Quote:

Conclusion and Recommendations AH needs to acknowledge the individual roles of vaccine-acquired and infection-acquired immunity, explaining their similarities and differences Acknowledge the limitations of current knowledge, avoid sensationalism, and engage in open dialogue with the public. Overall, being transparent and truthful in public health messaging is crucial. Chapter 8: Vaccines (page 189) The Task Force found that the risk of severe COVID-19 infection or death is primarily associated with age, with the elderly being most at risk. Children and teenagers have a very low risk of serious illness from COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to halt transmission and there is a lack of reliable data showing that the vaccines protect children from severe COVID-19.  In terms of safety, the Task Force identified reports of deaths and injuries attributed to the vaccines, as well as a known risk of myocarditis, particularly in young males. The long-term safety of the vaccines is undetermined due to their rapid deployment and limited follow-up.  Task Force recommends halting the use of COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure of their potential risks, ending their use in healthy children and teenagers, conducting further research into their effectiveness, establishing support for vaccine-injured individuals, and providing an opt-out mechanism from federal public health policy.  • The Task Force conducted a review of COVID-19 vaccines in Alberta.  • They found that severe COVID-19 primarily affects the elderly with comorbidities. • Children and teenagers have a low risk of serious illness from COVID-19.  • The COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to halt transmission of the virus and there is limited data on their effectiveness in preventing severe illness in children. • Reports of deaths and injuries attributed to the vaccines were identified, as well as a known risk of myocarditis, particularly in young males.  • The Task Force recommends halting the use of vaccines withouotential risks, ending their use in healthy children and teenagers, and providing support for vaccine-injured individuals. • Pfizer vaccine safety data from the three-month post-authorization trial was alarming. o 1,223 deaths attributed to the vaccine. o 42,086 people injured within 4 days of vaccination. o 45% of these were between the ages of 18-50 (who were at negligible risk from COVID-19 infection). • Lipid nanoparticles have a well described toxicity in scientific literature after multiple injections.  • Pregnant women in the Pfizer randomized controlled trial did not fare well. It is unknown why vaccines were recommended in Alberta to pregnant women and those of childbearing age. • Healthy minors were at low risk of serious COVID-19 infection and yet were recommended vaccination despite known and unknown safety risks inherent in the vaccines.  • COVID-19 vaccination carries a well-documented risk for developing myocarditis and pericarditis. These heart conditions have lifelong and potentially fatal consequences.  https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/88bbf80e-f8c8-4355-b751-c2086e204b34/resource/33d1d7d5-2596-4e57-a1ad-d93c10920069/download/hlth-albertas-covid-19-pandemic-response-2025-01.pdf

Another win for the conspiracy theorists.  ;)

Quote:

Lipid nanoparticles have a well described toxicity in scientific literature after multiple injections.

The booster shots were a waste of time they did nothing apart from endangering your health.

We need a RC into the way we handled covid so mistakes aren't repeated.

Like I said at the start of the Pandemic.
I wouldn't trust any fast tracked 'cures' coming from America

Carl's blood is 50 % lipid nano particles :o

aquascoot wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 8:03am:

Carl's blood is 50 % lipid nano particles :o

Got any proof of that?  ::)

Quote:

Chapter 5: Masking Before the COVID-19 pandemic, consensus held that masks offered little, if any, benefit in curbing the spread of respiratory viruses. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials concluded that surgical masks did not effectively reduce laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, whether worn by infected individuals or by the general community Similarly, a Cochrane analysis of nine trials found no clear reduction in respiratory viral infections with medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.180 Studies involving healthcare workers suggested uncertain benefits against respiratory pathogens, including the common cold.181  Even a 2020 study on mask use as source control found no difference in infection rates among household contacts between masked and unmasked groups. Due to the lack of evidence to support community masking as an effective means in preventing COVID-19 transmission, questions have been raised regarding the collection and review of data It is inaccurate to suggest that masking is entirely safe and provides effective protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our data review found that there is an absence of evidence show protection from continuous masking against respiratory illnesses, including COVID19, using medical/surgical masks, or even N95 respirators. Alberta should refrain from future mask mandates for respiratory illnesses. The choice to wear a mask is a personal medical decision, guided by informed consent and patient autonomy. 4. Given the lack of evidence to support the efficacy of masking, why were most individuals denied mask exemptions?

---

You're as bad as aquascoot.

How many times have you (and others) posted that picture here?

Seriously - how many times does it need to be said that surgical 'baggy blue' masks are not designed to stop the spread of respiratory viruses?

However, they are better than nothing - assuming they're worn correctly (no 'dick noses' or 'chin nappies').

And, how many times does it need to be said that the Cochrane Review has been misinterpreted?

What the Cochrane Review Says About Masks For COVID-19 — and What It Doesn’t


Quote:

People online are touting the results of a Cochrane review to incorrectly claim that it shows masks “don’t work” against the coronavirus. But the primary conclusion of the review is that it’s uncertain from randomized controlled trials whether mask interventions in the community help slow the spread of respiratory illnesses.

"People online"... yes, that would be the antimaskers, antimaskers and conspiracy nutters on social media.


Quote:

The Jan. 30 review found that based on existing randomized controlled trials — which tested the effectiveness of interventions encouraging people to wear masks, rather than testing the effectiveness of masks themselves — wearing masks in the community “probably makes little or no difference” to the number of people with influenza or COVID-19-like illnesses. “The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks,” the review reads. The authors, however, also emphasized the “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” And only two trials in the review assessed the effectiveness of a mask intervention for COVID-19. “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions,” the authors wrote. “The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.” In other words, there isn’t good evidence from randomized controlled trials that encouraging mask use in the community prevents the spread of respiratory diseases, but the issue also hasn’t been studied very well. So the real answer is unknown. Despite the limitations, many people misinterpreted the review to be saying that masks “don’t work.”

I'm sure we'll be doing this again soon... what the heck is wrong with you people? Amnesia? Covid brain fog damage? Trolling? Does anyone know?

Carl.

No real Australian with a purpose in life is going to read that word salad.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 30^th, 2025 at 5:58am:

Carl. No real Australian with a purpose in life is going to read that word salad.

That's OK.

I only expected you to read as far as the first line... which I'm sure you did.

(Oh, and congratulations on finally using a capital C for my name).

:)

Well considering the cost of Respirators.
Those masks is all that billions could afford

Carl D wrote on Jan 30^th, 2025 at 2:30am:

You're as bad as aquascoot. How many times have you (and others) posted that picture here? Seriously - how many times does it need to be said that surgical 'baggy blue' masks are not designed to stop the spread of respiratory viruses? However, they are better than nothing - assuming they're worn correctly (no 'dick noses' or 'chin nappies'). And, how many times does it need to be said that the Cochrane Review has been misinterpreted?

The mask mandates we had made us wear surgical masks that did SFA.
Nice to see you finally agreeing those masks do nothing. ;)

The Alberta report cited Cochrane. ;)

How many RCT's which are the gold standard for scientific evidence do you need when all of them say masks do SFA?

If masks worked you would expect to see a big difference in cases with masked vs unmasked.

Little to no difference means masks don't work how can you misinterpret little to no difference?

Maybe all those lipid nanoparticles from booster shots have fried your brain.

---

Cochrane is the Gold standard


Looks like Carl was wrong and my wife was scientific in not wearing a mask

aquascoot wrote on Feb 1^st, 2025 at 9:54am:

Cochrane is the Gold standard Looks like Carl was wrong and my wife was scientific in not wearing a mask

Here's a message from the esteemed Dr. David Berger for you and Mrs. Scoot:

https://x.com/YouAreLobbyLud/status/1886946227859931554


Quote:

Oddly enough, I still haven't been ill after five years. I can't figure it out. Some people say I'm just "lucky". Maybe it's that?

Yes, indeed. Such a mystery?

Oh, and... you're both welcome.  :)

Carl D wrote on Feb 5^th, 2025 at 7:27pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 1st, 2025 at 9:54am: Cochrane is the Gold standard Looks like Carl was wrong and my wife was scientific in not wearing a mask Here's a message from the esteemed Dr. David Berger for you and Mrs. Scoot: https://x.com/YouAreLobbyLud/status/1886946227859931554 Quote: Oddly enough, I still haven't been ill after five years. I can't figure it out. Some people say I'm just "lucky". Maybe it's that? Yes, indeed. Such a mystery? Oh, and... you're both welcome.  :)

so YOU know better then the cochrane library  :D :D :D :D

aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2025 at 7:32pm:

so YOU know better then the cochrane library  :D :D :D :D

In case you missed this when I posted it earlier in the thread:

What the Cochrane Review Says About Masks For COVID-19 — and What It Doesn’t - FactCheck.org

And, again... you're welcome.  :)