Holy fuck.

Canadians now expect to need $1.7-million in savings in order to retire, BMO survey finds.

https://financialpost.com...93-9e50-bf3e8d85174b/amp/

That’s a lot of cake to have sitting in savings.
- bloatedmosquito

Alot of cake that's devaluing with inflation each year....

Now, find me a single example of a healthy 6 to 19yo who died of covid in BC.

If you can't find, what should be a simple example, one then that is proof that on this specific example, that I'm telling the truth. Again, only on this singular point but it will allow us to move onto the next point which will be government censorship.

This is why I oppose government censorship. Like the last one, let's try to stick to whether or not the government did engage in censorship. I'm just providing the following essay to illustrate my personal belief around the topic.

When it comes to censorship, there is no denying the negative impact it has on personal liberty. Let me highlight just a few examples:

Restriction of freedom of speech and expression - censorship violates the right to free speech, which is a cornerstone of democratic societies. When censorship is increased, people are less likely to express their opinions, especially on controversial topics, stifling the exchange of ideas and limiting the public's ability to hold those in power accountable.

Spread of misinformation and suppression of dissenting voices - censorship can lead to a lack of critical thinking and decision making, as people may only have access to information approved by the government and may be less likely to question it. This can result in a distorted reality where only the official narrative is heard, suppressing alternative viewpoints and dissenting voices.

Erosion of trust between citizens and the government - when people are not able to access information freely and openly, they may feel that the government is hiding something or manipulating information. This can contribute to a lack of transparency and accountability and erode the trust between citizens and the government.

Stifling of creativity and artistic expression - artists and creators may be forced to self-censor, limiting their ability to express themselves freely and authentically. This stifles artistic diversity and creativity, hindering the growth and development of cultural and artistic industries.

In conclusion, the negative outcomes of censorship on personal liberty are clear and undeniable. The restriction of freedom of speech and expression, spread of misinformation, erosion of trust between citizens and the government, and stifling of creativity and artistic expression are just a few examples. It's time for us to stand up against censorship and protect our personal liberty.

The funniest thing about you prez is that you want to be respected but refuse to show any for anyone else.

How many times were you re-directed here with your posts?

(frank) em right? They came to talk hockey so they need to read what I've discovered about the twitter files.

What you've failed to mention about the twitter files is Musk censored what's been released painting a picture that is not accurate.

The funniest thing about you prez is that you want to be respected but refuse to show any for anyone else.

How many times were you re-directed here with your posts?

(frank) em right? They came to talk hockey so they need to read what I've discovered about the twitter files.

What you've failed to mention about the twitter files is Musk censored what's been released painting a picture that is not accurate.
- golfingsince

I like to refer to this thread as the ‘Bloated Files’.

The funniest thing about you prez is that you want to be respected but refuse to show any for anyone else.

How many times were you re-directed here with your posts?

(frank) em right? They came to talk hockey so they need to read what I've discovered about the twitter files.


What you've failed to mention about the twitter files is Musk censored what's been released painting a picture that is not accurate.
- golfingsince

Are you going to concede the point about healthy children not dying of covid in BC?

You're now creating a conspiracy of your own in the bold. Is there any proof of this? I've read the Twitter files and see no evidence of this.

Are you willing to accept the fact that the government engaged in censoring facts that went against their narrative? Cause we can very quickly move into the next one of my points you said was a lie which would be government coercion.

The funniest thing about you prez is that you want to be respected but refuse to show any for anyone else.

How many times were you re-directed here with your posts?

(frank) em right? They came to talk hockey so they need to read what I've discovered about the twitter files.

What you've failed to mention about the twitter files is Musk censored what's been released painting a picture that is not accurate.
- golfingsince

He keeps getting schooled and still thinks his “facts” are true when they’re proven to be just lies.
It’s sad really.

The funniest thing about you prez is that you want to be respected but refuse to show any for anyone else.

How many times were you re-directed here with your posts?

(frank) em right? They came to talk hockey so they need to read what I've discovered about the twitter files.

What you've failed to mention about the twitter files is Musk censored what's been released painting a picture that is not accurate.
- golfingsince

This is just a small piece of the puzzle. Here's a quote from the article that touches on the risk to healthy under 65yos
I'll link the study below it. It's also an older study and mortality rates are lower over the past year since omicron leveled the playing field.

Conclusions: People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in pandemic epicenters and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon. Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32846654/

He keeps getting schooled and still thinks his “facts” are true when they’re proven to be just lies.
It’s sad really.
- TurdFergeson

@golfing, I'm finding you your requested information to back up my statements that young men are at greater risk from the vax then from covid. It's hard due to the after mentioned censorship but here's one about 12 to 17yo males.

https://www.medrxiv.org/c...101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

USA study finding healthy 12 to 17yo boys are 4 to 6 times more likely to be hospitalized from the vaccine then from covid

@golfing, I'm finding you your requested information to back up my statements that young men are at greater risk from the vax then from covid. It's hard due to the after mentioned censorship but here's one about 12 to 17yo males.

https://www.medrxiv.org/c...101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

USA study finding healthy 12 to 17yo boys are 4 to 6 times more likely to be hospitalized from the vaccine then from covid
- Pres.cup

@golfing, I'm finding you your requested information to back up my statements that young men are at greater risk from the vax then from covid. It's hard due to the after mentioned censorship but here's one about 12 to 17yo males.

https://www.medrxiv.org/c...101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

USA study finding healthy 12 to 17yo boys are 4 to 6 times more likely to be hospitalized from the vaccine then from covid
- Pres.cup

As a commenter states, there are major issues in this paper.

The first is a technical issue and probably the most obviously fatal flaw.

The authors have badly miscalculated the COVID19 hospitalisation risks for children conditional on comorbid status. They cite a 120 day hospitalisation rate (during moderate viral prevalence) of 255/million children. They note that the hospitalisation risk is 4.7-fold higher for children with comorbidities than for those without.

How do we calculate the risk for each subgroup then?

In this case, we are told 70% of those hospitalised have commorbidities and 30% do not, so for each 255 hospitalised, 0.3*255 = 76.5 will be healthy and 178.5 will have commorbidities.

We can't stop there though as we need to adjust for the size of the background healthy and comorbid populations, which the authors tell us is 67% and 33% respectively. To get rates per million we have 76.5/0.67 = 114.2 among the healthy and 178.5/0.33 = 540.9 among those with comorbidities. They seem to have come up with the 44.4/million and 210.5/million figures based on the assumption that the two have to sum to 255/million, which is just not how it works at all.

A basic sanity check should have been "should the risk in the high risk group really be lower than the overall risk?"

As an example, if the rate of gun deaths is 100/million in the military and 1/million in civilians, you don't just add them together to get an average population gun death rate of 101/million.

A wise man once said “Peoples risk factors are all different, treating them the same is silly"

Did you bother to check the validity of the “science” used?

@golfing, I'm finding you your requested information to back up my statements that young men are at greater risk from the vax then from covid. It's hard due to the after mentioned censorship but here's one about 12 to 17yo males.

https://www.medrxiv.org/c...101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

USA study finding healthy 12 to 17yo boys are 4 to 6 times more likely to be hospitalized from the vaccine then from covid
- Pres.cup

Nothing backs up your statement. So you post a study with limited data where none of the data is available except a few numbers that are thrown out there. Even then, those numbers are consistent with this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459259/

10-20 people per 100,000. Mostly in healthy young people. Jesus Christ you try to spin everything as fact but really you just don't like needles.

As a commenter states, there are major issues in this paper.

The first is a technical issue and probably the most obviously fatal flaw.

The authors have badly miscalculated the COVID19 hospitalisation risks for children conditional on comorbid status. They cite a 120 day hospitalisation rate (during moderate viral prevalence) of 255/million children. They note that the hospitalisation risk is 4.7-fold higher for children with comorbidities than for those without.

How do we calculate the risk for each subgroup then?

In this case, we are told 70% of those hospitalised have commorbidities and 30% do not, so for each 255 hospitalised, 0.3*255 = 76.5 will be healthy and 178.5 will have commorbidities.

We can't stop there though as we need to adjust for the size of the background healthy and comorbid populations, which the authors tell us is 67% and 33% respectively. To get rates per million we have 76.5/0.67 = 114.2 among the healthy and 178.5/0.33 = 540.9 among those with comorbidities. They seem to have come up with the 44.4/million and 210.5/million figures based on the assumption that the two have to sum to 255/million, which is just not how it works at all.

A basic sanity check should have been "should the risk in the high risk group really be lower than the overall risk?"

As an example, if the rate of gun deaths is 100/million in the military and 1/million in civilians, you don't just add them together to get an average population gun death rate of 101/million.

A wise man once said “Peoples risk factors are all different, treating them the same is silly"

Did you bother to check the validity of the “science” used?
- bloatedmosquito

I completely agree with you regarding comorbidites leading to higher rates of hospitalizations in children. Deaths stretch out of even worse then hospitalizations as we've already talked about. 94 percent have at least 2 severe comorbidites. It's almost as if you could subtract 94 percent of the total deaths to get death rates amongst healthy people.

It's why I'm only focusing on healthy males as they're the demographic most likely to be negativity effected by the vaccine.

I see the study was updated, here's the updated version
https://www.medrxiv.org/c...101/2021.08.30.21262866v2

I completely agree with you regarding comorbidites leading to higher rates of hospitalizations in children. Deaths stretch out of even worse then hospitalizations as we've already talked about. 94 percent have at least 2 severe comorbidites. It's almost as if you could subtract 94 percent of the total deaths to get death rates amongst healthy people.

It's why I'm only focusing on healthy males as they're the demographic most likely to be negativity effected by the vaccine.

I note that you copy pasted a response rather then writing your own which leads me to question whether you actually read the report?

I'm going to read it again with an eye on the numbers your copy paste points out.
- Pres.cup

You didn’t note it, I clearly stated in my first sentence that the following is from a commenter. He’s correct. You quoted poop science.

Nothing backs up your statement. So you post a study with limited data where none of the data is available except a few numbers that are thrown out there. Even then, those numbers are consistent with this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459259/

10-20 people per 100,000. Mostly in healthy young people. Jesus Christ you try to spin everything as fact but really you just don't like needles.
- golfingsince

This study has nothing to do with covid or the vaccine. What are you talking about and how does it correlate to my assertion that young healthy men are more likely to be hospitalized from the vax then from covid, key being young, healthy, males.

The long-term prognosis was usually good, with a 3 to 5-year survival ranging from 56 to 83%, respectively.

This suggests to me that just under half of the people who get myocarditis die within 5 years. Does injecting young men with something known to cause myocarditis still make sense to you?

You didn’t note it, I clearly stated in my first sentence that the following is from a commenter. He’s correct. You quoted poop science.
- bloatedmosquito

It's a published paper, copy pasting a response someone else wrote does nothing to prove or disprove the paper.
The UK vaccine recommendation board voted to not approve the vax for this demographic, citing the same infirmary that this paper does.

The paper was also updated, here's that copy. https://www.medrxiv.org/c...101/2021.08.30.21262866v2

Uk not recommending based on risk.
https://www.reuters.com/w...-15-year-olds-2021-09-03/

And more

https://www.theguardian.c...ion-for-children-under-16

It's not hard to poke holes in the official narrative, imagine if they weren't guilty of censoring dissenting scientists.

It's a published paper, copy pasting a response someone else wrote does nothing to prove or disprove the paper.
The UK vaccine recommendation board voted to not approve the vax for this demographic, citing the same infirmary that this paper does.

The paper was also updated, here's that copy. https://www.medrxiv.org/c...101/2021.08.30.21262866v2
- Pres.cup

I can’t quote someone that criticizes a bad paper, but you can quote the same paper you didn’t write?

Plus, you are incorrect (once again) about the UK advisory board…

In Britain, an estimated 93 to 99% of children aged 12 to 15 years, and 74 to 98% of children aged 8 to 11 years, had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at the end of August 2022 (references 1 and 2). Natural immunity alone provides good levels of protection against severe COVID-19 while the combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity (hybrid immunity) is associated with even higher levels of protection

https://www.gov.uk/govern...ered%20in%20spring%202023

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Keep going Prez. This is fun.

I’m beginning to think the ex-wife wasn’t the crazy one.

Still doesn’t convince me you know what fascism is, or which part of the bill says government will censor media they don’t like.

I also can’t respect opinion from someone who writes alot, or uses the wrong to/too/two.

I can’t quote someone that criticizes a bad paper, but you can quote the same paper you didn’t write?

Plus, you are incorrect (once again) about the UK advisory board…

In Britain, an estimated 93 to 99% of children aged 12 to 15 years, and 74 to 98% of children aged 8 to 11 years, had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at the end of August 2022 (references 1 and 2). Natural immunity alone provides good levels of protection against severe COVID-19 while the combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity (hybrid immunity) is associated with even higher levels of protection

https://www.gov.uk/govern...ered%20in%20spring%202023

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Keep going Prez. This is fun.
- bloatedmosquito

I'm not wrong, check the dates and read the whole thing. The vaccine board recommended against it. The ministry overruled their decision. Are you saying that the Reuters article is misinformation?

This doesn't make the statement that they advised against it incorrect.

Close to 100 percent of UK children have natural antibodies. The rest of the statement is a word salad supporting the official narrative. I would expect nothing less

I’m beginning to think the ex-wife wasn’t the crazy one.

Still doesn’t convince me you know what fascism is, or which part of the bill says government will censor media they don’t like.

I also can’t respect opinion from someone who writes alot, or uses the wrong to/too/two.
- 1970vintage

Nice personal insult dude, stay classy.



Grammar nazi on an internet chat is cringe.

I'm not wrong, check the dates and read the whole thing. The vaccine board recommended against it. The ministry overruled their decision. Are you saying that the Reuters article is misinformation?

This doesn't make the statement that they advised against it incorrect.

Close to 100 percent of UK children have natural antibodies. The rest of the statement is a word salad supporting the official narrative. I would expect nothing less
- Pres.cup

You are the master of conjecture

Your Reuters article states:

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) on Friday said children with underlying conditions that made them more at risk from COVID-19 should get vaccinated.

“For healthy children, there was still a small benefit from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and advisers said the risk-benefit was "finely balanced".

However, the JCVI said it wanted more information on the long-term effects of rare reports of heart inflammation, known as myocarditis, in young people following vaccination with Pfizer's shot.”

That was in 2021. Today, after studying the evidence, the JCVI recommend all children get vaccinated.

You are the master of conjecture

Your Reuters article states:

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) on Friday said children with underlying conditions that made them more at risk from COVID-19 should get vaccinated.

“For healthy children, there was still a small benefit from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and advisers said the risk-benefit was "finely balanced".

However, the JCVI said it wanted more information on the long-term effects of rare reports of heart inflammation, known as myocarditis, in young people following vaccination with Pfizer's shot.”

That was in 2021. Today, after studying the evidence, the JCVI recommend all children get vaccinated.
- bloatedmosquito

Jesus this is painful, I never have said that high risk people shouldn't get the shot or that people shouldn't be able to choose to get the shot.

I have said that people shouldn't be coerced into getting them and low risk people shouldn't need them to participate in society.

It wasn't after studying the evidence, it was a political decision that the UK approved the vax. You really should have been following these stories as they unfolded.

Here's the proof or does the BBC lie?

The JCVI said children were at such a low risk from the virus that jabs would offer only a marginal benefit.

The UK's four chief medical officers have now been asked to have the final say, and to consider the wider impact on schools and society.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid said a decision would be made shortly.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation did advise widening the existing vaccine programme to include an extra 200,000 teenagers with specific underlying conditions.

Link to source
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669

Ffs man, you're illustrating the issue, a lack of public education due to censorship.

Jesus this is painful, I never have said that high risk people shouldn't get the shot or that people shouldn't be able to choose to get the shot.

I have said that people shouldn't be coerced into getting them and low risk people shouldn't need them to participate in society.

It wasn't after studying the evidence, it was a political decision that the UK approved the vax. You really should have been following these stories as they unfolded.

Here's the proof or does the BBC lie?

The JCVI said children were at such a low risk from the virus that jabs would offer only a marginal benefit.

The UK's four chief medical officers have now been asked to have the final say, and to consider the wider impact on schools and society.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid said a decision would be made shortly.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation did advise widening the existing vaccine programme to include an extra 200,000 teenagers with specific underlying conditions.

Link to source
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669

Ffs man, you're illustrating the issue, a lack of public education due to censorship.


- Pres.cup

Speaking of a word salad. Post an article. Realize the article contradicts what you are saying. Post another article, again realize that it contradicts your narrative. Post a meme. Rinse and repeat. Another classic alt-right tactic. Bravo.

Speaking of a word salad. Post an article. Realize the article contradicts what you are saying. Post another article, again realize that it contradicts your narrative. Post a meme. Rinse and repeat. Another classic alt-right tactic. Bravo.
- bloatedmosquito

You're very special, aren't you.

The BBC article confirms the vaccine board didn't recommend the vax for healthy kids. It confirms it to be a political decision, like I said.

Period.

Typical religious fanatic, when confronted with facts that prove them wrong, he responds with insults and claims victories.

Honestly, you can't be this willfully dense naturally. It must be all the boosters making you a Branch Covidian Devote.

1. Kids aren't at risk, I've posted several studies and articles to that affect.

Wake up

You're very special, aren't you.

The BBC article confirms the vaccine board didn't recommend the vax for healthy kids. It confirms it to be a political decision, like I said.

Period.

Typical religious fanatic, when confronted with facts that prove them wrong, he responds with insults and claims victories.

Honestly, you can't be this willfully dense naturally. It must be all the boosters making you a Branch Covidian Devote.

1. Kids aren't at risk, I've posted several studies and articles to that affect.

Wake up
- Pres.cup

Every single thing you’ve posted has been debunked and proven to be false.

Wake up!

Every single thing you’ve posted has been debunked and proven to be false.

Wake up!
- TurdFergeson

Great here's a list of missing debunking questions.

Cool, where's the healthy 6 to 19 year old who died of Covid-19 in bc?

Where's the article saying the UK vaccine board did in fact recommend healthy kids get the shot all along?

Where's the article or lawsuit stating that the twitter files are wrong and no government agency ever approached any media company about removing dissenting voices?

Where's the proof that the government didn't actually use Canadians smart phones to track our movements during covid?

There aren't any because these are all facts.
You're acting like you've recieved your boosters, up to date like a typical religious fanatic.