Erie County Health Department

I took down the email for now. I have been getting trolled on FB and YT after I put that up. In time I will repost it. Have not received a reply to our reply to Dr Nadworny. It's been quite awhile with no reply.
 
Last edited:

gl69m

Member
Thanks Rob, preciate this effort you are taking and I'm glad to try and help. At least I hope I have enough knowledge/awareness of the subject (biology/biotech in particular) to help in regards to addressing the claims of the GoErie article and doctors (of said position like quoted in the article). My credentials alone will not garner any respect from the likes of the Erie doctor/health official in this particular case here or any other doctors (mostly clown doctors nowadays when it comes to subject of 'covid') towing the 'covid' official narrative of course.

This type of response is important IMO, in how the public very much needs to express such concerns to the media and "health officials" and government that are making decisions that are drastically affecting all lives in our country and world wide, extremely negatively of course, and the actions we take to resist and combat the absurd 'pandemic' measures and restrictions and 'mandates'. How are un-vaxxinated people (like ourselves here) going to be treated compared to vaxxinated people at the end of the day? when all this agenda keeps marching forward, that is a huge question and has to be hit and hit hard.

It's gonna take me some time to go through his response and help re-butt that, and then help formulate a response and further questions as a follow up.

I wanted to add some links that we can use (selected portions from for brevity) as part of the response and further questioning, I plan on doing more in depth posts of these in a couple of the other 'covid-19' threads:

This one addresses the 'covid' PCR testing,

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major
scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for
false positive results


See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Direct link to PDF file for their Review Report - Corman-Drosten et al., Eurosurveillance 2020
Preprint · November 2020
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4298004
CITATIONS
0
READS
4,320
22 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Science against panic in the COVID-19 crisis View project
Applying evolutionary concepts to explain, prevent and treat modern diseases View project
Klaus Steger
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen
247 PUBLICATIONS 7,814 CITATIONS

PCR Lab Visit: Whistleblowers Kevin McKernan, Bobby Malhotra Explain Why COVID Tests are "Garbage"
Premiered Jan 24, 2021

This group called themselves International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS); they put out an addendum to their initial paper with reviews of actual lab studies testing the PCR protocol in question in their review. I haven't had a chance to look at any of it yet.

Addendum - Corman Drosten Review Report by an International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS)

This group's primary website get's a flag by my browser saying it's "un-secure" and dangerous to click on and therefore your shit can get hacked blah blah blah so that's why I searched up other links to find the paper.


Doctor addresses school board over mask mandates and testing and quarantine policies for students/faculty etc.

MVCSC School Board Mtg 8/6/2-Board allows public to speak on agenda-no speakers were requested by MV
Streamed live on Aug 6, 2021

Watch from about ~13:30 in to about ~21:42:
Dr. Dan Stock (I think he's from McCordsville, Indiana) starts @~15:10 in, he gives about a 6 and 1/2 minute talk about why the 'covid' guidelines are faulty and would not stop spread of "coronaviruses" (masks, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts etc.), and therefore make no sense to implement and enforce. Dr. Stock brought links to his sources, studies on a flash drive for review by the school board. Don't know what those studies are at the moment.
Comments are turned off as well as the "save" video feature (with some ridiculous explanation "save feature turned off for content made for kids"). There are a significant assortment of attacks against Dr. Stock by the media and other youtube doctors who tout the official 'covid' line; I don't know how much any of them addressed the studies he provided, if they did it was surly hit pieces of dis-information IMO, but may take a look at a couple if I have time just to see.
Just from my own bio knowledge and perspective I would quite likely agree with what Dr. Stock said generally about 'covid', however only if I (or we also) were to take it seriously that an actual 'covid' virus exists which is extremely dubious at best the way I see it.

Aside from the flaw of accepting the virus ('sars-cov2') as real on face value, both of these talks are good expert voices (a lot closer than any of our credentials will ever be viewed as obviously, by the "experts' and cov-idiots) that are opposing the 'covid' official narrative to present to people like our dear ECHD doctor in rebuttal of his claims and 'data' to our questions. There are plenty of other doctors and scientists out there to draw from too opposing this and of course every single one of them are always under attack for going against the "official narrative", whether they are for real or not it seems to me.
 
Last edited:

alpha77

Member
Ah someone you does something actually - just like me. I opened an IFG (is like FOIA I believe) with severall questions re. the "Cominarty v-x" I used a German service "Frag den Staat" (ask the state)... I got only a confirmation my request was reveived and gained 5 followers for my IFG.

Then I got a message my IFG was de-publisized cause I used a source which would be known as "Falschinformationen" (false info) then they said my IFG was not concrete enough - however it is more concrete then most of the others and also the law for IFG does not have a rule how concrete it should be. It says one can request all kinds of info and does not need to be a certain form.. It also says the Behörde should answer and give help if they are uncertain which kind of info is requested.... go figure :)

For now I asked them what concrete source they meant and which kind of wrong info they mean, I will then contact the source I used and ask them if their info is reliable or not.. I suspect they mean a German site "Impfkritik" from which I pulled some info...
 

alpha77

Member
Can the e-mail contents copied in the thread, so links can be clicked ??

I highly doubt what he says about Germany btw. Germans are good in manipulating statistics also keep in mind, that ppl. only after 2 weeks are counted as fully vaxxed as well I believe only those that got 2 shots ! Meaning someone who has 1 shot might be counted as not v-ed!

Also note that there are some medical personal in Germany who say most are v-xed in the ICU´s also my brothers said this is true (he did work in a hospital last week)

Edit, I wonder if this Dr. Patricia Nadworny, BSc, PhD, PEng, has something to do with your doctor ??


She works in a Biotech company !
 

alpha77

Member
Here answer from RKI / Germany re. status for statistics:


Who counts "unvaxxed" or vaxxed?:

"Für die Berechnung der jeweiligen Inzidenzen wurden die Zähler (Anzahl der vollständig geimpften bzw. ungeimpften Fälle) wie folgt definiert: COVID-19-Fälle galten als vollständig geimpft, wenn für sie in den übermittelten Daten mindestens 2 Impfdosen eines COVID-19-Impfstoffes bzw. mindestens 1 Dosis des Janssen-Impfstoffes (Johnson & Johnson) angegeben waren und das Datum der Gabe der letzten Impfdosis mindestens 14 Tage vor Erkrankungsbeginn (bzw. Diagnosedatum bzw. Meldedatum) lag. Fälle galten als ungeimpft, wenn für sie übermittelt wurde, dass sie nicht geimpft waren. Fälle, für die Angaben zum Impfstatus unvollständig waren bzw. für die eine unvollständige Impfung angegeben wurde, wurden ausgeschlossen.""

Meaning only 15 days after vx given counts as vaxxed also person who has only 1 shot counts as not vaxxed (which is wrong - these should be in a seperate category obviously) Edit, however most of this will be "Schall und Rauch" as PCR is used for the cases and we know how "reliable" this is
 
Last edited:

gl69m

Member
Can the e-mail contents copied in the thread, so links can be clicked ??

I highly doubt what he says about Germany btw. Germans are good in manipulating statistics also keep in mind, that ppl. only after 2 weeks are counted as fully vaxxed as well I believe only those that got 2 shots ! Meaning someone who has 1 shot might be counted as not v-ed!

Also note that there are some medical personal in Germany who say most are v-xed in the ICU´s also my brothers said this is true (he did work in a hospital last week)

Edit, I wonder if this Dr. Patricia Nadworny, BSc, PhD, PEng, has something to do with your doctor ??


She works in a Biotech company !
@alpha77 (post #7),

at some point I can go through and type up their (ECHD) responses in each letter of the e-mail chain so we can put all of the text in sequential order by date of each reply. I have the text of our letters to them on my word files, but will wait to do all this after we get their full response(s). Of course I'm a slow typer so it will take a bit lol, besides taking the full time to get to it of course too.

Here answer from RKI / Germany re. status for statistics:


Who counts "unvaxxed" or vaxxed?:

"Für die Berechnung der jeweiligen Inzidenzen wurden die Zähler (Anzahl der vollständig geimpften bzw. ungeimpften Fälle) wie folgt definiert: COVID-19-Fälle galten als vollständig geimpft, wenn für sie in den übermittelten Daten mindestens 2 Impfdosen eines COVID-19-Impfstoffes bzw. mindestens 1 Dosis des Janssen-Impfstoffes (Johnson & Johnson) angegeben waren und das Datum der Gabe der letzten Impfdosis mindestens 14 Tage vor Erkrankungsbeginn (bzw. Diagnosedatum bzw. Meldedatum) lag. Fälle galten als ungeimpft, wenn für sie übermittelt wurde, dass sie nicht geimpft waren. Fälle, für die Angaben zum Impfstatus unvollständig waren bzw. für die eine unvollständige Impfung angegeben wurde, wurden ausgeschlossen.""

Meaning only 15 days after vx given counts as vaxxed also person who has only 1 shot counts as not vaxxed (which is wrong - these should be in a seperate category obviously) Edit, however most of this will be "Schall und Rauch" as PCR is used for the cases and we know how "reliable" this is
@alpha77 (from post #12),
I am not sure what source you are investigating here in your request, using Google translator German to English,
Application according to IFG / UIG / VIG

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

please send me the following:

- the sources and data bases for Figure 17 (incidence of fully vaccinated and unvaccinated symptomatic and hospitalized COVID-19 cases)

- if not communicable, not available or given as an estimate, for example:
- An explanation of the estimation basis against the background of the statements of Prof. Gernot Marx (see page 28, shorthand protocol 20/2, 2nd meeting of the Bundestag Main Committee on November 15, 2021) that there is no reliable information about the hospitalized patients to date (e.g. vaccination status, age, previous illness ...)

Many thanks and greetings

[... Show complete request text]
Kind regards

And this part of their response to you,
To calculate the respective incidences, the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated cases were compared to the fully vaccinated and the unvaccinated population. For the period shown in Figure 17, sufficient information on the vaccination status was available for 706,863 of the 836,135 (85%) reported symptomatic COVID-19 cases and for 41,745 of the 60,387 (69%) hospitalized COVID-19 cases.
So as they have defined fully vaccinated just above this paragraph and then explain just below this paragraph that partially vaxxed were excluded from these statistics,
Cases for which information on the vaccination status was incomplete or for which an incomplete vaccination was given were excluded. "
so we are left to wonder how many partially vaxxed there are (of the 15%, 836,135-706,863)=129,272, how many PV vs UV), and so which category would they (FV or UV) be placed in if any of this group were to be tested and test 'pos' for the Rona?- if they were to be included.

Notice too that there is even larger % (31%, 60,387-41,745=18,642) of hospitalized "cases' that the vax status is undetermined and so excluded, can we presume that it is an even higher % unknown for the deaths due to 'covid'? This is a large part of the crux of the issue we are trying to get the answer from the ECHD, concerning the stats presented for "vaccinated" vs. "unvaccinated", which way will the "partially vaccinated" swing the stats in favor of or against?

Beyond that, there is the issue of the admitted extreme testing bias to test almost exclusively for 'covid' vs all other possibilities (to generate lots of false positives); and the highly likely egregious bias (but not yet fully admitted to bias) to not test for (or very rarely now) the fully vaxxed compared to partially vaxxed and un-vaxxed (FV>PV>UV, testing proportion in that order). I also have a strong suspicion that all of these stats will be subject to change and revisions in numbers and possibly categories in the future as more data is compiled (for those reviewers with access to the actual {fake and real} data of course) and reviewed (this takes up to a year from calender year or maybe even rolling year), and thus can be manipulated to suit the prevailing winds of the immediate agenda/narrative at that time, 1984 style.

One thing I will note here is that, well my strong opinion of course, they (the data reviewers) very likely can go back and review cases and change an individual's (or whole swaths of "cases' even?) vax status; say in particular if a vax card was failed to be entered previously in the system, or say if they look at a medical case where a vaxxed person was tested 'pos' with Rona (symptomatic or hospitalized or died etc.) and they can say well their immunity was probably waning so they change that person's status to the un-vaxxed category. If legitimate errors in vax status are corrected with transparency would or should we care about such corrections? I would say not, in keeping with the interest of the truth of actual vax status, but however since it is an extremely political issue now, can we trust there will be real transparency?, of course fucking of not. The waning immunity bullshit if vax status changed to un-vaxxed is not a legitimate correction of course.

It may come to the point that un-vaxxed may have to protect their status from being known (or at worse attempt to lie about it) if at all possible (to as many people/agencies) in order to avoid targeting from discrimination or even violence, as un-vaxxed are now starting to be labeled as 'terrorists' by certain blowhard mouthpieces for the 'covid' narrative/agenda.

Anyway, we can hope for a response to our long first response letter sometime in the coming week.
 
Last edited:
Top