Obamot wrote:
If we admit 800 deaths in total in pharmacovigilance for injections,
with the low range (x10)* it makes
8 million dead
with the high range (x100)* it makes
80 million dead
*(ratios given by Dr. Blachier.)
(Hey, he's doing ABC now....)
Obamot wrote:
If we admit 800 deaths in total in pharmacovigilance for injections,
with the low range (x10)* it makes
8 million dead
with the high range (x100)* it makes
80 million dead
*(ratios given by Dr. Blachier.)
Obamot wrote:If we admit 800 deaths in total in pharmacovigilance for injections,
with the low range (x10)* it makes
8 million dead
with the high range (x100)* it makes
80 million dead
*(ratios given by Dr. Blachier.)
We are talking about the cases of athletes who died after being vaccinated injected there...sicetaitsimple wrote:Obamot wrote:If we admit 800 deaths in total in pharmacovigilance for injections,
with the low range (x10)* it makes
8 million dead
with the high range (x100)* it makes
80 million dead
*(ratios given by Dr. Blachier.)
But the same tells us that there is no excess mortality....Go figure....
Obamot wrote:So 800 deaths x 000 is really 10 million deaths, or 8%?
Well precisely... I did NOT take the “high range”!sicetaitsimple wrote:Obamot wrote:So 800 deaths x 000 is really 10 million deaths, or 8%?
Oh no, the high range (your writing) is 80 million deaths, or 10000%, or about 1% of the world's population.
We'll see, at this rate there should soon be no more athletes, so it should slow down.
Note that it should still be a bit boring for the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, this carnage...
Obamot wrote:
If we admit 800 deaths in total in pharmacovigilance for injections,
with the low range (x10)* it makes
8 million deaths (= 1%)
with the high range (x100)* it makes
80 million dead
So without being too mistaken, to reach 1% we are in the low range, so 000% may seem like a lot, but not that much in reality if we consider that only one case out of ten is declared.
*(ratios given by Dr. Blachier.)
By keeping the same inclusion criteria?robob wrote:Not having the list in the form of a table, I have listed the last 2 months available, April and March 2022 to count only active footballers excluding American, Australian and Gaelic football.
there's no reason for them to "deign". This has not happened in previous years.robob wrote:Not enough to ring an alarm bell. We will see the "official" stats if FIFA decides to display them.
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 312 guests