Children, teens and school VS COVID VS vaccine (My wife works in a covid school)

[izentrop]

Buff!
Pseudo-arguments pulled from the hat and not verified.

Pulled out of the hat? Not verified? Please don't reverse the roles...

Tell us about it: did vaccination stop the pandemic? as promised ?

by who ?

[Christophe]

Are you serious or did the spikes destroy your memory??

Do you want us to bring out all the Siegvax videos of MacBouffon 1er, Véreux and all those rotten TV set dorks?

But as I have already said: it will always be the rebels to the villain doxa...even if reality proves them right!

Being fooled is one thing, admitting that you've been fooled is another!

[Obamot]

I remember in 2021 reading a cochrane.org study conscious ivermectin

Have you checked if it has been recognized by the "peers" and if it is not simply retracted for lack of irregularities? ... appalling.

Well, insofar as it was a provaccine covid "influencer" doctor who gave me the link, I have no reason to be a conspirator.
I read it, I had a good laugh when I quoted the passage in question I was censored by facebook so good here it looked very very reliable.
Just search cochrane.org it should always be online.
Anyway, we can clearly see the intellectual process, we take 300 people for a study so it's practical 1/300 was the fatality rate of covid. If by chance there is a death and it is disqualified, if there is zero death we can still say that the sample is too weak.
All the researchers understood the dynamics and understood perfectly what it was necessary to say to be quoted en masse and to gain recognition in the milieu.

yes is no:

— yes because your words are commendable (no one will say that "it's not 'good' to have a larger sample" (the question is in what sense is that significant), and...

- 'no' because in medicine, it is to be considered as significant from a single case (said Professor Raoult).

If only one case is significant (one person is given curare and they die) suddenly, it is to be considered that the 2nd case out of 300, is to be taken with tweezers, and not the reverse.

So the case in question counts for a lot less, why...? Because it's when you have molecules that you're not sure about that you need big samples (the industry can then argue that 'it worked on a sample of 'n' cases...') and why ? Because indeed, to reverse a trend of 1 VS 300, it is not necessary only 1 single case more, the heavy trend, it will be the 300 cases where it worked. To say that it doesn't work is more complicated, in the benefit VS risk balance, 300 survivors plead more than 2 dead. If we admit "that we had no luck with the second death", statistically speaking (e.g. the famous scenario: not dead/s 'du'covid but'with' the covid) we can then estimate that it is not 2 cases out of 300, but 1,1/3000 if we change the standard deviation we can go further, 1,01 out of 30, or 000 out of 1,001, depending. The proof? The reverse is not so obvious to reverse the other figure...

Thus, large samples are favorable to industry, which can afford large cohort studies. Not small college teams.
We can go even further in cheating, by playing on the duration of the "experiment" (case of Séralini with Glyphosate). Case of rt-PCR tests with Covid (for multiple reasons, including the 5 main ones:

a) false positives
b) the amplification ratio, and the wave front amplification ratio where there is little material and you have to amplify a lot more, but nobody says it
c) the type of reactant which was not the same everywhere, and
d) the pompom which was to change type of tests during the experimentation...
e) and finally the conjuring trick which was to sow confusion between mortality (loaded with these PCR tests / number of 'cases') VS hospital lethality, the only authentic one, but not put forward by the media... And without the government offices flinching...

[izentrop]

The price children pay for being so good at getting rid of the virus in the first place is that they don't have the opportunity to develop an "adaptive" memory to protect them the second time they are exposed to the virus.

Professor Tri Phan, Senior Author, Head of the Intravital Microscopy and Gene Expression (IMAGE) Laboratory and Co-Lead of the Precision Immunology Program at Garvan

“Because children have not been exposed to many viruses, their immune systems are still 'naive'. And because they don't develop memory T cells, they are at risk of getting sick when reinfected. With each new episode of infection as they age, there is a risk that their T cells will become "exhausted" and ineffective, like T cells in older people. That's why we think it's important to vaccinate children,” he says.

[Obamot]

Furious idiocy with an interstellar and persistent dimension...

health-pollution-prevention / covid-19-list-of-effective-vaccines-t16510-6790.html # p522921

Initial post from VetusLignum:
health-pollution-prevention / covid-19-list-of-effective-vaccines-t16510-6790.html # p522919

[izentrop]

Study news...

[Janic]

and the izmenteur continues his cerebral wank to try to self-justify his choices, in vain!

[gegyx]

Extremely rare myocarditis: 1.8 per million after the 2nd dose.

For nothing in profit, for the vaccinated I specify

izentrop? Who are you paid to be so heavy? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

SCAN IT!

[izentrop]

Extremely rare myocarditis: 1.8 per million after the 2nd dose.

For nothing in profit, for the vaccinated I specify

being on the side of the narrow conspiracies of the bulb, you cannot understand the enormous benefits that the vaccination of children would have brought in terms of covid mortality and reduction of long covids...

Professor Alain Fisher evoked it very well at the hearing of Dc Amine Umil today revoked from the Order of Doctors...
At 45:24

[gegyx]

What's this video got to do with the nonsense you've been up to?