janic wrote: But there, no bowl, no vaccines, no drugs, and the children are doing better than they are.
No, children do not do better without medoc rather than with. Children are just much less affected and / or much less severely (They are looking for why). But those who are, are treated, if necessary, like the others with medication, resuscitation, etc.
"Wong et al provide in the journal Pediatrics a clinical description of 2143 pediatric cases (including 731 confirmed cases). 94 children were asymptomatic (systematic samples due to contagion). In 94% of cases the disease was mild (from asymptomatic to moderate). Among the 112 severe cases (respiratory distress with oxygen saturation <92%), 60% were less than 5 years old and 30% less than 1 year old and among the 13 critical cases (ARDS and / or organ) 7 was less than 1 year old. A 14-year-old child has died. There are no data on possible comorbidities in the children. "
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... 2.full.pdf
Except that you did not point that out
There are no data on possible comorbidities in children. "
If 95% (?) Had co-morbidities (diabetes, obesity, family inheritance, etc…) that would then make only a tiny number of real sick children possible because we cannot compare individuals already in pathology with healthy individuals. So without precise data, that means nothing characteristic
like many other childhood illnesses. But when the medical profession made this reflection it was always by comparison with others, much more deadly so the medical history is full..janic wrote: Now there is no miracle because the same phenomenon existed during measles, where naturally affected children very quickly developed their immunity hence the consideration that it was a mild disease at the time.
At the time, measles was a child killer:
"This disease characterized by the eruption of red spots on the skin was, before the arrival of vaccines in the 1970s, a formidable killer of children (7 to 8 million deaths estimated per year in the world)."
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/l ... nde_133015
Except that France in 70 and the world could not compare with rates of hygiene and medicine at odds.
and that science and the future does not seem to have consulted the official statistics. Which show a dizzying drop in deaths in France and our neighboring countries BEFORE vaccinations. All of this has already been seen and reviewed.
"The killer disease of children has become almost endemic in several provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). According to a statement from the World Health Organization (WHO), since the beginning of the current year , more than two hundred and fifty thousand suspected cases and more than five thousand deaths, mainly among children under 5, have been recorded. "It still wreaks havoc today:
http://www.adiac-congo.com/content/camp ... s-children
As in France when rules of hygiene and sufficient nutrition existed only a little, mainly in the important cities especially.
We are not in the Congo with malnourished children, easily infected and unprotected from various injuries from this environment.
janic wrote: But the phenomenon got worse from the introduction of vaccines that moved this pathology from childhood to babies and adults.
It is not a biological reality, but communication / advertising to sell a product.It is false, it is even the reverse:
"Why is this wrong?
-Because if we compare different countries, we find that the better the immunization coverage, the more measles affects the youngest children on average.- (sic) This is normal, since if everyone gets vaccinated the only exposed are young children (less than 1 year in France, less than 6 years in Sweden).
-Because if we compare the same country at different times (France 2018 and France 2011), we see exactly the same thing. "
https://atlas.ecdc.europa.eu/public/ind ... UrFrV-rHsk
When you want to be able to get statistics valid, you have to compare comparable cases. However, when one imposes on a whole population, without possible comparison with a situation without, one draws falsified conclusions from it since it is precisely a bias in non-comparative studies.
So where are these really comparative models? Nowhere !