• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Statistics: Covid & Vaccines

Here is the current death rate in Ontario very low currently the thing to watch is for statistical runs 7 consecutive increases is a row if I see in this next few days it is time to get really worried as covid is following a fractal what happens in Ontario will repeat elsewhere. God speaks through nature. using the language of mathematics, preferred dialect is statistics Quantum mechanics. L'm agnostic listening closely as it is a whisper.
 

Attachments

  • Ontario Death Rate SPC file.pdf
    202.4 KB · Views: 143
Last edited:
interesting anomoly I am monitoring Ontario, ,Toronto, Peel region, York region statistically for covid cases.no statistical failures on any of the data sets Peel has a failure on it's peak case number, as a sub set of Ontario, And smaller than Toronto. this is significant.
 
In my area and state it's assumed that ALL nursing home residents (elderly) have been vaccinated for Covid. I'm interested to see how many "breakout cases" (ie the term being used in the media, by the U.S. government, etc to describe Covid cases contracted by the fully vaccinated) are among the elderly vaccinated. I'm going to try to see what info I can find based on data published by our dept of health.
 
The virus and numbers both do not have opinions and points of view, as I see patterns I will pass them on. I think I know what's going on, so far the numbers support my hypothesis time will tell,
so far not falsified.
 
Ronald, I have a request:

Can you explain the data you're compiling in a way for us laypeople to understand?
 
Our state has been given mandatory mask requirements again. This thing is never going to end. :(
 
Ronald, I have a request:

Can you explain the data you're compiling in a way for us laypeople to understand?
Did that already further back in the thread Out of control conditions are based on 3 standard deviations or a probability of approximatly 2%. for most of the chats no failures on the main body of dat first column all failures on second column day to day differences.be curves on all charts are completly normal, text book. in Ontario Real issue only in peel region since day one. every one getting vaccinated for the sake of the minority, risk not evenly spread.
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping that the inactive vaccine starting to roll out now in France will be available in the U.S. Valneva is what it's called. Traditional vaccine. Non-mRNA. Apparently trains the immune system to be more adaptable to fighting variants like Delta, etc than mRNA vaccines. Also uses the same inactive vaccine technology that's been used for decades and literally billions of doses for other types of immunizations.

Sign...me...up.
 
Just got A run failure for Ontario, only reasonable explanation would be unvaccinated infecting each other
 

Attachments

  • Ontario Cases.pdf
    199.6 KB · Views: 128
True? False? The article definitely seems to be slanted, but I'm interested in the facts. I try to determine as best I can if something is factual and therefore I'll often go to "far-left" news sites, "far-right" news sites, etc and ignore their "spin".

CDC, FDA Faked ‘Covid’ Testing Protocol by Using Human Cells Mixed With Common Cold Virus Fragments



CDC, FDA Faked ‘Covid’ Testing Protocol by Using Human Cells Mixed With Common Cold Virus Fragments

In a shocking revelation first reported by Dan Dicks of Press for Truth (Canada), an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.

Without physical reference material to use for calibration and confirmation, the test has zero scientific basis in physical reality. And all the PCR analysis based on this protocol is utterly fraudulent, flagging people as “positive” for covid when they merely possess tiny quantities of RNA fragments from other coronavirus strains circulating in their blood.

The FDA document, available from the FDA.gov website, is entitled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel .” The document astonishingly admits: (emphasis ours)

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.


In other words, they had no covid virus from which to develop and calibrate the test, so they mixed up a cocktail of human cells and RNA fragments from a common cold virus, then called it “covid.” The GenBank sequence referred to in this paragraph is simply a digital library definition that’s labeled “covid” but has no supporting reference materials in physical reality either.

That’s because no doctor or researcher has isolated “covid” from any infected, symptomatic patient. As a result, no laboratory instruments can be calibrated against actual covid, and the tests simply rely on digital libraries pushed out by the CDC and WHO, using “covid” as the label.

The PCR tests are then instructed to look for these genetic sequences obtained from the fabricated digital libraries, meaning the entire scheme is junk science circular logic with no basis in physical reality.

Why are there seemingly no certified reference materials for covid available to laboratories for instrument calibration?
I am the founder and owner of an analytical laboratory that routinely conducts quantitative analysis of food contaminants, producing high-precision analysis results for pesticides, herbicides and heavy metals. In every case where we conduct lab analysis, we calibrate the instruments against known physical samples called “external standards” or “certified reference materials.” (CRM)


Any lab can purchase CRMs for mercury, arsenic, glyphosate and even salmonella. For example, this link at Biosisto lists CRMs for various salmonella strains. Labs can purchase those reference materials and use them to calibrate their instruments, making sure their analysis is traced back to physical, real-world samples of a purified material. These CRMs, in turn, must be NIST-traceable in order to confirm their origin and authenticity. All CRMs are therefore labeled with lot numbers and expiration dates.

While labs can purchase reference materials for microbes, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. — all physical materials — I have searched far and wide and have not been able to locate any certified reference materials for SARS-CoV-2 or even a weakened, non-viable version of it. As far as I can tell, there appear to be no physical specimens of isolated covid viruses available for instrument calibrations and testing protocol quality control.

To be clear, I’m not saying that viruses don’t exist, and it’s quite clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology colluded with Fauci, Daszak, the NIH, Baric and others to develop a weaponized spike protein. But the spike protein is not a virus by itself. It’s simply a toxic nanoparticle that can be synthesized in quantity and then either dumped on cities or added to vaccines and injected into people via immunization protocols.

I ask the big question about all this in my science lab whistleblower video here, which presents more details about all this that will have your head spinning. In essence, if “covid-19” is a real virus that can be isolated, why are there apparently no physical reference materials to calibrate laboratory instruments for covid detection? And why were no such materials used in the development of the FDA-approved, CDC-endorsed PCR testing protocols?

What adds to the mystery in all this is the fact that the CDC just issued a “laboratory alert,” announcing their intention to withdraw the faulty PCR testing protocol by the end of this year. As part of their announcement, they implied that the current PCR test — the same one the FDA mentioned above, which was developed without any physical covid samples for calibration — cannot tell the difference between influenza and covid.

From the CDC document:

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

Why might it be important to differentiate covid from influenza?

Because, as it seems, influenza cases nearly disappeared in 2020 as influenza was re-labeled “covid” due to the faulty testing.

“Percentage influenza positivity decreased by 64% (p = 0.001) and estimated daily number of influenza cases decreased by 76% (p = 0.002) in epidemiologic weeks 5–9 of 2020 compared with the preceding years,” reported the CDC in 2020.

In essence, the medical establishment simply took all the people who would normally be diagnosed with colds and the flu, and shifted them into the “covid” category in order to push a covid mass hysteria narrative that would drive people into vaccines. The vaccines, then, were formulated with spike protein toxic nanoparticles to cause the “delta” panic wave, which is largely occurring among vaccinated individuals.

From here, the plandemic scam proceeds like clockwork: People get sick from the vaccines, so more vaccine boosters are demanded, which perpetuates the illness. Rinse and repeat. It never ends until the perpetrators are arrested and people wise up to the scam.

The CDC has just published a science document that confirms the entire scam. Click here to view the PDF on our servers.

It’s entitled, “Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021” and it shockingly admits that 74% of infections occurred in fully vaccinated (double dose) people:

During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons (those who had completed a 2-dose course of mRNA vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] or had received a single dose of Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vac- cine ?14 days before exposure).

See, the vaccine is the pandemic. The vaccine is spreading the spike protein, and the fake PCR tests provide the fuel to keep the mass hysteria going.
 
The majority of Ontario's population is in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), outlier only exist in Total Ontario Data. None of the data collected support your hypothesis, totally falsified.
 
I do not waste my time on these obscure non-peer reviewed sites. I trust my own analysis as a formally trained Quality Engineer.
 
True? False? The article definitely seems to be slanted

Evidently some sources think so. Though even the rating of media bias seems an equally amateur effort. :rolleyes:

But it is amusing to see what some people think of this particular alleged source of information:

"Overall, we rate Freedom First Network Far-Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, the use of poor sources, a lack of transparency, and false claims. "

Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, False Information
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Freedom First Network

Personally if and when I want to see if a story has real traction in the media, the first thing I do is to see if the wires services (Reuters, AP, UPI) carry such a story first, and that it is then dispersed to mainstream media sources to republish. If neither sources are willing to even comment on such stories, it speaks volumes.
 
Last edited:
like I said previously numbers do not lie or have opinions. The Media always has bias a it is made of humans and bias cannot be turned off.
 
like I said previously numbers do not lie or have opinions. The Media always has bias a it is made of humans and bias cannot be turned off.

I suppose that depends on the numbers in question and the context in which they are applied. Example:

A corporate balance sheet can contain legitimate (paid-in capital) contra-entries, but it doesn't guarantee an image of robust financial strength. Deliberately bolstering a balance sheet in such a way remains a way of attracting shareholders equity. Yet it may not reflect how solvent a business entity may actually be.

While the numbers themselves may not "lie", the intentions for posting them may be another matter. That real numerical data can on occasion deliberately hide questionable intentions or practices. More often the reality of finance than science.

Though on occasion science has its moments as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b64f9e-b6cd-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html
 
Last edited:
The fact that a normal distribution exist on five independent control charts all with amazing normal distributions data coming from independent sources hospitals all over Ontario, would be very difficult for all of them to collude with each other giving out false data. York region has nothing to due with Peel region or either with Toronto. Having spent many years working on industrial processes, using control chart, there has always been attempts to place fake numbers, usually easy to spot. When working at the Ford assembly plant, we had to submit a monthly summary of the process called the cook book, referred to as the cooked book. I never cooked my book, did an amazing job of improving the process. I know their are others on this site with statistics background who could peer review my charts.
 
Last edited:
I was given this for my accomplishment
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0171.jpg
    IMG_0171.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 102
I do not waste my time on these obscure non-peer reviewed sites. I trust my own analysis as a formally trained Quality Engineer.

The document they're referring to about how the the PCR test never used any Covid 19 material whatsoever when developed and the PCR test gives positives when someone has the common cold or influenza. The document comes directly from the U.S. Government's own site apparently. Unless the URL is faked or something. But if it is a faked URL and a fake document, I would assume Googs would take it down in a "New York minute" as they say.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
 

New Threads

Top Bottom