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/33...

Carl's blood is 50 % lipid nano particles

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.

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.”

Carl.

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

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?

Cochrane is the Gold standard


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

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?

so YOU know better then the cochrane library