Today we now have empirical evidence that the WHO, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx were all wrong. They were charlatans. They lied.
The CDC silently updated their numbers this week to show that only 6% of all coronavirus deaths were related to the coronavirus alone. The rest of the deaths pinned to the China coronavirus are attributed to individuals who had other serious issues going on. Also, most of the deaths are related to very old Americans.
“This week the CDC quietly updated the Covid number to admit that only 6% of all the 153,504 deaths recorded actually died from Covid
That’s 9,210 deaths
The other 94% had 2-3 other serious illnesses & the overwhelming majority were of very advanced age”
So this is both a basic lie and "lying through statistics". The data is located here at the CDC website, and what has been adjusted is comorbidities - diseases that the people had in addition to COVID-19.
The lie is highlighted in red. So first, here's what is on the CDC website (liked above):Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.
So, I have to admit that I am becoming increasingly disgusted with the 'responses' put forward by people who should know better. They are either ignorant themselves or attempting to manipulate those who are.
It is dishonest.
The simple fact is that COVID-19 is real and it particularly dangerous to those over the age of 60. Why? Because as you get older your body is less able to fight disease and you will have other medical conditions. For example, if you live to 90 years of age, you will have some form of cancer. You'll die of something else before the cancer takes you out. When you die of some illness, the other existing illness are listed as comorbidities.
The questions that the manipulators of the ignorant do not answer are:
- Would these people still be living if they hadn't caught COVID-19?
- What was the comobidity rate prior to this change?
Without the answers to these key questions, they are simply lying.
I do not suffer bullies and liars lightly.
P^3
Other References
Tradical
ReplyDeleteAre you taking in the whole scope of the actions of all the governments, lockdowns, closed businesses. There are many people now out of work, the global economy is falling apart. Governments can't deprive workers the right to fulfill their duty to support themselves and their families. There is truly something more to this COVID19. In 3rd world countries and countries that survive on tourism, there are people who depend on working for the day to eat for that day. You hear in the news this economic situation will be the worst the world has ever seen because of C19. Baloney, it's because of all the government laws enforced in this so called state of emergency. If people are willing to protect themselves then let the government advise them but don't treat everyone like criminals and lock them down. All you readers of this blog why don't you comment as well, c'mon!!
MM
Hi MM,
DeleteYour words: "...Are you taking in the whole scope of the actions of all the governments, lockdowns, closed businesses. ..."
So I am confused. Are you weighing the lives of thousands of people against money?
The real question that needs to be asked is this: Is there a reason for a state of emergency?
How many people would have to die before you would declare a state of emergency?
... and then could you stop thousands more from dying?
Nope.
Sorry, while the response to the pandemic has been messy, doing nothing was not an option for leaders with the responsibility for their citizens. If they had they would have been derelict in their duties. Some did nothing and their citizens paid for their indecision with their lives.
Let's take the worst case scenario for COVID-19.
There are 57,000 hospital beds in Canada. That is all of them, we aren't talking about the ICU, and isolated rooms needed to handle a contagious disease.
If all those beds were suddenly filled with COVID-19 patients - what happens? Remember we're talking roughly 20% of cases in a population with no immunity.
Boom, thousands of other people who need care die. The economy also collapses because 20% of people are yanked out of an already weak economy and draw others out of it to provide care.
This is not the seasonal flu, where you are knocked down for a day or two. This is an illness that, from what I've read, I would describe best as being waterboarded for an extended period of time.
So, as Catholics, we need to consider the responsibilities and rights of the law makers. If you have a responsibility / obligation, then you have a right to the moral means necessary to fulfill that responsibility.
Our elected leaders, flawed as they are, have that responsibility. So they have the right and obligation to protect the lives of the people in their country.
So, would you still choose the economy of the lives of thousands upon thousand of humans with souls?
In your scenario the only clear winner are the mortuaries.
I know the Catholic answer to this crisis ... and some seem to have forgotten it.
I welcome any other opinions on this topic.
P^3
correction:
DeleteFROM: "... So, would you still choose the economy of the lives of thousands upon thousand of humans with souls? ..."
TO: "... So, would you still choose the economy [over] the lives of thousands upon thousand of humans with souls? ..."
Tradical
ReplyDeletehttps://veritasliberabitvos.info/appeal/
I know by your past bloggings you give no credence to the fact that diabolical minions have the agenda to create a NWO, that's why you answered the way you did.
Just for reference, by your answer above do you believe it justifiable to restrict a person from obtaining the means to house and feed themselves to prevent the spread of a disease? It's obvious you still are able to work and provide for yourself (and family?) and have not felt the despair and depression of losing your ability to totally provide for yourself. Fortunately I am still working, but the reality came close and I can only sympathize with those losing their jobs, homes and/or business and face the reality of not being able to provide for their loved ones. I pray for you.
MM
Dear MM,
DeleteThanks for your prayers!
First, it is really important to understand the difference between belief and knowledge.
You don't "know' that I "... give no credence ...", you believe that.
I answered the way I did because I adhere to Catholic teaching and principles on authority, responsibility and obedience. They are hard to live by, and yet they remain true.
Now on to your question:
"... do you believe it justifiable to restrict a person from obtaining the means to house and feed themselves to prevent the spread of a disease? ..."
This is an excellent question.
Put another way: "Is it morally licit for the government of a country to restrict the normal commercial activity of its citizens in times of a life threatening communicable disease outbreak?"
The answer would be yes, with a caveat: The government has to ensure that there are means for survival of those citizens whose ability to provide the NECESSITIES of life (food, clothing, shelter) are restricted.
You can't directly cause a person to lose their life in order to save another life. [NTS: This statement may need a little work to sync with St. Thomas' principle of double effect]
But you can affect their material prosperity, because this is at a lower level of important when compared with life.
There have been a lot of responses to this crisis and people are muddling up a lot of the issues.
To form a proper Catholic response I rest on Catholic principles and avoid conspiracy theories.
Why?
Because when I die God won't judge me on my belief in a conspiracy theory. He's going to judge me on how I lived and died as a Catholic.
P^3