is a CASEDEMIC predicated on a PCR test that has an incredibly high false positive result and as per Nobel laureate inventor was never meant to be used for testing infectious diseases.
So, you have wasted much time in your "analysis" only to confirm my original point! As the saying goes, "You Can't Fix Stupid."
To add to the depression - suspension of a surgeon for raising legitimate concerns: https://wp.me/p4GjpG-iVo
The Canadian government over-reacted and were so disorganized that they created costly measures that were unnecessary.
I'm a Canadian. Our government has eliminated all our rights citing "public health". The CCP operative otherwise known as Canada's chief public health officer has said a number of contradictory things and stupid things, most notably, to wear masks during sex. Police have arrested and jailed pastors for holding church services, restaurant owners for serving food and/or allowing patrons to use the bathroom. A 12-year-old kid was attacked by a cop for skate boarding outdoors. Journalists reporting the truth about the police thuggery are pepper sprayed and ticketed. We have arrows on the floors of the walmart that we have to follow or face a scolding by the employees. Very few people outside of nursing homes have died of COVID. Many young people now have permanent injury from the vaccine. Perfectly healthy people are put in hotel quarantine jails that we have to pay for when we return from abroad. I hate our government with a visceral hatred that is difficult to adequately communicate. I am moving to Mexico in December and will never return. Right now I believe the Mexican government is the least corrupt government in North America.
I’m a Brit and have been truly shocked at dear Canada’s decline although matching the UK’s in many ways. It’s most upsetting to see Christians being persecuted, particularly in a Christian country, and for no good reason other than to make way for a less benign philosophy.
Please accept my best wishes for your move to Mexico. I imagine you must have read Russell’s “Retirement Secrets of Mexico” and maybe joined the FB group. In the unlikely event you haven’t, I do recommend.
In the meantime, wishing you well.
Hey, Russell, I have another name for the "Dreaded Killer Virus," how about we call it the "Dreaded Circus Virus"?
Especially as the circus is administered by clowns.
Russell, if I post a detailed takedown of this analysis by the "second smartest guy in the world", will you promise not to censor it?
Well, what a lively exchange! You obviously feel that your methodology of calculating deaths is "better" than the one used by pretty much everyone, which is YOY. I have been unable to find any studies that use your superior methodology. Could you kindly direct me to them so I can see how many researchers use your methodology versus YOY? You have already conceded that the total YOY increase in deaths is in fact .04, so that isn't contentious. But you're also claiming that is a flawed way of calculating excess mortality, so I want to see what percentage of researchers agree with your methodology by using it.
Many thanks in advance.
And remember, the current 26k total deaths from "covid" as per Canadian gov are unadjusted, whereas the CDC was finally forced to admit that 5% of the 600k alleged "covid" deaths in USA are from death certs that state "only covid". So current USA deaths are at a mere 30k total -- this is a tiny rounding error of additional deaths and certainly no "pandemic".
Now, if Canada ever comes clean, they will only be able to show around 1,300 deaths at most. And if Canada a la recent Lisbon court ruling shows 0.9% of ‘verified cases’ died of COVID, which is most likely closer to this % vs 5%, then we are really jiving with the 0.04% mortality increase in 2020.
Of course if some disingenuous PSYOP-19 sufferer wants to design a byzantine stats methodology in an attempt to "debunk" any of the above, they will yet again end up looking just as foolish as all of the other junk science cultists out there peddling fascism and medical tyranny.
I'm not in the censorship game. As long as you are respectful (not an asshat) I would say have at it.
I had to ask, because in the past I've had my comments deleted on other sites because the owner didn't like what I had to say (it went against their narrative).
https://danielansari.medium.com/rebuttal-to-there-is-no-pandemic-in-canada-e771400a5351
OK, I dug into it a bit more. Basically, you're saying that yes, the 0.04% number is correct. And looking at the numbers for prior years, it appears to me that every year you see somewhere around that percentage increase in mortality, with some expected fluctuations. So basically, the 0.04% increase in 2020 is about what we saw in 2018 and 2019 increases (with 2019 being a particularly mild flu year).
Using that logic, every year mortality increases by 0.04% should be referred to as a pandemic. Or conversely, every year there is a pandemic in Canada that increases mortality by 0.04% (because something did!). Both of these statements are clearly nonsense, unless the word pandemic is going to lose all meaning. My take is that there was an extremely tiny (statistically nearly insignificant) increase in mortality, just as there was the year before, and the year before that. With me so far? You can parse all the numbers however you like, but the blunt fact is that the number of Canadians dying in 2020 is pretty close to 2019, which was pretty close to 2018, etc. I think that was the article's point, and nothing you wrote debunks or refutes that, unless I am missing some nuance that wasn't clarified in the post. The cause of death listed was different, but the numbers were nearly identical. Thus, at best, your rebuttal is a Rube Goldberg machine of explanation of why the numbers may well be what they are but don't mean what is stated, and at worst is several thousand words of rationalization and defense of the official narrative that isn't supported by the data.
I do appreciate the effort you put into explaining your reasoning, though. Thanks for that. Without folks checking to keep me honest, I would quickly get into all sorts of mischief, I'm sure.
Exactly.
Daniel concludes rather laughably, "If, after having read this very carefully, somebody still denies that a pandemic occurred in Canada, here is a task: get them to pick any other year in the last 100 (besides 1918) when hospitals were flooded with people suffocating to death — so flooded with cases that all non-emergency surgeries were cancelled, and that these will take 3 years to catch up on."
According to Daniel's "logic" every year is a "pandemic" year at around 0.04% mortality increases which is statistically the norm, or thereabouts.
Every year "people [are] suffocating to death" from flu and pneumonia, just like in 2020.
The reason "all non-emergency surgeries were cancelled, and that these will take 3 years to catch up on" is because of the very same criminal gov policies that instituted deadly lockdown measures, also prevented the hospitals from operating as they did in previous years. This is the real tragedy, when the government's evil agenda is deployed against the populace under cover of "helping" said populace, when in fact it is quite literally destroying innocent and gullible people. These are real crimes against humanity.
I have no narrative, other than a search for the truth.
I've briefly read your reply, and thank you for it. A couple of things stick out, though. First is that several areas appear to be defending official positions, rather than addressing data. An example would be the observation that vaccines typically use RRR and thus the 95% claim is correct. Nobody said it was incorrect, but rather that it was incomplete and thus misleading, as the ARR is more like 1%. Both claims are in fact correct, and asserting that I claimed it was incorrect is a logical fallacy, specifically creating a straw man.
Another area I take issue with is that you admit that the 0.04% claim is correct. But you then state that you feel a different set of assumptions should be used rather than the preceding years. That may or may not be reasonable, but it in no way invalidates or debunks that 0.04% claim, which is in fact correct. Until I did into it further, it seems that you are basically saying that the article is correct in its statements, but that you feel they should be framed differently using different assumptions, which would then lead one to a different conclusion. That may be true, however I'm not there quite yet.
You also have made a number of claims I have a problem with, namely that lockdowns and masking have made a considerable difference and more would have died had they not been implemented. This flies in the face of the data that has accrued on the efficacy of lockdowns and masks over the last year. If you look at the curves, the analysis shows basically no impact of either. That isn't contentious. It is clear. So positing that it would have been way worse and then taking countries with radically different demographics and weather and health care (and their worse numbers) like the US or Brazil makes as much sense to me as taking countries that did basically nothing, like most of Northern Africa, which has negligible mortality, and saying that had Canada done nothing like them, the numbers would have been better. Again, it's a logical fallacy and poor reasoning. All that we know is what is, not claims about what might have been.
You make a reasonable case for why your assumptions are preferable, but that isn't a debunking, it's moving the goalposts, perhaps reasonably, or perhaps not. I'll leave it to bigger brains than mine to determine which. I will say, however, that the 0.04% is correct and accurate. Your point that it is still a lot of people dead in no way alters that, nor is your appeal to authority (another logical fallacy, BTW) WRT the media, the government, anecdotes from health care workers, etc. Nobody is making any statement about that 0.04% other than that it does NOT constitute any legitimate description of a pandemic. I believe that statement to be accurate. You may disagree. Again, I will leave it to others to parse the nuance. One man's pandemic can be another's tempest in a teacup. To whit, there were 14,714 total deaths attributed to COVID during 2020. Another 12K (approximately) have died in 2021, when one might expect all the lockdown, masking, vaccination to have made a significant impact on mortality if your theory that they are effective were true. But that isn't what we are seeing. Canada is currently on track to see a far worse 2021 mortality total than 2020, unless the virus miraculously disappears. I would also direct you to Worldometers, where I pulled the data (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/canada/ ), and where you can clearly see that, just like the seasonal flu (which has apparently completely disappeared in Canada), it spikes during "flu season" and then drops in the summer months - a startling coincidence, one must admit, and one that isn't lost on me.
So here is what I feel comfortable stating at this point: every death is regrettable. But 0.04% is not a pandemic by any stretch, no matter how one tortures the reasoning or shifts the assumptions.
Regarding the vaccines' ARR - I was merely making the comparison here, not using it as an argument.
There are high quality studies showing that lockdowns, masks (and other interventions) are effective, but not in isolation from one another:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/eabd9338
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3025-y
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30984-1/fulltext
In addition to those, I took special note of some of the lockdowns in various countries:
- Italy (where my brother lives), started March 16 - their COVID numbers were increasing at a very concerning rate, but after the strict lockdown was implemented, case numbers started falling. I was watching this one very carefully.
- UK (where I'm from) - implemented 3rd strict lockdown on January 6; cases started falling.
- Canada (where I live) - cases started falling from 3rd wave after strict lockdown implemented.
These observations together with the science are quite undisputable. Lockdowns are effective. Damaging to the economy, of course, but they reduce cases. Failure to slow down the spread of the virus, with lots more virus-related deaths would have been even more damaging to the economy.
Finally, my analysis of this "pandemic in Canada" article is spot on, and I have consensus from an educated community including professionals and scientists (11 upvotes, only one downvote from a known idiot):
http://disq.us/p/2hxrzjx
Have you looked at the more recent studies that show zero effect of masking or lockdowns? I have posted them on my FB page if of interest.
I couldn't find them (I looked for a while) - could you please post them here?
Here is a study that just came out showing that lockdowns (i.e. severe mobility restrictions) work (and note also what I observed directly for Italy, UK, and Canada):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92766-z
PS you wrote, ""Finally, my analysis of this "pandemic in Canada" article is spot on, and I have consensus from an educated community including professionals and scientists ". What exact consensus did you receive and from which "scientists" and "professionals" exactly? Please post the analyses corroborating that 0.04% increase is mortality proves there is a "pandemic".
There are far more robust studies with larger sample sizes proving that masks and lockdowns do zero for "covid" prevention, and establish that they are harmful and increase mortality. I linked a metastudy of this with many citations that you may review again.
In my article on Medium, I presented graphs from raw data showing that the mortality in the categories you're talking about (suicides, etc) are either DOWN in 2020, or unchanged. Your comments about Canada are baseless and nonsense, and I've proven it.
Go on that blog post I linked to, and you can do your own research on each person who upvoted me (12 now). It doesn't matter *exactly* who they are, but they're highly educated people, including scientists.
Brainwashed into irrational nonsense. 0.04% is not a pandemic, but hey "spot on" nonetheless = total cognitive derangement.
Russell, your "2nd smartest guy" has been a disrespectful asshat this entire conversation.
The correct conclusion is that there has been a pandemic in Canada, with a 9.6% increase in death rate compared to the previous 10-year average. And it would likely have been a lot worse, had it not been managed to some degree.
If you want to argue against it, present a reasoned argument, not insolence.
The reason there was the rounding error sized 0.04% increase in mortality is precisely because lockdowns did work in terms of damaging human lives, and as such increased mortality. Without lockdown measures the mortality for 2020 would have been LESS than 0.04%.
The "total takedown" of my 0.04% was that there was.....0.04%! How's that for an exercise in derangement?
Next up: the "delta" variant was caused by those refusing the "vax" -- this is the tortured and insane "logic" of individuals pushing the false PSYOP-19 narratives. Unbelievable that people are this brainwashed.
PS in any given normal non-"pandemic" year a 0.04% increase in mortality is in no way outside the general trends for the last many decades. There is no spin, nor rationalizing necessary for such a small increase in mortality, especially when adjusting for population.
So all of these mental acrobatics are ultimately futile, as the original point was that 0.04% in ANY YEAR does NOT constitute a "pandemic", mental contortions of logic, or lack thereof notwithstanding.
If the Canadian gov is ever forced to admit the Truth, then there will be a similar revision to the 0.04% breakdown as there was recently in Lisbon:
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/lisbon-court-rules-only-0-9-of-verified-cases-died-of-covid-numbering-152-not-17000-claimed/
Congrats, you wasted all of that time to prove the point that there was a 0.04% increase in Canadian mortality in 2020, and thus there was never a pandemic!
Definition of pandemic (Entry 1 of 2)
1: occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population
pandemic malaria
The 1918 flu was pandemic and claimed millions of lives.
0.04% is NOT affecting a significant proportion of the population in terms of mortality, or even sickness overall. What we have is a CASEDEMIC predicated on a PCR test that has an incredibly high false positive result and as per Nobel laureate inventor was never meant to be used for testing infectious diseases.
So, you have wasted much time in your "analysis" only to confirm my original point! As the saying goes, "You Can't Fix Stupid."
Russel Blake UNCENSORED not in the censorship game¿ What has the world come to¿
Still awaiting this "detailed takedown". Nothing would make me happier than someone taking down the official Canadian gov data!