Covid-19, non-respiratory medical effects ...

[Obamot]

The covid19 attacks the arteries .... (weakened subjects with this weak point) and in the brain there are arteries.
Covid19 can therefore affect any organ weakened by this means.
There it would take the age group and the lifestyle of those affected!

Because if the victims are inveterate smokers (or former smokers), drunkards or former drinkers, people at the end of their life, whose expectation was only six months or a year, or that do I know ... It is clear that all these people ALREADY had inflammatory problems BEFORE the covid (potential, declared or chronic), nothing new compared to what we have known: “THEY WERE ALREADY SICK BEFORE ”

[Janic]

Covid19 can therefore affect any organ weakened by this means.
There it would take the age group and the lifestyle of those affected!

They know it only affects the elderly. So their objective is not the protection of those not likely to be sick, but to sell their products above all under the pretext of humanism and by playing on the fear and the fed up of the populations. The micro sidewalks show that many people "want" to be vaccinated to find a "normal" life not out of conviction that these vaccines are essential, or even effective, this is called blackmail as in the ehpads, a freedom under constraint sort of!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

They know it only affects the elderly.

No. It does not only affect the elderly.

[Janic]

GuyGadeboisLeRetour »23/02/21, 13:11

Janic wrote:
They know it only affects the elderly.

No. It does not only affect the elderly.

Statistically obviously! There will always be cases that fall outside the rule. But the statistical curves show the beginning of an explosion around fifty. But also and above all, as Raoult and others point out, we tend to count the number of infected individuals WITH the number of patients real, when they should be distinguished precisely and that would largely avoid the figures developing fear and panic.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

we tend to count the number of infected individuals WITH the number of patients real...

This sentence does not make sense to me.

[Janic]

GuyGadeboisLeRetour »23/02/21, 13:32

Janic wrote:
we tend to count the number of infected individuals WITH the number of actual patients ...

This sentence does not make sense to me.

But not for me, we can't agree on everything.
The phenomenon is not new where we tend (even statistically) to mix bad apples and bad apples and yet they are all apples.
For example, as I said previously, the tendency is to classify the vaccinated one dose, among the unvaccinated, which is contradictory: one is or one is not! and this therefore distorts these same statistics by reducing to two categories what in reality comprises three.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

GuyGadeboisLeRetour »23/02/21, 13:32

Janic wrote:
we tend to count the number of infected individuals WITH the number of actual patients ...

This sentence does not make sense to me.

But not for me, we can't agree on everything.

"To count ... of", at the limit, or "to distinguish between ... and", or "to confuse ... with", but "to count ... with", I don't know, I don't understand .

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
we tend to count the number of infected individuals WITH the number of actual patients.

"To count ... of", at the limit, or "to distinguish between ... and", or "to confuse ... with", but "to count ... with", I don't know, I don't understand .

I understand the nuances that could be brought by your formulation, but after reflection none of your proposals correspond enough to reality.
Let's see what this gives and I remind you: this formulation does not concern affected individuals, in general, but only the unvaccinated, the vaccinated one dose and the vaccinated two doses.
a)we tend to COUNT the number of infected individuals FROM the number of actual patients. What I wrote is the opposite: we tend not to ENUMBER and to make a single batch
It is not difficult to 'enumerate three categories as distinct as between patients, not V, insufficiently V and V. So there is a will not to do it, for reasons ... let's say X!
b)we tend to MAKE A DISTINGUISH BETWEEN the number of infected individuals AND the number of actual patients.
No, there is a tendency to DO NOT MAKE THE DISTINGUOUS BETWEEN, as is currently seen in the figures given called CAS, without specifying whether people have been little or not at all sick, vaccines making moreover sicker than the disease itself by its side effects than anyone does not dispute elsewhere.
c)there is a tendency to CONFUSE the number of infected individuals WITH the number of actual patients.
Here too, on the medical level only, a competent doctor cannot be confused, especially with possible and specific examinations as Raoult emphasizes elsewhere. So there is no confusion, but deliberate intention and that is not new, nor related to this particular vaccine. For 40 years and more that I have been following this provaccine and vaccine proliberty controversy, the same methods are systematically used. Since, I remind you, this formulation does not concern affected individuals, in general, but only the unvaccinated, the vaccinated one dose and the vaccinated two doses.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

The main thing is that you understand yourself. Me, I give up trying to decipher your ....

[Obamot]

we tend to count the number of infected individuals WITH the number of patients real...

This sentence does not make sense to me.

Since the PCR tests did not make it possible to arrive at reliable statistics on the number of cases, nor even to certify from what the victims considered as “positive” had really died (patients having been tested several times, until that we take the last tests declaring them positive, discarding the majority of the others, who did not prove it ...), and this after a scholarly scrambling (criminal) organized on a planetary level [... ] the only valid data are, decrescendo:

- hospital lethality:
- hospital admissions;
- hospital follow-up for those who have sequelae (with outpatient treatment, etc.)

Because I do not imagine that subjects having had an episode of “mild” covid infection, have to undergo deep, persistent and disabling side effects. It is possible but without going too far, they should not be very numerous.