Pandemic Logic Unexplained Part 1
In a crisis event things are so obvious they don’t have to be explained. No body likes to see people die. And the idea of a pandemic signals a time for people to come together to defeat the invisible boogeyman. But this pandemic has resulted in people turning against each other, branding thy neighbor as a facist.
The scientific method works: Observation->Question->Hypothesis->Experiment->Conclusion->Result
The easiest way to persuade people is to refute the data/results presented. Today, data that debunks a proof is met with censorship and intellectual laziness. Which leads the censored to conclude that either the data is right, or that it is indisputable. But to chose to just censor looks like the hiding of a smoking gun.
In a pandemic, when you are trying to influence behavior, hiding a smoking gun will influence people to act in the wrong way.
So today I’m not saying these things are right or wrong, I’m just presenting the arguments. They are valid questions that need answers, especially since we live in an era of “misinformation”. So please…
Save Lives Explained
Everything should be on the table to save the lives of the people.
Which means any and all possible treatments should be used, especially if they have relatively harmless long term side effects. With all doctors visits I’ve had for illness, doctors have addressed sickness through certain processes:
- Root case: What internal or external stimuli caused this?
- Covid was preconditions and age
- Managing symptoms: What symptoms are physically manifesting that are endangering them and how can they be mitigated?
- Flu like symptoms
- Method of infection: What on an anatomical level causes the person to get sick?
- Covid arisol & spike protein
When the pandemic first jumped off it was reported that the style of infection resembled that of malaria. Therefore, it is logical to conclude, “hey let’s start there. What drugs to we use to combat malaria?” Instantly, talks of hydroxychoriquin were met with censorship, including “Trumps Doctors” being ostracized as untrustworthy nutjobs. Doctors reporting great successes against the beer bug that were met with vitriol. Despite needing to save lives, there seemed to be little public interest to check the data for errors, and promote the results.
During the pandemic hydroxychoriquin was classified by the CDC as an unapproved drug for battling beer bug. Others that met the wrath of the CDC were Remdesivir and Ivermectin. But in a Pandemic when the only other option appears to be mass death, why would we remove them? Why would we not study them when doctors in different parts of the USA are experiencing success? Everything should be on the table.
Bad Math Explained
In the year of 2020 we had a 1.6% increase of deaths from the previous year. And not to toot my own horn, I said in March of 2020, we were on pace to be 200k short of the deaths needed to meet the average. And that we would need to hit 3.3-million deaths before you can even start to talk about a pandemic.
- 2017 had a 2.5 % increase from 2016, 2015 had a 3.2% increase from ’14, 2013 had a 2.0% increase ’12, and 2011 had a 1.8% increase from ’10.
- The average increase in deaths from 2011-2020 is 15.9%. So the year 2020 did exactly what it was suppose to do at 1.6% increase.
- In year 2020 we had over a 3 million population increase. This was .96%, well more than the .66% average increase from 2011-2020.
- Even though we had over 500,000 more deaths in 2020 than the year before, and massive population growth, statistically we maintained the status quo metric.
The CDC reports that over 600,000 deaths were due to covid (to date). But let’s be generous and put ALL of them in 2020. If there were 500,000 deaths over the pervious year, while still hitting the average death rate, that’s only 100,000 extra deaths that you could debatably count as covid deaths. So are we suppose to believe that all 500,000 extra deaths were all covid? And after that, the additional 100k signal a pandemic? EVEN THOUGH we hit the average? Are the extra deaths because of the extra population? Do we still have the deaths without the population growth? And on top of all that, why didn’t the years of ’17, ’15, ’13, and ’11 call for any type of similar response?
“They Didn’t Know” Explained
These people in charge are supposed to be the best of that the medical profession has to offer. The Olympic Champions of their selected fields so-to-speak. And somehow, the common man has said things that were censored in the beginning of 2020, only for these medical Olympic Champions to turn-180 in 2021, validating the common man. And somehow this continues to happen time and time again.
PCR tests from the onset were reported to be a bad method for detecting Covid. Additionally, it was reported early on that the cycles threshold was WAYYYY too high for accurately indicating covid. To the point of a 97% false positive. This was never debated, disproved, or reported on in the mainstream media. Just last month the CDC issued a recall on the unreliability of the PCR test, revoking its Covid Emergency use authorization.
You can apply this same reasoning to not knowing Hydroxycloriqune, Remdesivir and Ivermectin were good treatments for Covid.
How are our Medical Olympic Champions not knowing these things, but the common man they rule over does? Do you really expect me to believe they didn’t? If they didn’t, and lives are at stake, why have they not been fired?
Long Term Effects Explained
We don’t know what they are. If I had the guess, probably the same as flu or pneumonia since they have similar symptoms, but only time will tell. But the same can be said about the vazz, which manufacturers will continue to monitor participants of phase 3 for an additional 2-3 years. This raises several questions:
Is it normal for a vazz to be safely produced in 6-8 months? If it is safe, that means this vazz has been tested for longer than the public has know the beer bug to have been around. So did we know human-beer bug existed before now? If we did, and we had a vazz, why wasn’t it stopped and presented as a safe cure before Nov. 2020? If the test results suggested a certain level of protection that got it EUA, and now the level is lower than anticipated, should it be recalled?
The argument for the vazz is to save lives. And that the side effects and deaths of the vazz are a necessary evils to save lives. Well can’t the same be said about unintentional consequences of the natural 99.8% survival rate? Why are the vazz’s unintended consequence deemed acceptable? But not the .2% death via natural immunity unacceptable?
Do it for Others Explained
At this point we know that 78% of hospitalizations were overweight/obese people. Over the last 2-decades there has been a body positivity movement leading to massive American (and other western developed countries) epidemic. One that is now costing lives.
So those people of the 78% get to choose to be unhealthy, put themselves at risk, and tax the medical system in a pandemic?
But its not ok for people to choose to not get the vazz, then go to the hospital to get one of the many FDA and CDC approved treatments?
Explain to me why the obese get to choose their selfishness, but others don’t? I have no problem with people doing whats in their best interest. It’s normal, and most people are normal—so I expect it. But let’s be honest about the hypocrisy…
If you have ever put together a resume then you should know how this works. You can take numbers and make them say whatever you want to make yourself look good. I once dated a chick, and helped her get employment at Orange Theory. One part specifically was her work with her previous employers social media. She grew the account by 900 people. But percentage wise, equated to 300%+ growth. Which number do we think I put on her resume?
Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t lie. Numbers might not lie but sometimes they tell fibs. Lets examine.
- 1/10 people die in 1000 population. Only 10 infected and 1 dead.
- Can be written a number of ways: 10% death rate, .1% died, 1% infection rate—which has more impact?
In the media I have not seen a single publication push a combination of the cases per number of people tested, hospitalizations per cases, time hospital admittees spend admitted, or percent of asymptomatic positive cases. All of which would provide context of the severity of infection. Instead we see graphics like:
“5000 people test positive in a day it’s a record!”
But if you knew 100,000 were tested, that a 5% positive test rate. 95% negative cases!
Let’s dive deeper into that hypothetical 5% positive test rate:
- Out of the 5000 tests record, 500 are symptomatic
- This equals .5% symptomatic out of 100,000 or 10% if 5000 is used
- From the 500 symptomatic cases, 100 are admitted into the hospital
- This equals .1% hospitalized out for 100,000, or 20% rate if 500 is used
- Of the 100 admitted 90 people die
- So a .09% death rate out of 100,000, or 90% death rate if 100 is used
Even though they both imply the same data, which headline are you more likely to see today?
You have a 5% chance of testing positive. If you are symptomatic you have a 1-in-5 chance of getting hospitalized. But once hospitalized you have a 10% chance of survival.
Per 100,000 people you have a .09% chance of dying from beer bug and a .1% chance of being hospitalized by it.
Part 2 Next Saturday
This pandemic has been pushed and reported based on cases. Not hospitalizations, not deaths, cases. After reading this you know why, its too easy to debunk the death argument, the hospitalization arguments. And if you are trying to push a pandemic, its too easy to debunk those metrics.
“Cases” is the strongest argument they have.
The American people are owed an explanation to these logical questions and conclusions. But the continued censorship of debate and analysis over the scientific method will not bring this country together.
If we are being 100% honest about this: At this point, we have to acknowledge that the American public has been gaslit to this extent over… avoiding feeling sick. Not dying, not going to the hospital, not being on ventilators, FEELING FLU LIKE SYMPTOMS. I am all for being wrong, but if I am….