Usually it's 3 primary things,
1. Detection improvements
2. Age
3. Health
#3 can be particularly important after, say, a pandemic where a virus wrecks your immune system such that a segment of the vulnerable get that statistical needle tipped toward oncogenesis. Primary mechanism of course being immunological damage leading to many downstream effects, such as impaired clearance of senescent cells.
Or just backlogs from people putting off seeing a doctor, or having their seeing one be put off, due to medical backlogs from said pandemic. There's some of that going on too. >muh antivaxxer propaganda bullshit
Yeah well cancer rates for the never-vaccinated for same age group are considerably higher. >muh vaccine not totally perfect
No shit dumbass. Stacked comorbidities to the moon and vaccines maybe kept you alive just long enough to enjoy getting cancer instead. Or not. Probabilities and all that. It's far worse for the unvaccinated. >muh nuh-uh muh conspiracy muh worldwide cabaal muh /misc/tardery
Yes yes and earth is flat ran by goblins or whatever you people believe to be edgy and contrarian during [insert week here].
That about cover it or do you want to circlejerk while repeating this dance like you have the past ~3 years?
>1. Detection improvements
Can you name a new screening implenented in the last 3 years? We're probably going to see a big spike with new lungcancer screenings soon but I can't really think of some new screening method implemented since 2019, there might be but I'm genuienly not aware of one
>say, a pandemic where a virus wrecks your immune system such that a segment of the vulnerable get that statistical needle tipped toward oncogenesis
Appart from ocogenic pathogens, chronic infections and severe infections resulting in organ damage, acute infections and injuries do not increase cancer risk they lower it, initial cell depletion is followed by heightend immunological surveilance. Severe covid cases with lasting damage would hit people who already had comorbidities/were immunocompromised and would fall into the cancer-risk group anyways. Long-covid in previously healthy adults is still fundamentally a constructed diagnosis of exclusion, making predictions on cancer-risk based on that would be reaching to say the least.
>Or just backlogs from people putting off seeing a doctor, or having their seeing one be put off, due to medical backlogs from said pandemic
Beyond not seeing a doctor, lockdowns reinforced a sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, shifting just a small percentage of the population into an unhealthier lifestyle will give you a pretty substantial spike in morbidity down the road
>cancer rates for the never-vaccinated for same age group are considerably higher.
alltogether non-vaccinated or just not vaccinated against covid? What's the source for that?
>Can you name a new screening implenented in the last 3 years?
These occur on an ongoing basis progressively, not staged major discoveries. Sometimes new lab tests, sometimes better lab tests, sometimes just progressively better computers and algorithms. You're asking a ridiculously overbroad question that seems to treat diagnostics like staged rollouts of miracles when it's largely incremental as matters of cost/benefit. Yes, I do have a point. Particularly given covid, there's been a massive influx of funding and equipment all around even in a more privatized system like the USA. You would have to find some kind of system analysis relevant to England for a particular breakdown of it there. My knowledge is primarily U.S. based. >Severe covid cases with lasting damage would hit people who already had comorbidities/were immunocompromised and would fall into the cancer-risk group anyways
In acute exposure, but as long covid suggests we're not dealing with only acute exposure effects. Given what's preliminarily showing up I wager it amounts to aging some segment of the population into a risk window earlier than otherwise would've been. Not universally, of course, but that long covid neuronal damage and autoimmunity stuff is greatly concerning. >shifting just a small percentage of the population into an unhealthier lifestyle will give you a pretty substantial spike in morbidity down the road
So might impaired lung function unhelpfully reinforcing unhealthier lifestyle habits due to habituation to exertion avoidance? >What's the source for that?
Follows from all the papers analyzing covid and oncogenesis e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518417/
The unvaccinated have statistically far higher rates of hospitalization, severe infection, etc, and stands to reason therefore any cancer related risks are substantially higher in proportion. Unless you think it reasonable to believe it magically isn't because....?
>Seems to treat diagnostics like staged rollouts of miracles when it's largely incremental as matters of cost/benefit
Those things don't just happen in increments, they happen in 10+ year long studies whose conclusions allow for ethics comittes, medical associations and insurances to approve screenings for millions of patients. Hence why physicians get to do screening colonoscopies and occult blood tests for colon cancer, despite the risks associated with them. Now can you think of a new screening method or better/new lab tests for cancer that was approved recently?
>Particularly given covid, there's been a massive influx of funding and equipment all around even in a more privatized system like the USA
The point? More diagnostics = more cancer?
>Not universally, of course, but that long covid neuronal damage and autoimmunity stuff is greatly concerning.
Fair point. I just see it from a sceptical euro perspective as we already have offical bodies tasked with funding and expanding it's research in place, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing, but comes with the usual risk of putting a bias on research groups to come up with anything they can to secure more funding.
>So might impaired lung function unhelpfully reinforcing unhealthier lifestyle habits due to habituation to exertion avoidance?
In severe cases sure, which are an absolute minority, compared to the millions of people affected by the lockdown. Just in terms of raw numbers, one has the potential to be far more significant
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518417/ >therefore any cancer related risks are substantially higher in proportion. Unless you think it reasonable to believe it magically isn't because....?
That reasoning stands for the subset of severe cases with comorbities, the RR for young healthy vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that different. To get a grasp on the broder effect you'd still need actual studies, not just inductive reasoning.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Those things don't just happen in increments
Unless there's a motivating impetus (covid). In the USA, covid plus tens of millions getting healthcare for the first time on continued rollout of medicaid expansion. YMMV. >The point? More diagnostics = more cancer?
Yes? Rates jumped with medicaid expansion in the USA, for example. There are a number of medical papers over the decades about this, but this article is far more readable than any of those. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/01/cancer-progress-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
There's a kind of incidence-diagnostic-accessibility etc relationship that goes on here. Particularly when it comes to slow cancers, like prostate cancers. Something that kills you in a week will *probably* not skew your data over years, but something like prostate cancer lumped into "generalized cancer rate" will skew your rates to hell. It's complicated. >In severe cases sure, which are an absolute minority,
Pulmonary functioning declines long-term occur with mild to moderate infection severity, from what I generally recall and see, around 1/4th of the time and can persist at least a year. e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495003/
If we're talking middle aged or older already obese individuals as in the western world, and there are many monitoring studies coming out on this, declines in function are quite long term without "severe cases" particularly in the unvaccinated (a concern for the USA in particular). I don't know if you're familiar with impairment habituation but it easily becomes a chicken-egg problem, especially without preventative medicine and intervention. >compared to the millions of people affected by the lockdown
As noted, not true. >RR for young healthy vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that different.
The U.S. median age is ~38. The median BMI is 27.3 (overweight). Most of America is not "young and healthy", same for most of the western world even accepting your (false) premise.
2 months ago
Anonymous
took time to look over some recent large scale results, in addition to the aforementioned around rates and whether something is considered precancerous or not
>Those things don't just happen in increments
Unless there's a motivating impetus (covid). In the USA, covid plus tens of millions getting healthcare for the first time on continued rollout of medicaid expansion. YMMV. >The point? More diagnostics = more cancer?
Yes? Rates jumped with medicaid expansion in the USA, for example. There are a number of medical papers over the decades about this, but this article is far more readable than any of those. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/01/cancer-progress-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
There's a kind of incidence-diagnostic-accessibility etc relationship that goes on here. Particularly when it comes to slow cancers, like prostate cancers. Something that kills you in a week will *probably* not skew your data over years, but something like prostate cancer lumped into "generalized cancer rate" will skew your rates to hell. It's complicated. >In severe cases sure, which are an absolute minority,
Pulmonary functioning declines long-term occur with mild to moderate infection severity, from what I generally recall and see, around 1/4th of the time and can persist at least a year. e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495003/
If we're talking middle aged or older already obese individuals as in the western world, and there are many monitoring studies coming out on this, declines in function are quite long term without "severe cases" particularly in the unvaccinated (a concern for the USA in particular). I don't know if you're familiar with impairment habituation but it easily becomes a chicken-egg problem, especially without preventative medicine and intervention. >compared to the millions of people affected by the lockdown
As noted, not true. >RR for young healthy vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that different.
The U.S. median age is ~38. The median BMI is 27.3 (overweight). Most of America is not "young and healthy", same for most of the western world even accepting your (false) premise.
. Epidemiological rates of autoimmunity and their associations are concerning.
You could go with the whole "it's just the flu" thing all you like but considering how old and unhealthy much of the population is all those facts together ought give you cause to worry even so. Add to that the following,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-023-06670-0 >Incident autoimmune diseases in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a matched cohort study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00512-0/fulltext >Risk of autoimmune diseases in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study
Few things,
1. First onset IRR 1.43 with additional 1.23 (study #1, table 2)
2. Younger ages had higher risks (study #1, fig 2,) or the similar (Study #2, fig 5)
3. outpatient risk was worse (study #2, supplement table 5; study #1 fig 7)
Combine that with with the earlier mentioned details. Are you seeing my concern here, yet? If not, consider the following, https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj-2022-072529 >Long covid outcomes at one year after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: nationwide cohort study
What you see is, for unvaccinated, much higher rates of persistent cardiopulmonary and immune dysfunction related indicators even in the 19-40 age range.
The supplementary tables are worrying too, especially for delta. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2023/01/11/bmj-2022-072529.DC1/mizb072529.ww1.pdf
The issue isn't even as single factor. The issue is the overall effect on homeostatic equilibrium in conjunction with already worsening health in young adults who are already at higher risks of cancer. Add to that sometimes a year or more of indications of protracted immune system dysfunction, particularly in the unvaccinated. This may be a problem.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What's all this about?
https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676
2 months ago
Anonymous
eh frick it i got time to kill
>What's all this about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45953-1 >Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection >unvaccinated patients were at a greater risk of several clinical sequelae including all-cause mortality up to one year following infection
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10043280/ >Risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in young people in England >Following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among individuals unvaccinated at date of test registration [...] During the whole 12-week period, higher incidences of all-cause mortality were also observed for both registered deaths (IRR 2.50 [1.93, 3.23] and hospital deaths (IRR 4.50 [3.09, 6.54]), similarly most pronounced in the first week (IRR 6.87 [4.53, 10.42] and 9.02 [4.79, 16.97], respectively).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36564276/ > A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination > While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
But in all seriousness I wonder what the temporal association with sars-cov-2 deaths looks like? Pic rel.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10861891/ >Excess natural-cause mortality in US counties and its association with reported COVID-19 deaths
Where such data exists, excess "natural cause" mortality is highly temporally associated with covid-19 mortality.
So then, returning to your question? >What's all this about?
A lot more people are dying from covid and it's a lot more lethal than anybody is truly giving it credit for. Particularly among the unvaccinated.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't address the data I provided, you simply lazily referred to it as bullshit through a Wikipedia link. Can you address the all-cause excess mortality data I provided as per the OECD?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Ah yes, the clarion call of the dimwitted.
"nuh uh"
>You didn't address the data I provided
Au contraire,
1. I gave numerous examples demonstrating all-cause mortality risk is high in multiple nations and age groups following sars-cov-2 infection and most especially in the unvaccinated.
2. I then gave a detailed temporal analysis demonstrating strong temporal associations between sars-cov-2 deaths and excess mortality, indicating it's largely attributable to unaccounted for covid deaths.
> Can you address the all-cause excess mortality data I provided as per the OECD?
Can you think of a single reason why points 1 & 2 don't do that other than "nuh uh"?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Can you think of a single reason why points 1 & 2 don't do that
All science and knowledge is just a power play, your "analysis" is no more or less correct than another that would show the contrary.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>All science and knowledge is just a power play
I fully admit I did not expect the "might makes right" fork of the conversation. Points for novelty. >your "analysis" is no more or less correct than another that would show the contrary.
If. If one could show the contrary. Possible reality != actual reality, and if you think it does you need your meds.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't address why there is a correlation between all-cause excess mortality in countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia, compared to countries with low covid vaccine uptake. You are living in a world of cope.
You didn't address why there is a correlation between all-cause excess mortality in countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia, compared to countries with low covid vaccine uptake. You are living in a world of cope.
>You didn't address why there is a correlation between all-cause excess mortality in countries like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
2 months ago
Anonymous
>your linked paper addresses it
The higher number of covid vaccine doses you recieve, the higher likelihood of covid infection? >Wikipedia link
Just answer the fricking question. Why have highly vaccinated countries seen a constant trend of all-cause excess mortality compared to countries with low-vaccine uptake coming out of the pandemic?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The higher number of covid vaccine doses you recieve, the higher likelihood of covid infection?
Try reading your own cited study. >Why have highly vaccinated countries seen a constant trend of all-cause excess mortality compared to countries with low-vaccine uptake coming out of the pandemic?
Why do counties in the U.S. with low vaccine uptake have the most under-reported covid-19 deaths by aforementioned temporal association?
https://i.imgur.com/SQnYw2O.jpg
eh frick it i got time to kill
>What's all this about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45953-1 >Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection >unvaccinated patients were at a greater risk of several clinical sequelae including all-cause mortality up to one year following infection
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10043280/ >Risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in young people in England >Following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among individuals unvaccinated at date of test registration [...] During the whole 12-week period, higher incidences of all-cause mortality were also observed for both registered deaths (IRR 2.50 [1.93, 3.23] and hospital deaths (IRR 4.50 [3.09, 6.54]), similarly most pronounced in the first week (IRR 6.87 [4.53, 10.42] and 9.02 [4.79, 16.97], respectively).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36564276/ > A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination > While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
But in all seriousness I wonder what the temporal association with sars-cov-2 deaths looks like? Pic rel.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10861891/ >Excess natural-cause mortality in US counties and its association with reported COVID-19 deaths
Where such data exists, excess "natural cause" mortality is highly temporally associated with covid-19 mortality.
So then, returning to your question? >What's all this about?
A lot more people are dying from covid and it's a lot more lethal than anybody is truly giving it credit for. Particularly among the unvaccinated.
Both questions have the same answer. Antivaxxies don't like the answer.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I did:
>Results COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than in the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, not being “up-to-date” with COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.77; 95% C.I., 0.69-0.86; P-value, <0.001). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after receiving 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine.
>Conclusions Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “not up-to-date” by the CDC definition have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.
>Summary Among 48 344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date”. The current CDC definition provides a meaningless classification of risk of COVID-19 in the adult population.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The current CDC definition provides a meaningless classification of risk of COVID-19 in the adult population.
Congratulations. The answer, at least so far as the opinion of the author is concerned, was in fact somewhere in your quote. Want a cookie?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Stop evading and refuse the conclusions the study has come to, idiot. Why is it that the more covid vaccine doses you recieves, they higher likelihood you are of covid infection? No refunds, homosexual.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Why do counties in the U.S. with low vaccine uptake have the most under-reported covid-19 deaths by aforementioned temporal association
Where the frick did I ask about US counties? I'm asking why countries with low covid vaccine uptake are seeing lower rates of all-cause excess mortality rates compared to countries with high vaccine uptake, you disingenuous frick. Clearly you don't like the answers as indicated by the data, vaxxie. No refunds.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Where the frick did I ask about US counties?
You see sometimes what you do is find an explanation that works for cases other than the one in question, and from which you can reasonably assume other cases are much the same because the conditions are also the same. From that we make these things called "generalizations" because we have this marvelous tool called "a brain", especially to thwart obvious trolls who think I do thinks because they want me to. This is an example of something we adults like to call "induction" or "inductive reasoning".
Would you like to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
2 months ago
Anonymous
You're not answering my fricking question, idiot, stop evading it. Why did Canada, New Zealand and Australia see the highest rates of excess mortality in 2023, and among the highest between 2020 and 2023, compared to countries like Lithuania and Latvia, and non-OECD countries with low vaccine uptake like Romania and Bulgaria?
NO. FRICKING. REFUNDS.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's just the power play anon, they don't have to answer you while they hold the institutions. Once we have them then we can push our knowledge.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Or we could just send them all to camps like they wanted to do with us. That would solve the problem.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>among the highest between 2020 >between 2020
You mean before vaccines were a thing?
How about that.
I wonder if there was something else that would explain high excess deaths in these countries that could be illustrated by detailed example for, oh I don't know, something silly like inductiveing purposes.
Something like a temporal association analysis
https://i.imgur.com/SQnYw2O.jpg
eh frick it i got time to kill
>What's all this about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45953-1 >Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection >unvaccinated patients were at a greater risk of several clinical sequelae including all-cause mortality up to one year following infection
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10043280/ >Risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in young people in England >Following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among individuals unvaccinated at date of test registration [...] During the whole 12-week period, higher incidences of all-cause mortality were also observed for both registered deaths (IRR 2.50 [1.93, 3.23] and hospital deaths (IRR 4.50 [3.09, 6.54]), similarly most pronounced in the first week (IRR 6.87 [4.53, 10.42] and 9.02 [4.79, 16.97], respectively).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36564276/ > A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination > While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
But in all seriousness I wonder what the temporal association with sars-cov-2 deaths looks like? Pic rel.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10861891/ >Excess natural-cause mortality in US counties and its association with reported COVID-19 deaths
Where such data exists, excess "natural cause" mortality is highly temporally associated with covid-19 mortality.
So then, returning to your question? >What's all this about?
A lot more people are dying from covid and it's a lot more lethal than anybody is truly giving it credit for. Particularly among the unvaccinated.
Which you could then do to your hearts content wherever you so desire and waste your own time.
>NO. FRICKING. REFUNDS.
b***h I wouldn't even package you in subprime even Madoff couldn't make off with the bullshit you try to peddle.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You refuse to address my argument. I'll play Devils advocate and say covid and its long term effects are the SOLE cause of the excess mortality seen in 2023. Why do Canada, New Zealand, and Australia top the list according to OECD?
No refunds. By the way, as a side note, did you get your latest covid booster? Oh, why not?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You refuse to address my argument.
I'm still waiting for you to figure out you could do the same temporal association with what you linked me. Considering you can just download the tables. I'm sure you'll figure it out any minute now.
Why did Canada, a highly developed G7 nation, see a higher rate of all-cause excess mortality than any other OECD country in the year 2023, with a covid vaccinated population exceeding 80%, a universal healthcare system, and one of the wealthiest healthcare systems in the world? An almost 20% excess mortality rate in the calender year. Please, homosexual, enlighten us.
Any minute now.
No response. That's what I thought, you stupid fricking homosexual. have a nice day.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaany minute now
2 months ago
Anonymous
Answer even a single one of my questions. And no, homosexual, no one thinks you're clever or funny posting willy Wonka memes.
2 months ago
Anonymous
If covid is the reason for the majority of excess mortality, why did Canada see the highest rates of excess mortality in 2023? This should be a very simple question for you to answer, but you seem incapable.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Looks like a pretty steady trend. I don't see why anyone would argue that any individual event or new thing would be a driving force there. It's slowly increasing for 20 years. What kind of schizophrenic do you have to be to yap "it's the vaxx!!!"?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You just posted gross totals. We're talking about RATES compared to the 2015-2019 baseline, population adjusted, as per OECD data. Do you know the difference between a total and a ratio? have a nice day.
Besides, why would the top three countries experiencing the highest excess mortality rates in 2023 be Canada, New Zealand and Australia, three highly developed Western nations, each with universal healthcare, and with among the most developed healthcare infrastructure in the world? Also three of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, so it's hard to really blame covid, unless...
2 months ago
Anonymous
Also, how many doses of the covid vaccine did you get? You seem hesitant to answer that question. Why? You weren't hesitant to show your vaccine passport to some random stranger to get into the gay bar in 2021.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why did Canada, a highly developed G7 nation, see a higher rate of all-cause excess mortality than any other OECD country in the year 2023, with a covid vaccinated population exceeding 80%, a universal healthcare system, and one of the wealthiest healthcare systems in the world? An almost 20% excess mortality rate in the calender year. Please, homosexual, enlighten us.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No response. That's what I thought, you stupid fricking homosexual. have a nice day.
2 months ago
El Arcón
That makes probably like at least nine time that happened in my life now.
2 months ago
Anonymous
If you're a cat I've got bad news for you. Probably.
Answer even a single one of my questions. And no, homosexual, no one thinks you're clever or funny posting willy Wonka memes.
Any
If covid is the reason for the majority of excess mortality, why did Canada see the highest rates of excess mortality in 2023? This should be a very simple question for you to answer, but you seem incapable.
Minute
Also, how many doses of the covid vaccine did you get? You seem hesitant to answer that question. Why? You weren't hesitant to show your vaccine passport to some random stranger to get into the gay bar in 2021.
Now
You think?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Haha you lost.
No refunds, vaxxie.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Haha you lost.
Then why can't I hold this winning?
Hey vaxxie, I'm unvaccinated and I haven't tested positive even once. When should I expect to die?
I'm not supposed to tell you but there's this guy called candlejack and he's right beh
2 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't get your latest covid booster? What are you, some kind of antivaxxer?
Die, homosexual.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You didn't get your latest covid booster?
I don't know what you're talking about but check out this cool self-portrait I took when I was in New York
2 months ago
Anonymous
What a fricking loser.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>What a fricking loser.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I almost miss watching you be moronic back in 2021
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I almost miss watching you be moronic back in 2021
I guess we got something in common after all! We both used to be moronic.
I mean, you still are, but you used to be, too.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You're bad at this
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You're bad at this
oh yeah?
bet i could be a better antivaxxer than you with both hands tied behind my mask
2 months ago
Anonymous
>tied behind my mask >mask
wait
2 months ago
Anonymous
maybe
after all this time
2 months ago
Anonymous
2 months ago
Anonymous
FRICK
2 months ago
Anonymous
Hey vaxxie, I'm unvaccinated and I haven't tested positive even once. When should I expect to die?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't agree with me >is a troll
Just grow the frick up.
2 months ago
Anonymous
So we should blame covid infection on an 16.18% all-cause excess mortality rate in Canada in 2023, one of the most covid-vaccinated countries on Earth, with a universal healthcare system, and one of the most well-funded healthcare systems on Earth, but Lithuania, with a far lower covid vaccine uptake, and far poorer healthcare infrastructure, sees a -7.47% all-cause excess mortality rate?
Why does covid have a tendency to discriminate against highly covid vaccinated countries with strong healthcare infrastructure compared to countries with low vaccine uptake and poorer healthcare infrastructure?
OP's chart isn't related to his question, though. The fact of cancer doubling is not established by it.
I look at OP's chart and don't conclude that the number of diagnosed patients has doubled just because there are more cancer appointments than ever.
The longer existing patients live the more appointments they'll have, for example.
In conclusion, OP can suck my wiener.
the graph is showing per year how many cancer treatments started in a timely fashion vs how many didn't. so each cancer is only counted once here. it's not every single appointment that patient has for that cancer.
While it's true that OP is always a homosexual (especially /misc/tards), the fact is that covid is a demonstrable cancer risk and most especially in the unvaccinated.
So regardless I can just accept the claim at face value and the fact remains we've a pretty good idea why those rates would be higher, if in fact they are. Detection, age, and health. Provides an opportunity to discuss epidemiology a bit.
It's necessarily true if the premises are true. Everything indicated in studies of sars-cov-2 oncogenesis is worse in the unvaccinated, therefore rates of cancer associated with such infection will be higher. If you want source on oncogenesis there's a growing number of papers evaluating it https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2023.1260776/full
but is there any source actually showing that unvaccinated people have higher rates of cancer or was anon lying?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Anon was lying.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>but is there any source actually showing that unvaccinated people have higher rates of cancer or was anon lying?
They've higher rates of novel development of autoimmunity conditions that subsequently have higher cancer incidence
took time to look over some recent large scale results, in addition to the aforementioned around rates and whether something is considered precancerous or not [...]. Epidemiological rates of autoimmunity and their associations are concerning.
You could go with the whole "it's just the flu" thing all you like but considering how old and unhealthy much of the population is all those facts together ought give you cause to worry even so. Add to that the following,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-023-06670-0 >Incident autoimmune diseases in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a matched cohort study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00512-0/fulltext >Risk of autoimmune diseases in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study
Few things,
1. First onset IRR 1.43 with additional 1.23 (study #1, table 2)
2. Younger ages had higher risks (study #1, fig 2,) or the similar (Study #2, fig 5)
3. outpatient risk was worse (study #2, supplement table 5; study #1 fig 7)
Combine that with with the earlier mentioned details. Are you seeing my concern here, yet? If not, consider the following, https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj-2022-072529 >Long covid outcomes at one year after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: nationwide cohort study
What you see is, for unvaccinated, much higher rates of persistent cardiopulmonary and immune dysfunction related indicators even in the 19-40 age range.
The supplementary tables are worrying too, especially for delta. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2023/01/11/bmj-2022-072529.DC1/mizb072529.ww1.pdf
The issue isn't even as single factor. The issue is the overall effect on homeostatic equilibrium in conjunction with already worsening health in young adults who are already at higher risks of cancer. Add to that sometimes a year or more of indications of protracted immune system dysfunction, particularly in the unvaccinated. This may be a problem.
among other things. So no, I am not lying. As noted it's necessarily true. The only thing in question is "by how much".
There are some preliminary associations, but the better analyses don't seem to be anywhere public yet. Nor am I going to lose my job leaking what should already be obvious and what is already obvious to everyone but antivaxxers. Unlike antivaxxers I'm not going to just post an association that doesn't adjust for testing rates, particularly given large testing delays and gaps caused by covid, and claim victory. Unlike antivaxxers, I'm not a liar.
Do you really want a meaningless epidemiological correlation when I have literally given multiple papers outlining mechanism, and more papers on causal association to immune dysfunction with known links to increased cancer risk? Fricking why?
Anon was lying.
>Anon was lying.
Unless autoimmune conditions with known increased risks for cancer magically stop being increased risks, no, I was not lying. I absolutely believe that is an early warning sign of what we're going to see in the coming decade or two, and to nobody's surprise (except antivaxxers) the unvaccinated have the highest risk of novel incidence.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Did you get your latest covid booster? Oh, why not?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Chud, everyone stopped caring about covid about 2 years ago. Why are you still concerned with boosters?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>but is there any source actually showing that unvaccinated people have higher rates of cancer or was anon lying?
They've higher rates of novel development of autoimmunity conditions that subsequently have higher cancer incidence [...] among other things. So no, I am not lying. As noted it's necessarily true. The only thing in question is "by how much".
There are some preliminary associations, but the better analyses don't seem to be anywhere public yet. Nor am I going to lose my job leaking what should already be obvious and what is already obvious to everyone but antivaxxers. Unlike antivaxxers I'm not going to just post an association that doesn't adjust for testing rates, particularly given large testing delays and gaps caused by covid, and claim victory. Unlike antivaxxers, I'm not a liar.
Do you really want a meaningless epidemiological correlation when I have literally given multiple papers outlining mechanism, and more papers on causal association to immune dysfunction with known links to increased cancer risk? Fricking why?
[...] >Anon was lying.
Unless autoimmune conditions with known increased risks for cancer magically stop being increased risks, no, I was not lying. I absolutely believe that is an early warning sign of what we're going to see in the coming decade or two, and to nobody's surprise (except antivaxxers) the unvaccinated have the highest risk of novel incidence.
He clearly cares, and some of us, who aren't mindless sheep like you, aren't prepared to just move on from the biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time, and one of the biggest crimes against humanity of all time.
No refunds, homosexual.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time, and one of the biggest crimes against humanity of all time
The biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time is probably your meds, since they aren't working. Or did you not take them?
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, the biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time is the covid one, and the experimental gene therapy sold to you that you galloped out to get because the TV man told you to, at your expense. You're just too much of a seething fricking vaxxie moron to understand (or maybe you do, you just live in denial, which is even more pathetic). No refunds. Now you might ad well just have a nice day.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Did you not get your latest covid booster? Oh, why not?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Chud, everyone stopped caring about covid about 2 years ago. Why are you still concerned with boosters?
2 months ago
Anonymous
So you didn't get your latest booster shot? Fricking antivaxxer.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I NEED a prize for my correct choice, like in my videogames!
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, vaxxies didn't need a prize, all they needed was social affirmation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
But the more doses of a covid vaccine you recieve, the higher likelihood of developing covid.
See
https://i.imgur.com/4RCHTxR.jpg
What's all this about?
I did:
>Results COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than in the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, not being “up-to-date” with COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.77; 95% C.I., 0.69-0.86; P-value, <0.001). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after receiving 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine.
>Conclusions Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “not up-to-date” by the CDC definition have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.
>Summary Among 48 344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date”. The current CDC definition provides a meaningless classification of risk of COVID-19 in the adult population.
If the unvaccinated are "more likely to develop autoimmune conditions that lead to cancer," presumably, according to you that's a result of a higher rate of cocid infection and disease.
You can thank the completely useless and catastrophic covid policies your government imposed, that you likely supported, for years on end. These are the natural consequences that some of us warned about, and here we are.
far from research being censored - if anyone could prove the vaccines caused cancers it would be a bolt on Nobel Prize - there will be dozens of specialists looking into it
>Cancer in England has DOUBLED in 12 years 2010-2023
That's not what the chart says. It says, the number of cancer waits which in essence are people displaying potential signs of cancer and looking for a diagnosis of cancer. That is not the same as having cancer.
Apart from the dip in 2020, which is probably due to people not seeing a doctor during the pandemic and just dying without diagnosis, it seems like a steady trend. I wonder if some schizos will think it's all due to the covid vaccine.
Looks like a pretty steady trend. I don't see why anyone would argue that any individual event or new thing would be a driving force there. It's slowly increasing for 20 years. What kind of schizophrenic do you have to be to yap "it's the vaxx!!!"?
>not even per capita
population in the UK has grown massively since 2011. plus people are living longer. and most of all we are better at detecting cancer now
Usually it's 3 primary things,
1. Detection improvements
2. Age
3. Health
#3 can be particularly important after, say, a pandemic where a virus wrecks your immune system such that a segment of the vulnerable get that statistical needle tipped toward oncogenesis. Primary mechanism of course being immunological damage leading to many downstream effects, such as impaired clearance of senescent cells.
Or just backlogs from people putting off seeing a doctor, or having their seeing one be put off, due to medical backlogs from said pandemic. There's some of that going on too.
>muh antivaxxer propaganda bullshit
Yeah well cancer rates for the never-vaccinated for same age group are considerably higher.
>muh vaccine not totally perfect
No shit dumbass. Stacked comorbidities to the moon and vaccines maybe kept you alive just long enough to enjoy getting cancer instead. Or not. Probabilities and all that. It's far worse for the unvaccinated.
>muh nuh-uh muh conspiracy muh worldwide cabaal muh /misc/tardery
Yes yes and earth is flat ran by goblins or whatever you people believe to be edgy and contrarian during [insert week here].
That about cover it or do you want to circlejerk while repeating this dance like you have the past ~3 years?
>1. Detection improvements
Can you name a new screening implenented in the last 3 years? We're probably going to see a big spike with new lungcancer screenings soon but I can't really think of some new screening method implemented since 2019, there might be but I'm genuienly not aware of one
>say, a pandemic where a virus wrecks your immune system such that a segment of the vulnerable get that statistical needle tipped toward oncogenesis
Appart from ocogenic pathogens, chronic infections and severe infections resulting in organ damage, acute infections and injuries do not increase cancer risk they lower it, initial cell depletion is followed by heightend immunological surveilance. Severe covid cases with lasting damage would hit people who already had comorbidities/were immunocompromised and would fall into the cancer-risk group anyways. Long-covid in previously healthy adults is still fundamentally a constructed diagnosis of exclusion, making predictions on cancer-risk based on that would be reaching to say the least.
>Or just backlogs from people putting off seeing a doctor, or having their seeing one be put off, due to medical backlogs from said pandemic
Beyond not seeing a doctor, lockdowns reinforced a sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, shifting just a small percentage of the population into an unhealthier lifestyle will give you a pretty substantial spike in morbidity down the road
>cancer rates for the never-vaccinated for same age group are considerably higher.
alltogether non-vaccinated or just not vaccinated against covid? What's the source for that?
>Can you name a new screening implenented in the last 3 years?
These occur on an ongoing basis progressively, not staged major discoveries. Sometimes new lab tests, sometimes better lab tests, sometimes just progressively better computers and algorithms. You're asking a ridiculously overbroad question that seems to treat diagnostics like staged rollouts of miracles when it's largely incremental as matters of cost/benefit. Yes, I do have a point. Particularly given covid, there's been a massive influx of funding and equipment all around even in a more privatized system like the USA. You would have to find some kind of system analysis relevant to England for a particular breakdown of it there. My knowledge is primarily U.S. based.
>Severe covid cases with lasting damage would hit people who already had comorbidities/were immunocompromised and would fall into the cancer-risk group anyways
In acute exposure, but as long covid suggests we're not dealing with only acute exposure effects. Given what's preliminarily showing up I wager it amounts to aging some segment of the population into a risk window earlier than otherwise would've been. Not universally, of course, but that long covid neuronal damage and autoimmunity stuff is greatly concerning.
>shifting just a small percentage of the population into an unhealthier lifestyle will give you a pretty substantial spike in morbidity down the road
So might impaired lung function unhelpfully reinforcing unhealthier lifestyle habits due to habituation to exertion avoidance?
>What's the source for that?
Follows from all the papers analyzing covid and oncogenesis e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518417/
The unvaccinated have statistically far higher rates of hospitalization, severe infection, etc, and stands to reason therefore any cancer related risks are substantially higher in proportion. Unless you think it reasonable to believe it magically isn't because....?
>Seems to treat diagnostics like staged rollouts of miracles when it's largely incremental as matters of cost/benefit
Those things don't just happen in increments, they happen in 10+ year long studies whose conclusions allow for ethics comittes, medical associations and insurances to approve screenings for millions of patients. Hence why physicians get to do screening colonoscopies and occult blood tests for colon cancer, despite the risks associated with them. Now can you think of a new screening method or better/new lab tests for cancer that was approved recently?
>Particularly given covid, there's been a massive influx of funding and equipment all around even in a more privatized system like the USA
The point? More diagnostics = more cancer?
>Not universally, of course, but that long covid neuronal damage and autoimmunity stuff is greatly concerning.
Fair point. I just see it from a sceptical euro perspective as we already have offical bodies tasked with funding and expanding it's research in place, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing, but comes with the usual risk of putting a bias on research groups to come up with anything they can to secure more funding.
>So might impaired lung function unhelpfully reinforcing unhealthier lifestyle habits due to habituation to exertion avoidance?
In severe cases sure, which are an absolute minority, compared to the millions of people affected by the lockdown. Just in terms of raw numbers, one has the potential to be far more significant
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518417/
>therefore any cancer related risks are substantially higher in proportion. Unless you think it reasonable to believe it magically isn't because....?
That reasoning stands for the subset of severe cases with comorbities, the RR for young healthy vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that different. To get a grasp on the broder effect you'd still need actual studies, not just inductive reasoning.
>Those things don't just happen in increments
Unless there's a motivating impetus (covid). In the USA, covid plus tens of millions getting healthcare for the first time on continued rollout of medicaid expansion. YMMV.
>The point? More diagnostics = more cancer?
Yes? Rates jumped with medicaid expansion in the USA, for example. There are a number of medical papers over the decades about this, but this article is far more readable than any of those. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/01/cancer-progress-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
There's a kind of incidence-diagnostic-accessibility etc relationship that goes on here. Particularly when it comes to slow cancers, like prostate cancers. Something that kills you in a week will *probably* not skew your data over years, but something like prostate cancer lumped into "generalized cancer rate" will skew your rates to hell. It's complicated.
>In severe cases sure, which are an absolute minority,
Pulmonary functioning declines long-term occur with mild to moderate infection severity, from what I generally recall and see, around 1/4th of the time and can persist at least a year. e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495003/
If we're talking middle aged or older already obese individuals as in the western world, and there are many monitoring studies coming out on this, declines in function are quite long term without "severe cases" particularly in the unvaccinated (a concern for the USA in particular). I don't know if you're familiar with impairment habituation but it easily becomes a chicken-egg problem, especially without preventative medicine and intervention.
>compared to the millions of people affected by the lockdown
As noted, not true.
>RR for young healthy vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that different.
The U.S. median age is ~38. The median BMI is 27.3 (overweight). Most of America is not "young and healthy", same for most of the western world even accepting your (false) premise.
took time to look over some recent large scale results, in addition to the aforementioned around rates and whether something is considered precancerous or not
. Epidemiological rates of autoimmunity and their associations are concerning.
You could go with the whole "it's just the flu" thing all you like but considering how old and unhealthy much of the population is all those facts together ought give you cause to worry even so. Add to that the following,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-023-06670-0
>Incident autoimmune diseases in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a matched cohort study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00512-0/fulltext
>Risk of autoimmune diseases in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study
Few things,
1. First onset IRR 1.43 with additional 1.23 (study #1, table 2)
2. Younger ages had higher risks (study #1, fig 2,) or the similar (Study #2, fig 5)
3. outpatient risk was worse (study #2, supplement table 5; study #1 fig 7)
Combine that with with the earlier mentioned details. Are you seeing my concern here, yet? If not, consider the following, https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj-2022-072529
>Long covid outcomes at one year after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: nationwide cohort study
What you see is, for unvaccinated, much higher rates of persistent cardiopulmonary and immune dysfunction related indicators even in the 19-40 age range.
The supplementary tables are worrying too, especially for delta. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2023/01/11/bmj-2022-072529.DC1/mizb072529.ww1.pdf
The issue isn't even as single factor. The issue is the overall effect on homeostatic equilibrium in conjunction with already worsening health in young adults who are already at higher risks of cancer. Add to that sometimes a year or more of indications of protracted immune system dysfunction, particularly in the unvaccinated. This may be a problem.
What's all this about?
https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676
eh frick it i got time to kill
>What's all this about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45953-1
>Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection
>unvaccinated patients were at a greater risk of several clinical sequelae including all-cause mortality up to one year following infection
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10043280/
>Risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in young people in England
>Following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among individuals unvaccinated at date of test registration [...] During the whole 12-week period, higher incidences of all-cause mortality were also observed for both registered deaths (IRR 2.50 [1.93, 3.23] and hospital deaths (IRR 4.50 [3.09, 6.54]), similarly most pronounced in the first week (IRR 6.87 [4.53, 10.42] and 9.02 [4.79, 16.97], respectively).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36564276/
> A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination
> While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
But in all seriousness I wonder what the temporal association with sars-cov-2 deaths looks like? Pic rel.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10861891/
>Excess natural-cause mortality in US counties and its association with reported COVID-19 deaths
Where such data exists, excess "natural cause" mortality is highly temporally associated with covid-19 mortality.
So then, returning to your question?
>What's all this about?
A lot more people are dying from covid and it's a lot more lethal than anybody is truly giving it credit for. Particularly among the unvaccinated.
You didn't address the data I provided, you simply lazily referred to it as bullshit through a Wikipedia link. Can you address the all-cause excess mortality data I provided as per the OECD?
Ah yes, the clarion call of the dimwitted.
"nuh uh"
>You didn't address the data I provided
Au contraire,
1. I gave numerous examples demonstrating all-cause mortality risk is high in multiple nations and age groups following sars-cov-2 infection and most especially in the unvaccinated.
2. I then gave a detailed temporal analysis demonstrating strong temporal associations between sars-cov-2 deaths and excess mortality, indicating it's largely attributable to unaccounted for covid deaths.
> Can you address the all-cause excess mortality data I provided as per the OECD?
Can you think of a single reason why points 1 & 2 don't do that other than "nuh uh"?
>Can you think of a single reason why points 1 & 2 don't do that
All science and knowledge is just a power play, your "analysis" is no more or less correct than another that would show the contrary.
>All science and knowledge is just a power play
I fully admit I did not expect the "might makes right" fork of the conversation. Points for novelty.
>your "analysis" is no more or less correct than another that would show the contrary.
If. If one could show the contrary. Possible reality != actual reality, and if you think it does you need your meds.
You didn't address why there is a correlation between all-cause excess mortality in countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia, compared to countries with low covid vaccine uptake. You are living in a world of cope.
Vaxxie, please address
Your linked paper addresses it.
>You didn't address why there is a correlation between all-cause excess mortality in countries like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>your linked paper addresses it
The higher number of covid vaccine doses you recieve, the higher likelihood of covid infection?
>Wikipedia link
Just answer the fricking question. Why have highly vaccinated countries seen a constant trend of all-cause excess mortality compared to countries with low-vaccine uptake coming out of the pandemic?
>The higher number of covid vaccine doses you recieve, the higher likelihood of covid infection?
Try reading your own cited study.
>Why have highly vaccinated countries seen a constant trend of all-cause excess mortality compared to countries with low-vaccine uptake coming out of the pandemic?
Why do counties in the U.S. with low vaccine uptake have the most under-reported covid-19 deaths by aforementioned temporal association?
Both questions have the same answer. Antivaxxies don't like the answer.
I did:
>Results COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than in the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, not being “up-to-date” with COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.77; 95% C.I., 0.69-0.86; P-value, <0.001). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after receiving 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine.
>Conclusions Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “not up-to-date” by the CDC definition have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.
>Summary Among 48 344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination had a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date”. The current CDC definition provides a meaningless classification of risk of COVID-19 in the adult population.
>The current CDC definition provides a meaningless classification of risk of COVID-19 in the adult population.
Congratulations. The answer, at least so far as the opinion of the author is concerned, was in fact somewhere in your quote. Want a cookie?
Stop evading and refuse the conclusions the study has come to, idiot. Why is it that the more covid vaccine doses you recieves, they higher likelihood you are of covid infection? No refunds, homosexual.
>Why do counties in the U.S. with low vaccine uptake have the most under-reported covid-19 deaths by aforementioned temporal association
Where the frick did I ask about US counties? I'm asking why countries with low covid vaccine uptake are seeing lower rates of all-cause excess mortality rates compared to countries with high vaccine uptake, you disingenuous frick. Clearly you don't like the answers as indicated by the data, vaxxie. No refunds.
>Where the frick did I ask about US counties?
You see sometimes what you do is find an explanation that works for cases other than the one in question, and from which you can reasonably assume other cases are much the same because the conditions are also the same. From that we make these things called "generalizations" because we have this marvelous tool called "a brain", especially to thwart obvious trolls who think I do thinks because they want me to. This is an example of something we adults like to call "induction" or "inductive reasoning".
Would you like to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
You're not answering my fricking question, idiot, stop evading it. Why did Canada, New Zealand and Australia see the highest rates of excess mortality in 2023, and among the highest between 2020 and 2023, compared to countries like Lithuania and Latvia, and non-OECD countries with low vaccine uptake like Romania and Bulgaria?
NO. FRICKING. REFUNDS.
It's just the power play anon, they don't have to answer you while they hold the institutions. Once we have them then we can push our knowledge.
Or we could just send them all to camps like they wanted to do with us. That would solve the problem.
>among the highest between 2020
>between 2020
You mean before vaccines were a thing?
How about that.
I wonder if there was something else that would explain high excess deaths in these countries that could be illustrated by detailed example for, oh I don't know, something silly like inductiveing purposes.
Something like a temporal association analysis
Which you could then do to your hearts content wherever you so desire and waste your own time.
>NO. FRICKING. REFUNDS.
b***h I wouldn't even package you in subprime even Madoff couldn't make off with the bullshit you try to peddle.
You refuse to address my argument. I'll play Devils advocate and say covid and its long term effects are the SOLE cause of the excess mortality seen in 2023. Why do Canada, New Zealand, and Australia top the list according to OECD?
No refunds. By the way, as a side note, did you get your latest covid booster? Oh, why not?
>You refuse to address my argument.
I'm still waiting for you to figure out you could do the same temporal association with what you linked me. Considering you can just download the tables. I'm sure you'll figure it out any minute now.
Any minute now.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaany minute now
Answer even a single one of my questions. And no, homosexual, no one thinks you're clever or funny posting willy Wonka memes.
If covid is the reason for the majority of excess mortality, why did Canada see the highest rates of excess mortality in 2023? This should be a very simple question for you to answer, but you seem incapable.
Looks like a pretty steady trend. I don't see why anyone would argue that any individual event or new thing would be a driving force there. It's slowly increasing for 20 years. What kind of schizophrenic do you have to be to yap "it's the vaxx!!!"?
You just posted gross totals. We're talking about RATES compared to the 2015-2019 baseline, population adjusted, as per OECD data. Do you know the difference between a total and a ratio? have a nice day.
Besides, why would the top three countries experiencing the highest excess mortality rates in 2023 be Canada, New Zealand and Australia, three highly developed Western nations, each with universal healthcare, and with among the most developed healthcare infrastructure in the world? Also three of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, so it's hard to really blame covid, unless...
Also, how many doses of the covid vaccine did you get? You seem hesitant to answer that question. Why? You weren't hesitant to show your vaccine passport to some random stranger to get into the gay bar in 2021.
Why did Canada, a highly developed G7 nation, see a higher rate of all-cause excess mortality than any other OECD country in the year 2023, with a covid vaccinated population exceeding 80%, a universal healthcare system, and one of the wealthiest healthcare systems in the world? An almost 20% excess mortality rate in the calender year. Please, homosexual, enlighten us.
No response. That's what I thought, you stupid fricking homosexual. have a nice day.
That makes probably like at least nine time that happened in my life now.
If you're a cat I've got bad news for you. Probably.
Any
Minute
Now
You think?
Haha you lost.
No refunds, vaxxie.
>Haha you lost.
Then why can't I hold this winning?
I'm not supposed to tell you but there's this guy called candlejack and he's right beh
You didn't get your latest covid booster? What are you, some kind of antivaxxer?
Die, homosexual.
>You didn't get your latest covid booster?
I don't know what you're talking about but check out this cool self-portrait I took when I was in New York
What a fricking loser.
>What a fricking loser.
I almost miss watching you be moronic back in 2021
>I almost miss watching you be moronic back in 2021
I guess we got something in common after all! We both used to be moronic.
I mean, you still are, but you used to be, too.
You're bad at this
>You're bad at this
oh yeah?
bet i could be a better antivaxxer than you with both hands tied behind my mask
>tied behind my mask
>mask
wait
maybe
after all this time
FRICK
Hey vaxxie, I'm unvaccinated and I haven't tested positive even once. When should I expect to die?
>doesn't agree with me
>is a troll
Just grow the frick up.
So we should blame covid infection on an 16.18% all-cause excess mortality rate in Canada in 2023, one of the most covid-vaccinated countries on Earth, with a universal healthcare system, and one of the most well-funded healthcare systems on Earth, but Lithuania, with a far lower covid vaccine uptake, and far poorer healthcare infrastructure, sees a -7.47% all-cause excess mortality rate?
Why does covid have a tendency to discriminate against highly covid vaccinated countries with strong healthcare infrastructure compared to countries with low vaccine uptake and poorer healthcare infrastructure?
What's all this about?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893v1.full
>Long covid
You mean immune priming to covid reinfection caused by the covid mRNA gene therapies?
OP's chart isn't related to his question, though. The fact of cancer doubling is not established by it.
I look at OP's chart and don't conclude that the number of diagnosed patients has doubled just because there are more cancer appointments than ever.
The longer existing patients live the more appointments they'll have, for example.
In conclusion, OP can suck my wiener.
the graph is showing per year how many cancer treatments started in a timely fashion vs how many didn't. so each cancer is only counted once here. it's not every single appointment that patient has for that cancer.
While it's true that OP is always a homosexual (especially /misc/tards), the fact is that covid is a demonstrable cancer risk and most especially in the unvaccinated.
So regardless I can just accept the claim at face value and the fact remains we've a pretty good idea why those rates would be higher, if in fact they are. Detection, age, and health. Provides an opportunity to discuss epidemiology a bit.
>disease only goes up because we test for it
Okay trump
>Yeah well cancer rates for the never-vaccinated for same age group are considerably higher.
source?
It's necessarily true if the premises are true. Everything indicated in studies of sars-cov-2 oncogenesis is worse in the unvaccinated, therefore rates of cancer associated with such infection will be higher. If you want source on oncogenesis there's a growing number of papers evaluating it https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2023.1260776/full
but is there any source actually showing that unvaccinated people have higher rates of cancer or was anon lying?
Anon was lying.
>but is there any source actually showing that unvaccinated people have higher rates of cancer or was anon lying?
They've higher rates of novel development of autoimmunity conditions that subsequently have higher cancer incidence
among other things. So no, I am not lying. As noted it's necessarily true. The only thing in question is "by how much".
There are some preliminary associations, but the better analyses don't seem to be anywhere public yet. Nor am I going to lose my job leaking what should already be obvious and what is already obvious to everyone but antivaxxers. Unlike antivaxxers I'm not going to just post an association that doesn't adjust for testing rates, particularly given large testing delays and gaps caused by covid, and claim victory. Unlike antivaxxers, I'm not a liar.
Do you really want a meaningless epidemiological correlation when I have literally given multiple papers outlining mechanism, and more papers on causal association to immune dysfunction with known links to increased cancer risk? Fricking why?
>Anon was lying.
Unless autoimmune conditions with known increased risks for cancer magically stop being increased risks, no, I was not lying. I absolutely believe that is an early warning sign of what we're going to see in the coming decade or two, and to nobody's surprise (except antivaxxers) the unvaccinated have the highest risk of novel incidence.
Did you get your latest covid booster? Oh, why not?
Chud, everyone stopped caring about covid about 2 years ago. Why are you still concerned with boosters?
He clearly cares, and some of us, who aren't mindless sheep like you, aren't prepared to just move on from the biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time, and one of the biggest crimes against humanity of all time.
No refunds, homosexual.
>the biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time, and one of the biggest crimes against humanity of all time
The biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time is probably your meds, since they aren't working. Or did you not take them?
No, the biggest pharmaceutical scam of all time is the covid one, and the experimental gene therapy sold to you that you galloped out to get because the TV man told you to, at your expense. You're just too much of a seething fricking vaxxie moron to understand (or maybe you do, you just live in denial, which is even more pathetic). No refunds. Now you might ad well just have a nice day.
Did you not get your latest covid booster? Oh, why not?
Chud, everyone stopped caring about covid about 2 years ago. Why are you still concerned with boosters?
So you didn't get your latest booster shot? Fricking antivaxxer.
>I NEED a prize for my correct choice, like in my videogames!
No, vaxxies didn't need a prize, all they needed was social affirmation.
But the more doses of a covid vaccine you recieve, the higher likelihood of developing covid.
See
If the unvaccinated are "more likely to develop autoimmune conditions that lead to cancer," presumably, according to you that's a result of a higher rate of cocid infection and disease.
FPBP
Samegays be samegayging
the sex addicted drug addled generations are getting older thats why
You can thank the completely useless and catastrophic covid policies your government imposed, that you likely supported, for years on end. These are the natural consequences that some of us warned about, and here we are.
far from research being censored - if anyone could prove the vaccines caused cancers it would be a bolt on Nobel Prize - there will be dozens of specialists looking into it
old people
overdiagnosis
old people and fat people
Cancer treatments are a complete scam, that is why. The more morons migrate into the UK, the more morons will fall for the scam.
Anyone in the audience want to place bets on how long this takes?
Cancer is getting worse because science is soooo beneficial and good for society.
>Cancer in England has DOUBLED in 12 years 2010-2023
That's not what the chart says. It says, the number of cancer waits which in essence are people displaying potential signs of cancer and looking for a diagnosis of cancer. That is not the same as having cancer.
nope, it's people with an already confirmed cancer diagnosis waiting to start treatment
sauce
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68435770
Apart from the dip in 2020, which is probably due to people not seeing a doctor during the pandemic and just dying without diagnosis, it seems like a steady trend. I wonder if some schizos will think it's all due to the covid vaccine.
>It's a steady trend. Trust the science.
If you don't trust the data, why do you brlieve that cancer and mortality increased in the first place?
>not even per capita
population in the UK has grown massively since 2011. plus people are living longer. and most of all we are better at detecting cancer now
population has grown a lot thanks to me immigration... but it hasn't doubled
cancers have doubled though
population older
more plastic
fatter
etc
Because science is so wonderful and its solving all the world's problems and diseases, thats why people are dying younger every year
also why more and more people are getting cancer, they're experiencing the wonderful benefits of science
population grows. what about ratios?
moron
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/2012/
did the population double? no.
And population growth is taken into account when calculating things like excess illness or mortality. Smooth-brained idiot.
brexit is working
VAXXED