One reason not to draw too much of a conclusion is that 10 to 59 is a really, really broad age group, and the underlying death rate at the top of that group will be much higher than at the bottom.
If the vaccination is also unevenly distributed in that group (and you would imagine the vaccination rate to be much lower among 10 year-olds than 59 year-olds) that would probably provide a sufficient explanation.
Before everyone piles on, I am opposed to mass vaccination, to mandates, to (most) child vaccination against Covid, and all the fascist tyranny being imposed on the back of this slightly worse than normal respiratory disease. It's just that I work in clinical research and we come across all the time things like this that look like something but very often aren't when you dig deeper.
Those of us pushing back need to be scrupulously careful with data and the analysis thereof, the exact opposite of what the propagandists do.
Absolutely worth, and needs investigating! My hunch is it is confounding rather than vaccine-induced mortality, but we could check, if data better stratified by age group is available.
There is one little clue in that you see the death rate in the unvaccinated halve from the beginning of the series (at which point the population vaccination rate was very low and very skewed towards elderly) to the point where vaccination roll-out is essentially complete. That is consistent with changing the unvaccinated population from almost everyone at baseline to only the younger people (with lower underlying mortality) from late summer.
That struck me as well - the evolution of the death rate of the vaxxed.
I think Alex jumped the gun on this one.
PS - I would also want to fully subscribe to your comments on your previous post (technical and philosophical). As you, I also work in a field related to this.
It's a hell of a lot more informative than the crap and lies coming out of CDC & FDA. And it's also factual. They are in fact dying 2x as often. Alex didn't jump anything at all.
Twice the rate is staggering. One thing that I suspect would factor in is that the more vulnerable (ill, obese, etc.) in the population would have been more likely to get vaccinated in the first place, and the more robust less likely to. But even if that affected the results by 50%, that leaves a lot of excess deaths.
Yup, I was wondering about this as well. The vaccinated likely skews older. That said, you should see them start to converge again as more younger people get vaccinated if that were the case. Still need to see it broken down.
So Viv, why do YOU think that more vaccinated people are dying than unvaccinated? Could it be related to the CDC's refusal to conduct a 30-year retrospective health comparison of ~50K vaccinated and unvaccinated people? It's not that Big Pharma doesn't know - they don't want to know.
You would expect the death rate to reduce coming out of winter. Let's not generate "clues" about man's abilities when it may be Mother Nature's winter doldrums.
I would like to be scrupulously careful with the analysis we present to the world. There are a lot of people, highly professional manipulators (fact checkers, etc), and the smaller attack surface you give them the better. Exaggerating anything even by a small amount gets your claim written off for being inaccurate, even if the substance is correct.
As for coming after children and the general societal pushback we now desperately need, sure, I would be, metaphorically, on the streets of Rotterdam for that, were I younger, healthier and braver. I am not so do what I can with robust arguments that withstand critical scrutiny.
Very well said...thank you. I am unvaccinated as is my wife, two of our adult children are vaccinated and we are both reading everything we can to help our kids make it through what both of them now see as a bad decision. Correct information is critical. We are much more likely to be scrutinized than the bastards forcing this crap into our children.
This was warned about by the many animal experiments, starting at the SARS I virus in 2003 (and on) The animals were generally WORSE off after 'vaccination'. They were never able to make a effective vaccine because of ADE.
Robert Malone, MD (maybe most responsible for mRNA vaccines) has warned about this.
It's why they are trying to get EVERYONE 'vaccinated'. This IMO is to REMOVE the 'control' group, making it more difficult to tell overall mortality of 'vaccinated' versus 'unvaccinated'
IOW, they KNEW this was likely (Big Pharma) and you can see their confidence because they won't distribute 'vaccine' unless the government COMPLETELY exonerates Big Pharma (in advance) of ANY responsibility.
Maybe that's why they recently acknowledged they want to 'seal' vaccine experiments (before release, and how the figures of 95% efficacy were obtained)
Actually, I didn't hear that they want the records sealed. They wanted something else, a disclosure rate of X pages per day that would end up keeping many docs unavailable for that long.
What explains the overall higher mortality in England?
Or, for that matter, in the US. Go to USmortality.com and look at the 25-44 and 45-64 age group mortality trend. These people are not dying from covid. What are they dying from?
I wondered about suicide or drug overdose as well but then the Indiana Life Insurance and Hospital information popped out.
Life Insurance wouldn't cover suicide.
And the hospital indicated their mortality rate uptick matched the Life Insurance uptick, so you have to think that the additional deaths are health related.
If overdose deaths were high at the hospital, one would think the hospital would jump on making that notification. Instead hospital indicated the deaths were for a variety of reasons and suggested state residents were simply in poor health.
Life insurance policies typically have a 2-year suicide clause which states the insurance won't pay if suicide within the first two years. Thereafter, they will pay the claim.
Heart issues too. As I lay in the hospital after an ablation I ponder not why, but when this awful sore throat going away. You know the one you get when the anesthesia dude basically breathes for you.
BTW 2 HOURS, TWO, 2 , 5-3, TO TOO ,2 HOURS before going down for procedures and inpatient 4, FOUR,4, four days, they advise me I must have a covid test! What?! In f Florida? In a red county 70/25? Yep and if positive? You're sent home immediately if not systematic! I was nervous and pissed, almost cleared up the afib. Anyhow I was a negative pureblood.
I should mention I prepaid after being admitted thru the ER. $ 495 per day for 3 days less 20%. After 3 days I'm card blanch, so get on with the testing!
Brand new private room, wifi, cable and free insulin. The begals are awesome!
Well the Pfizer trial showed 5 people with suicidal behaviour onset compared to 1 in the control group. I think I'm right in saying many suicidal tendencies show brain inflammation. So seems there's a physiological mechanism for this. Could be mountain bikers already have head trauma head start too where spike protein issues coalesce but that would need research and you'd also expect NFL players to be dropping if that latter thing was the case.
Probably a mixture of vaccine adverse effects (which appear high enough to cause a small rise in mortality) and lockdowns. Unfortunately it is really hard to tease out the causes of small changes in mortality over long periods, much harder than seeing obvious spikes in mortality at the same time as covid waves.
For example. Vioxx was estimated to have brought forward some 100,000 deaths in the USA, and no one noticed.
Vioxx was over a period of what, 4 or 5 years? If you just look at all cause mortality in the groups I mentioned, we're talking 7-8k per week, some 60% above normal. And, it's been persistent for months.
I know it's a big country, but that's a big jump and as far as I can tell, there's been no explanation.
I agree. Sorry, I wasn't clear in that there is going to be a long, decades long, tail of lockdown deaths that won't be easy to attribute to lockdown (as the Vioxx deaths weren't easy to attribute to Vioxx). Even the shorter-term excess mortality is going to be broken down into hundreds of different causes of death, which makes it hard to point at one or three and say "lockdown" or "side effect".
In other words, lockdown and vaccine side effects are very likely responsible for at least some of that excess, but proving it is not easy.
To add to the confusion, as you probably are already aware, VAERS is showing such a bizarre, almost incredible, diversity of adverse events. Cardiovascular, neurological, auto-immune, etc, etc, etc. It's perfect for hiding the football.
Not really. The sudden cardiac and thrombolytic deaths in *young* people is easy to see. Heart attacks are common. Heart attacks in young adults is bizarre. Myocarditis in teens is bizarre. Huge upticks in exotic neurological disorders that were very rare, now suddenly not unusual. Miscarriages have dramatically increased. If you know what you're looking for, it's clear.
Rules for me but not for thee? it appears that you are not heeding your own advice to exercise an overabundance of caution in interpreting causes of increased mortality. Thus, you conclude that "vaccine adverse effects appear high enough to cause a SMALL rise in mortality", while you attribute the rest of the increase to lockdowns. This is an altogether incautious conclusion given the probability of under-reporting of vaccine adverse events to VAERS. Amirite?
You can't conclude anything about vaccine-induced death from the all-cause mortality data Alex has presented.
You can definitely conclude from VAERS that the covid vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines to ever have been licensed for widespread use. This is why I do not support either mandates or widespread full-population vaccination. These products need to be used with more careful consideration of individual benefit/risk.
That said, as dangerous as they are, the vaccines are causing such a small proportion of overall mortality that it is difficult if not impossible to see that signal in any analysis of all-cause mortality.
Different sets of data, collected in different ways (overall mortality very reliable, VAERS, like all pharmacovigilance data very unreliable) help us to answer different questions.
"That said, as dangerous as they are, the vaccines are causing such a small proportion of overall mortality that it is difficult if not impossible to see that signal in any analysis of all-cause mortality."
How do you know this? How exactly do you know what these shots are doing to people? You have no idea. Nobody does. That is the whole point.
What are the chances of higher mortalities across the uk, usa, almost other European countries happening in the same period wouldn’t happen, unless something links them
The damage done to the immune system would go a long way towards explaining it. If you are involved in sports that stress the cardiac system that seems to be a risk factor. And the people who die of heart attacks, strokes, and various immune disorders won't be classified as dying from the vaccine.
Viv, you said: "It's just that I work in clinical research and we come across all the time things like this that look like something but very often aren't when you dig deeper".
It would be helpful to know what area of "clinical research" you work in and what your role is in that area. Moreover, you have not actually "dug deeper" to provide any evidence to support your opinion that Alex is wrong. We are just supposed to accept that you are correct based on your claim to your own ill-defined experience and expertise.
You also said: "Those of us pushing back need to be scrupulously careful with data and the analysis thereof, the exact opposite of what the propagandists do".
In other words, you are advising Alex and other critical thinkers, to abide by a double standard whereby we hold ourselves to rigorously high ideals and proceed with an overabundance of caution while elected officials and government appointees and pharmaceutical CEOs basically get up day after day and fling handfuls of shit at the walls.
Let's be clear: Alex doesn't fling shit at the walls. His work is impeccably sourced and his interpretations are informed by a community of data analysts and research scientists whose work is well above the pay grade of those who are running the shit-show.
Her suspicion is there may be confounding, and I think she did provide evidence to support it. Deaths always skew older, and "vaccinations" (experimental injections) also skew older, so it's likely that the "vaccinated" bucket skews older, meaning more people toward age 59 than toward age 10; and the "unvaccinated" bucket skews younger, meaning more people toward age 10 than 59. Little evidence is required for this, it's basically common sense or facts that we all know to be likely to be true.
If the bucket composition is skewed in that way then you would expect more deaths in the older ("vaccinated") bucket, and it could be that the age skew is itself explanatory.
I agree with your concern, that our opponents have no scruples, and that we need to avoid fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs by fake ethical restrictions that they impose on us and ignore when it suits them. However, Alex has positioned himself as a calm, rational voice of reason in this debate and it is important to his brand that he take care not to exaggerate or draw unsupported conclusions.
The right thing to do here is seek disconfirming (or confirming) data. Maybe injected people really are dying at twice the rate. But it may also be the case that they are dying at 1.05X the rate and the rest of it is a false signal from the age skew. Inquiring minds want to know which!
Well, Abhijit, it looks like you and Viv are a team then. Some readers may appreciate your "concern" without appreciating that it has some overtones of concern-trolling;-)
We note that you claim to have deep respect for Berenson's exceptionally high standard of investigative journalism which, BTW, includes years at the New York Times where is reporting exposed profoundly inconvenient truths about the pharmaceutical industry and resulted in prison time for key culprits. Yet your commentary casts aspersions on his competence.
QUESTION: Do you think Berenson accomplished any of this without being fully cognizant of something as rudimentary as "confounding" variables in medical research? I'd wager the concept is somewhat less familiar to you.
So, please spare us the patronizing, undermining and doubt-sowing critique. Berenson doesn't need any of us to tell him how to do his job. Nor does he need advice about preserving his "brand", which is not just another lacklustre "calm, rational voice of reason". The man is a damn MAVERICK who thoroughly knows his shit. If that's not what you're looking for, maybe it's time to find a different hero.
The entire reason I am here looking at the data and whether it supports the claim is my respect for Berenson and his commitment to honest and incisive exposure of what is going on!
Do I think he gets everything right? No more than I think I get everything right!
If you've read the thread you will see a couple of places where I invite challenge to my arguments. That is how we do science. Playing the man - that's what the corona fascists and tyrants do. Let's not play that game because they will drag us down to their level and beat us with experience.
JP you are still missing the point. You're assuming bad faith, going full ad hominem, and not understanding that this analysis is technically flawed and needs refinement. Berenson is a journalist, not a mathematician. We are here to help him.
I disagree. @Viv has presented her comments very clearly and respectfully. They are valid. The skewed age may be representing a larger part of the effect than the vaccines. Berenson, like many of us jumped the gun on this one. We are all a bit eager. This is how science works.
Disagree. Just a few posts above, I made what I think a valid point, a flaw in one his recent articles. You can examine my argument for yourself, if you like. What's relevant here is that Berenson is most certainly a high-quality journalist. However, that doesn't exempt him from being human and thus making the occasional mistake. To be a successful critical thinker, you MUST always keep doubt in your arsenal. Traditional science takes nothing for granted, everything is, or at least should be, subject to question and verification.
JP, what matters is the truth, not what team you are on. I apprfeciate VIv's warning re age bias. I don't focus on this exclusively. I appreciate being reminded. However, I am sure I have seen the analysis broken down into narrower age groups, while still concluding that the vax correlates with death. It would be good to keep the more detailed breakdown on hand for people whose conclusions follow the data.
The skew could go the other way. Some believe the unvaxxed are healthier and younger, having decided the risk isn't worthwhile, while vaxxed are older, fatter, lazier, etc, relying on pharma to save them. Others believe the vaxxed are healthier and "taking better care of themselves," while the unvaxxed are older and too frail go vax, or out on the fringes of medical care to access vax, as Eugipius (also on substack) believes. A case could be made either way, the data is purposely murky. I didn't see Viv's comment, but I agree that we form hypotheses and get surprising, counterintuitive results in many disciplines, mine included.
Totally. I think the basic takeaway is we should understand the data deeply enough to draw correct conclusions. (Rather than something that at some level we all want to be true because we cling to the belief that a smoking gun will hasten the end of this nightmare.)
A proper comparison - which I have yet to see - is per capita deaths by age group, side by side for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That should be the smoking gun which would inform us. Good luck compiling that from the excel spreadsheet. If Alex - or anyone else - has actually done that , please show us the side-by-side comparis
A person on this UT blog (or possibly on another platform) mentioned Dr. Norman Fenton. In a video he posted on November 17th, he does the age-group by age-group side by side analysis that I mentioned above on the recent British data. The 10 to 59 age group is too broad to do a proper statistical analysis, but his analysis of the older cohorts may be of use to some of the readers of this blog.
Dr. Fenton does an excellent job of explaining the confounding effects of age on the underlying vaccinated/unvaccinated data, and his graphs and charts very much help. I thank the person who first posted about Norman Fenton. I found his recent you tube videos especially informative.
Thanks for mentioning this! I hadn't heard of this and went and watched. Dr Fenton's explanations of how you can easily misinterpret data is fantastic!
A worthwhile read for me was "How to cheat at statistics"(1954)
Marvelous vocabulary paired with simple sentence construction. (How times have changed!) Refresher course mostly, but the final chapter came as somewhat of a shock. Issues then vs issues today, more similar then I would have thought. AMZN carries it I think, if you wish to electronically turn a page or two to check it out.
I agree. Mr. Fenton is best I've seen at explaining stat concepts.
Yes, I'm advising anyone who wants to push back on this madness to hold themselves and the arguments we make to a higher standard than the charlatans forcing this stuff on us.
I am not making any claim based on my experience and expertise, but on the indisputable fact that older people are more likely to die in the next N days/weeks/years than younger people. I'm not even claiming for certain that the skew is responsible, only that it is a very likely explanation, other analyses of covid and vaccines have fallen afoul of exactly the same phenomenon (particularly vaccine efficacy), so we should take care to rule it out before claiming this shows vaccine kills, or some such.
you can easily calculate that the probability of a 59 year-old dying in the next year is 75 times the probability of a 10 year-old dying in the next year.
A 75-fold difference in general, normal mortality risk between the top and bottom of the age range is huge.
I respect your well reasoned arguments. I also agree that the best way to beat back against these tyrannical charlatans is with good data analysis. The one thing I will say as far as defending alex, is that he simply presents the data, and gives somewhat of his opinion on what he finds. I would encourage you personally to parse the data yourself, since you have experience in this type of thing, and present it here. I honestly would be interested in what conclusion you come to.
No you misunderstood. We're talking about mathematics which is objective. It doesn't matter if he is a researcher or not. That's not relevant. The problem is the average age in the 10-59 vaccinated category is definitely higher than the average age in the 10-59 unvaccinated category, so you would expect the mortality rate in the first category to be higher than the first (excluding vax causes) because the average age is higher. Your odds of dying increase as you age. So this needs more careful analysis to compare the same average age person who is vaxed versus unvaxed. In my opinion the factor of 2 difference is very high and indicates the vax is increasing mortality but this needs deeper investigation because the age distribution in that category between vax versus unvaxed is very different.
And besides, some of the vax injuries I've seen are worse than COVID, and arguably worse than death. This broad statistic is only hinting at the tip of the iceberg of the actual horror show that is happening right now.
You can just click on the link and check the data yourself. That's what I did. I downloaded the spreadheet from ons.gov.uk. They put 10-59 in a single age bracket. So it's not a straightforward comparison as the age distribution is quite different within that large bracket.
Partly disagree. I admire what Alex does, and am a paying supporter. But he's not exempt for sensationalism at times. In his recent scandal piece about Pfizer admitting to a couple more deaths in their study, I pointed out that while this did seem an oversight, by my calculations the reported deaths in both cohorts (vaxxed and control) were still far less than what normal expected deaths would be. There may have been flaws, perhaps even deliberate fraud, in the study, but to make much of what might be a ten percent difference against normally expected all-cause deaths is pretty close to irresponsible journalism, in my opinion.
I have not looked at this one, but the additional deaths were probably simply from a later data cut. In such a huge trial there will always be additional deaths not in the first analysis. So as long as they keep watching the patients that number can of course only go up.
You’re thinking too much. Just take the table for what it is and compare it to the lies we’re fed on a daily basis from authorities and media.
I’ll do a basic KISS (keep it simple stupid) analysis for everyone.
By and large people under 60 shouldn’t die. If they do it’s usually very surprising and “they died too young” they say.
This graph evaluates death rates for people between 10-60, which is the vast majority of the learning and working world.
Given vaccine mandates, firings, forcing jabs into children, follow up boosters, etc, it is reasonable to expect we SHOULD be seeing data that shows the death rate of vaccinated 10-59 year olds is practically non-existent and death rates of 10-59 year olds should be astronomically worrisome. Thus anyone who looks at the graph would say “holy bleep, if you haven’t gotten the vaccine you are insane.”
However it’s not showing anything close to that. Quite the opposite actually. Do 50-59 vaccinated people dying skew it a little bit? Sure, probably so. Even so if the lines were adjusted to be identical to each other, what do we take from that then? That your chances of dying of any cause are pretty much the same, vaccinated or not? Ok then why am I losing my job over this?
If you don’t look at it from assessing whether or not the vaccines are killing people, then it makes plenty of sense and is completely usable data in any argument.
At extremes you could take the data and argue vaccines are killing people at a higher rate than unvaccinated people are dying.
At the bare minimum baseline you could take the data and argue (without a solid rebuttal) that the vaccines don’t do shit to protect most of the under 60 population from dying (sure it can protect you from dying from “Covid”, but you’ll just die of something different then). Fantastic.
hear! hear! People are dropping like flies. An old neighbor of mine (in her 70's) told me a few weeks before she suddenly dropped dead that her health was fine. She had been vaxed. I have been unable to find out if she got the booster before she died. The one person who knows won't tell me. I assume because she knows my views about vaccines.
4th grader at my kids school went to ER with chest pains 2 days after getting the vaccine. 8th grader in our city died in his sleep of brain hemorrhages.
To be fair I don’t know if the 8th grader had the vaccine or not. I don’t know them at all. I do know 8th graders don’t die in their sleep very often though.
it would seem that if she knows your views on vaccines and she won't tell you - you know what the answer would be already.... if she had NOT had the booster, that person would have told you right away... at least that's what logic tells me.
I disagree. I think we are pretty certain that the vaccine is dangerous, and I think we can prove it. But this graph does not prove anything about the danger of the vaccine. 90% of this is a function of the age distribution in the two populations. If there is a vaccine death signal it's much smaller than 2x.
That study shows a correlation between full population all cause mortality and vaccination rate. That is a very clear signal that something is wrong, and I don't see any statistical problems.
Looking at total deaths is a completely flawed way to look at the data. People that have preexisting conditions are more likely to get vaccinated and are more likely to die of other things like heart disease, diabetes, etc... You need to look at covid19 deaths which table 6 shows are 9x for the unvaxxed. If you were looking at how effective seat belts were would you look at car accident deaths? Or would you look at total deaths across the board. The vaccine protects against covid19, so look at covid19 deaths. Not too difficult.
The reason for doing all cause is to account for fallout from vaccine side effects. A better analysis of this data shows precisely no benefit because the lives saved from C19 are balanced out by other deaths, presumably side effects.
All cause mortality is the only non-flawed way to look at the data, because going off of "covid deaths" is utterly dependent on how you define 'covid death'. In order to be able to write something so silly, you must be completely unaware of all the problems in that space.
Second, you are just asserting without evidence that people with preexisting conditions are more likely to get vaccinated. Is that true? Who knows, because your evidence for this in non-existent. Did you get vaccinated? Do you have a preexisting condition? The people I know who got vaccinated are uninformed mostly neurotics. If you consider that a pre-existing condition, then maybe I'll agree with you.
Finally, if the shots are giving people heart attacks, which certainly appears to be the case, they will only show up in all cause mortality. So will deaths like car accidents caused by people passing out behind the wheel.
Your car analogy is just pathetic question begging. You invented an analogy that fits your conclusion. The problem is, it doesn't fit the question.
If the world this seems simplistic to you, consider the possibility you're a simpleton.
Another support of my claim that those with pre-existing conditions and other issues were the first to be vaccinated is evident in the data. Why do you think the rate of total deaths among the vaccinated started off high and has been dropping since? That's because, (YOU GUESSED IT), as time went on healthier and younger people were gettng vaccinated more. Ask any reliable statistician and they will tell you looking at total deaths in this time period is just a trick to make people that have no analytical knowledge (such as yourelf) to believe garbage.
And, in your other comment, you claim ad hominem, lmao.
You didn't claim people with pre-existing conditions were the first to be vaccinated. You claimed they are "more likely to be vaccinated".
Curious...have you heard of vaccine mandates? Do they only apply to those with pre-existing conditions?
I note you didn't answer my previous question. Did you get vaccinated? Do you have co-morbidities?
"ask any statistician".
Is this a "no true Scotsman" gambit? Because there are plenty of statisticians on record saying all cause mortality is the correct way to measure vaccine impact, all up.
You are aware that all cause mortality was greater in the Pfizer vaccine trial cohort than the placebo, right?
Tommy, if you like we can go over the data together. This is a classic ad hominem attack. I suppose your anecdotal evidence is what actually matters right? You have to compare apples to apples. You can't lump ages 10-59 y/o over a span of time when only older people and the immunocompromised were allowed to get the vaccine in the beginning of the timeline. You know this to be a fact. I suppose covid deaths are inaccurate but all other deaths aren't? My how that fits with your belief. But then again, I'm just a simpleton :-)
I agree that 10-59 is a bad way to lump data. I also find Alex's post likely suffers from Simpson's Paradox.
What I disagree with is the assertion that all-cause mortality is a flawed measurement because it isn't. "Covid-19" deaths is flawed measurement for all kinds of reason.
The UK is 80% Fully Vaxxed 12yo & Up, and 25% have had a Booster jab. It seems Mortality follows the Jabs; the higher the JAB rate , the higher the All-Cause Death rate. No one anywhere in the MSM and Politics , or Establishment Medicine will confirm the obvious. Not even when young kids start dropping. There is now an ad campaign to "normalize" strokes and heart inflammation in Kids. "Kids get Strokes too" The Kool-Aid drinkers will lap it up.
Hard to believe parents will buy that, but, then again, I saw them rushing to a vaccination center (in Chicago where I live) to get their little ones jabbed.
Yes, I saw (or rather heard) the ad, "you are never too young to have a heart attack". The "Powers that Be", know EXACTLY what is going on. They perceive more advantage in the power they are now accumulating, than what the truth will eventually reveal.
Their CONFIDENCE is what is MOST disturbing- what power do they foresee to gain to counter this DELIBERATE MURDER of people?
Chinese Communism + Big Tech + Big Pharma + corrupt US election equals WHAT?
My reaction to that was totally, "Kids get strokes, too"??? Since when? This is the stuff that will be fun to look back at 20 years from now and see how many strokes and heart attacks in <20 yo and compare vaxxed vs. unvaxxed. We'll finally have definitive data, way too late to save anybody.
Yes, good point. I always try to think of all the possible explanations for a particular data set and the age issue is probably central in these numbers.
These charts (and the high all-cause mortality happening in highly-vaccinated countries) raise important questions that are not being asked except by a few de-platformed journalists.
Very likely nothing to see here. Vax rated for 50-59 is ~88%, while 18-29 is ~56%. Throw in the few million 10-17 year olds in the denominator of the unvaxxed and that likely explains the entire difference.
The closer you look the more it explains. Why is the vaccinated death rate highest just after vaccines start rolling into the 10-59 age group? One possibility is "vaccines killing people", but you would expect to see that peak sustained for longer if true. The other possibility is "start with 59 year olds, then 58 year olds, etc". Which explains the peak as vaccination starts and the decline (in the vaccinated group) thereafter, and even more marked decline in the unvaccinated group as older unvaccinated people move into the vaccinated group.
As ever, I'd be happy to see data (in this case better stratified data) that defeats this argument.
I FREELY admit I am like a five year old when it comes to statistics and data analysis. I just don’t see why there is such a large difference between the group toward the end. It would be helpful to see the same data broken out in age bands. Thank you though for your discussion points.
Let's say at the end of the series the average age in the vaccinated group is 50 and 99% of people in that group are over 30, and the average age in the unvaccinated group is 15, and that 99% of people in that group are under 30.
Which group is going to have the higher death rate?
You see, even though they are labelled "10-59" so the same age range, the two different populations within that group are very different in ways that are important to what we are measuring (how many of them die).
It's a well known phenomenon called Simpson's Paradox in statistics. There are good explanations all over the web, but this talk by a statistics professor is specifically about the UK data in question.
Ok, so I went back to the raw data. Unfortunately it does not break down the age groups preventing us from blocking for age. It literally indicates "10-59". Also previous versions of the database do not go back further than Jan 2021.
Essentially the way this data is provided by the government, prevents any meaningful analysis. It is impossible to tease out the effects of age and vaccination.
This data is entirely consistent with the possible scenario that the vaccines were so effective prior to April that they actually over-powered the age effect, and after April the effect wore off and the death rates regressed to the normal for these (skewed age) groups, 2:1.
Have you looked at Table 2? It has a different take on the data, which isn't necessarily more useful: age-standardized mortality for the population as a whole. Take a look at the rates for partially vaxed in May (week 18-21). This was a period where the vax was rolling out for 30-50 age. So you know those columns are in those age groups. The mortality for those weeks was very high compared with unvax
Viv. Question. Wouldn’t the underlying death rate at the top of the group be higher for both groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated), thereby keeping the comparison of the two valid?
I 100% agree with the point of your post. I don’t us to rush to judgment. The argument must be airtight. But this graph is devastating. ACM is hard to fudge.
Yes. But what is going on is the distribution of people at risk of age-related death is different between the two groups. The unvaccinated group is now overwhelmingly younger people, relative to the vaccinated group.
Also the distribution of age between the groups changed over time (at the beginning almost no one in the vaccinated group, at the end probably >60% of people in the vaccinated group, and in between people moving from unvaccinated to vaccinated _by the oldest first_)
If you haven't seen it, look for Professor Fenton's Nov 18th youtube video "Analysing Covid Vaccine efficient and safety statistics". He breaks a lot of this down and finds a lot of *very* strange things in the data. Highly recommend.
The "very strange things in the data" probably are that they are going to great pains, so it appears, to obfuscate, change definitions or methodology mid-stream, or simply withhold data. The question remains "Why?"
Bingo. Instead of them classifying the data into vax/unvaxxed/etc for us, just release for each recorded death their date of birth, date of death, date of 1st shot (or n/a), date of 2nd shot (or n/a).
I am not sure there would be a significantly uneven distribution of injection rates in the 40-59 age band. You mention a 10 year old child but that is not relevant here. People in their 40s and 50s are in the autumn and early winter of professional working life.
The UK has been notorious at terrorising people about sars-cov2 (it is official government policy to "scare" people according to an infamous document dating from March 2020), the media there is uniformly and relentlessly on-message and the coercion is oppressive. If someone wanted to resist, they would be more able to do so if they are older and more likely to own their home and have some money saved. Someone in their 40s would be far more vulnerable to coercion. So an uneven distribution may actually show people in their late 50s less likely to have accepted the injections.
The fact therefore remains that people in that - admittedly broad - age band have a distinct difference in the death rate as to whether they are injected or not. Double. That is a big difference.
The "inflexion" point, where the curves cross, is interesting because around that date, the proportion of the population with 1 dose crossed the 50% mark, while the 2nd dose was around 20%.
If these injections (please forgive my insistence on precise language - a spade is a spade etc) are not the cause for this large disparity, then what else can explain this?
If the same data is analysed with different variables - say, smoking or obesity - it is likely that a difference will be found, but I am fairly certain it will not be "double". That is a huge disparity. Can anyone think of any other factor that opens up a "double" difference within this age band?
Where do you see data on 40-59? Table 4 has only 10-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80+.
That's really the crux of the problem. If they had it for 10 year groups it would be possible to do a comparison for a group that's not heavily vaccinated and get some more reliable numbers. Or if they age-standardized the mortality rates. Table 2 has age-standardized rates for the full population, which is more promising. But shows the *opposite* result if you compare post dose 2 with unvax. The partial vax data looks pretty bad but I have not had a chance to try to analyze that in detail.
No worries... the Beaujolais sounds like one of the few bright spots these days.
BTW, I was just trying to create an analysis of the Table 2 data that is age-standardized and the results are interesting.
What it showed was from weeks 8-15 the vaccinated category was showing initially much lower mortality, to weeks 16-24 where the mortality in the vaccine group rose *above* that of the unvax group. Not 2x but substantially higher - around 10/100K on a weekly basis. Then weeks 25-38 the vaccine group again showed an advantage. This data seems to comport with registered "covid 19 deaths", which would suggest the protective effect of the vaccine; but also shows a higher death rate for the vaccine group in the absence of a C19 outbreak.
There is also very clearly an increased mortality rate in the partially vaccinated category, in the period of time when there is no ongoing outbreak, which would seem to clearly indicate hazards with the vaccine itself.
The problem with this dataset remains - it is over the full population. The argument against mass vaccination is that the risk for young people outweighs the benefit for them, and does not protect old people (due to ability to still transmit). But a full population metric will not make that distinction.
(And of course the real reason these numbers exist is that early treatment is not being done, making the disease appear much more deadly..)
If the chart included people 10-79, you could make that argument. But 59 is a relatively young age - people don’t generally drop dead at age 59. Also deaths of all causes are higher than they were historically, which makes your argument fall flat on its face. The gist of your argument is that the division of people into “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” groups in this chart is no different than dividing them into unhealthy and healthy. If this is the case, then why are more people dying overall? Unless people have somehow become much more unhealthy in the last 2 years? I’m sure bacon and eggs are to blame, as a recent newspaper article cover suggests.
Is it possible that people who choose not to take vaccinations are just healthier people in general? A comparison of total non Covid deaths, from 2020 on, would be interesting to track, alongside this. We're just comparing death rates by vaccination status, but I really want to see if more people are just dying generally.
100% James. Look at table 6, it shows that there are 34k unvaccinated COVID deaths ad 4k vaccinated. The graph here is misleading because it's counting total deaths. Sicker, unhealthier, and older people are more likely to be vaccinated so using total deaths is a bad metric. Look at COVID19 deaths and it's much clearer.
"Table 6: Comparison of deaths by vaccination status included in the Public Health Data Asset (PHDA) and the full mortality dataset, age 10+, England, deaths occurring between 2 January and 24 September"
The majority of the population wasn't vaccinated for the majority of that time.
You can't have it both ways. The total deaths are higher for vaccinated people, but covid deaths are 9x less. So your "majority of the population wasn't vaccinated for the majority of the time" doesn't hold up.
Well, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that one shot is not protective...according to the "public health experts". In fact, people are not considered "fully vaxxed" until at least 14 days past the second dose.
You could make the argument that the unvaxxed are healthier or that they are less healthy and unable to take the jabs. I've heard people make both arguments to support or refute data they don't like.
Like a number of countries, England is reporting excess deaths that cannot be attributed to C19 infection. Are they a result of vaxx injury or missed care or despair or all of the above?
Agreed. Scrupulously careful is exactly what we need to be. I think Alex is doing great work, but he might consider hiring someone who is trained in data analysis to kick the tires on things like this so as not to risk discrediting the work in general.
I didn't mean to allege that - sorry. I believe that the data he posted is absolutely correct. But to assume it must be from vaccinations is a leap. It might be, but it might be much more complicated than that. At first glance - especially if you believe (as I do) that the push to vaccinate is wrong headed and stupid at best and evil at worst - it seems to say that vaccinations MUST be the reason. But we can't know without a deeper investigation. (Why that isn't being done transparently by our public institutions is deeply troubling.)
I once vacationed with a companion who bought two (two!) different timeshares in a period of a few days. Fortunately, I had no financial or emotional obigations to said person. 😂
"Dying of covid" can mean whatever the hoax pushers want it to mean. All cause mortality tells the tale accurately, since the vaxx kills via several different methods.
I doubt that "they" would be willing now to release some kind of new, engineered virus when only the idea of a virus was released to start with.
Real pandemics aren't controllable the way a phony pandemic is. An actual killer plague virus might just spread to the people who hope to gain from a pandemic. These bogus vaccines aren't intended to protect anyone from anything, apparently, so the vaxxed subjects would probably be the first to die in an actual pandemic.
I think that if whoever started this whole fake pandemic panic actually had a way of creating a virus that would selectively kill people who hadn't been vaccinated, then it would have been released already.
The spike was a poor choice. Also AZ/J&J are DNA which makes mRNA which make the spike. After it makes mRNA it is very similar to the other vaccines. But the problems appear to come from the Spike. I would just like to know how different the spike is from the spike while on the virus. I mean it can go places the full virus can't for one.
I also believe they used a mix of vaccines like in the US. Pfizer, Moderna, and AZ.
I personally think it’s how and when the body sees the spike protein. When we get sick (any virus) our body sends signals to eliminate the virus AND to protect ourselves from that inflammatory response (anyone who has an auto immune disease knows how devastating our inflammatory response/system is). With these mRNA/DNA vaccines, the “protective response “ never happens because the “vaccine” never triggers this; it only triggers the inflammatory response (and obviously not completely) & formation of the spike protein. Therefore, the spike can do a lot of damage without the cellular protective mechanisms in place (vascular damage, clots, auto immune reactions, cell death). In my opinion, if you’re lucky that the majority of the vaccine stays in the fat/skin then you likely won’t develop the severe effects but if it gets in the muscle (very vascular) or heaven forbid in a blood vessel, then…
Good points. More: at least for the mRNA products, the "wrapper" is an artificial molecule. The mRNA protected inside is partially artificial. One of the RNA "letters" is a synthetic analogue of the natural, I think, to delay breakdown by the body. Who knows what adjuvants are used? They are often trade secrets. Finally, NONE of this stuff has any proofs of long-term or I suspect, even mid-term safety. They simply don't know, they can't possibly know, what if any long-term harms these may cause to the patient.
One of the worst toxins used in the vaccines is polyethylene glycol, used for the first time in vaccines, and this is what kills those people with cardiovascular collapse after the first shot, and gives some people anaphylaxis.
Slight correction, unless you are a medical researcher - my understanding is that the mRNA shot is into the muscle, where most of the antibody response is triggered, but in a few cases it gets into the bloodstream, causing the spike protein to be expressed in places, and on cell types, where the immune response can do much more damage.
It goes into the lymphatic system and then in lesser amounts, into spleen, liver, lung and even cerebral spinal fluid. From what I know every first year med student knows intra muscular shots are dispersed around the body because of the rich vascularization of the muscle tissue. They knew all along the mRNA/DNA could end up all over your body. They just didn't want to talk it up.
There is another vax called Novavax which is apparently an attenuated or killed multivalent vax like the traditional flu vax. So this agent, if its approved , might solve a lot of these problems.
Actually no, it uses a lab-grown spike protein. What you may be thinking of is the Valneva vaccine, which is a whole virus, inactivated, adjuvanted vaccine candidate in clinical trials.
I thought the novavax was more like the current influenza vax. But thanks i will catch up on the current trials. I would not be averse to considering taking a whole attenuated virus vax. Im a doc in NJ USA. Ive taken hepatitis and the shingles booster. I havent gotten a flu shot in along time but as i get older (im 53 now) i will consider it. I had full blown influenza in med school when i was 23 years old and i missed three weeks of classes . I was miserable. And i am a very fit trim individual. I had covid in aug 21 and it wasnt nearly as bad for me as influenza was 30 years ago
I hear you on that one. I'm considerably older than you are, now well into Medicare age. In the early1980's I had a truly terrible flu that had me convinced for days that I was dying. After that I got flu shots religiously, until finally having a bad reaction to one. Haven't had a flu shot in 30 years now, nor the flu. Also agree about Covid. My husband and I both came down with it way back in the beginning, March 2020, and it was NOTHING. Slightly drippy sinuses, and 3 days of bad nausea, then it was over. I'm convinced the vitamins, minerals, and other supplements we take on a regular basis had a lot to do with the outcome. Also agree that if there comes a time when vaxing cannot be avoided (i.e absolutely no life otherwise), the only type I would even consider is the whole-virus variety. That's the reason I'm following Valneva so closely. Unfortunately it's availability in this country appears to be quite a ways in the future.
It's my understanding that Valneva is made from specimens of the earlier SARS virus, the one that never produced the pandemic that the vaccine makers hoped to stop in its tracks. It isn't made with "covid19 virus" since that one isn't available for study, mainly because it is imaginary. As we may remember, the earlier SARS virus stopped itself by mutation as almost every pathogenic virus does.
Agree! It is a “traditional” in that it has the spike protein (lab created) attached to an adjuvant which stimulates a more complete immune response, similar to hepatitis A and B vaccines
But it still has MRNA and full spike. The full spike as the most recent study shows us is the big issue. As long as the full spike and MRNA is being introduced it seems all bets are likely off.
I am in a completely private medical practice and have no ties or conflicts of interest to any pharma companies. Some vaccines make sense for some people. The having an influenza vaccine or even a covid19 vaccine might make sense for some people in certain limited circumstances. Not all vaccines and vaccine makers are inherently bad or evil. If the United states never adopted the constitution and we still operated under the articles of confederation like we should have, we might have a loose affiliation of independent societies with no incomes taxes no property taxes and a robust free market. The overall wealth and health of the population would be far greater . THere would still be vaccines but they would be so much better and safer because free market forces would have produced them instead of this vicious soul crushing fascist system we live under now.
They made the spike in the vax to last a lot longer than the spike in the virus. They also made it more efficient, i.e. to produce more spike than the virus mRNA. AndI think it also does not "fold" i.e. it stays on the surface of cells.
In Europe Pfizer is used too in places. But yes, whether mRNA or DNA they all make the spike and use lipids to coat the mRNA and DNA so the stuff can get everywhere.
Yes, my parents had Pfizer. Some of my family had AZ. They are in Belgium. I had the wrong idea that the UK had used mainly AZ. I think very little Belgians had J&J, and I have no idea if they even use Moderna. Same crap!
I was talking to my old man about all this yesterday. Our family is funny and he’s actually a very smart person but my Lord if he and I haven’t been individually all over the place about all this. He was rightfully calling out problems with the data very early on and was anti-lockdown, anti-mask. I bought the “we gotta crush the curve” horse-doodoo and wore the diaper and stayed home. He’s jabbed. I’m not. Likely the age difference being the biggest factor. But he’s largely been on top of all the really news since the beginning but somehow hadn’t heard about the ask to withhold the Pfizer data for 55 years.
“What? Why do that?!”
“Because best case the shots do nothing and worst case they’re actually hurting people.”
“And everyone responsible is dead and can’t be held accountable in 55 years.”
“Bingo.”
The point is, the request to seal the data is a very useful red pill now for those who got the shots who have not had adverse events and who trust companies rather than governments. Spread it far and wide. It’s an anti-jab conversion generator.
And yet nobody says a word in the medical field for fear of being fired/cancelled. Have you ever seen such weak and cowardly humans than these doctors/nurses. Grateful for the few that are stepping up and speaking out but you see whats happening to them. It would have to be a high percentage of these people - like 50% to stand together. They wouldnt be able to operate any medical facility’s if they all did the right thing. But they wont because again…theyre cowards.
The group that did early on, started with 100 Belgian doctors, was blocked from every possible website. Geert Vanden Bosch is blocked from every forum, no one listens to him, they keep on going with that nitwit who parrots the government. Dr Tozzi is being blocked in Canada. The world is gone mad.
Nothing to see here. The vaccine is 1000% safe. Even supreme ruler Biden said the vaccines are safe and you won’t get Covid after being vaccinated. He also said vaccines will not be mandated in the US. Supreme ruler Biden and his administration would never lie or mislead the people. So stop spreading this propaganda and go get your 40th booster shot because…science.
How often do you hear about countries with a low % of vaccinations? India is no longer in the news as they essentially stopped the “pandemic” with ivermectin. What about the majority of Africa? Haven’t heard anything from that continent outside of S. Africa in awhile…
The so called experts are truly idiots....People in African routinely take HCQ and IVM as prophylactics against parasites. A virus is the ultimate parasite,is it not?
This is definitely by design. I don’t know if it’s groupthink run amok or some other nefarious reason but these people know what they’re doing and they want full compliance. Free thinkers both left and right are now the enemy of the state.
This virus in particular is very parasite-like due to the synthesized spike. It shares an epitope w the malaria parasite, so as a result populations w endemic malaria & strong immunity haven’t been hit as hard by Covid. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.650231/full
You're placing quite a lot of implicit faith into the statistics of a given country. Covid-19 stats are not to be believed even in the best of times. When you add the incredible variance of quality of governance, they become downright absurd. Here's a one-stop proof of concept. Check the enormous variation in reported deaths by nation. I've said it before, I'll say it again for emphasis: the Covid-19 statistics are rubbish.
But all my mainstream friends believe it’s because India began vaccinating. Which I do think they did after the big catastrophe after stopping ivermectin.
Same here. I had Covid a year ago and recovered with no issues as I’m fairly young and not a fat sack of sh!t. I had my antibodies tested last week when I gave blood and still have them after a year. Natural immunity is far superior yet not acknowledged by the Biden regime. Hmmm wonder why?
The simple fact is that if they acknowledged acquired immunity, then many many people would make the (correct) decision to get the virus instead of the jab. Obviously that's not acceptable to people who are selling jabs.
The vaccine isn’t mandatory but if you don’t take it you won’t be able to work, receive unemployment, go to stores, restaurants, etc…again, it’s definitely not mandatory.
I had a friend who took the J&J in July. Horrific headaches, vomiting, fever... it was awful. A month later, she went to the doctor and asked that her antibodies be tested. They came back at ZERO and no one could explain why. Natural immunity for the win.
Read Bottle of lies an expose on the generic drug industry Butt really it’s on the fda and drug manufacturing industry published in 2019. Isn’t it possible that we aren’t even getting what they say we are getting in the shots at all, ie no quality controls in the manufacturing?
I had covid aug 2021. The fact that natural immunity is not recognized is a scandal and a crime. Its unconscionable that this should not be consider good.. I got aby tested and Im willing to do it over and over again if necessary. The CDC has been grossly negligent about this issue.
The giving blood thing is another good point. What of our blood supply? They did not separate the blood supply so that has, as I understand it, caused a challenge with the plasma treatment options. And frankly, as an unvaxed, am I safe to get a transfusion now if all the blood supply has vaxx done blood? How does that work? Genuinely asking.
Biden regime? This is a globalist regime. Same deal in New Zealand. The government does not recognize immunity, only Pfizer doses. In three weeks we will be required to show proof of Pfizer dose or else we cannot participate in society.
Most politicians across the globe are garbage. However, there are a few against this BS, mainly on the right in the US. I’ll throw Tulsi Gabbard in that group too. The major difference between America and the rest of the world is our strong distrust of authority which is ingrained in most of us at birth. Plus the shear amount of weapons we own. There’s probably more guns here in my rural Texas community than most small countries.
I’ve never once heard any of these government “experts” mentioning a healthy diet and exercise to mitigate the effects of Covid. The government and big pharma love sick people. The bigger the $$$$.
The funniest and saddest thing I’ve heard is medical professionals refusing to give care to the unvaccinated. Since when do we start judging peoples lifestyle choices and deciding who does and doesn’t get medical attention? Sure, give attention to those who destroyed their body and health by making bad choices yet don’t treat the healthy who aren’t inoculated with some BS test “vaccine”.
Yup. Carter Blood Care is still doing antibody tests with donations. I don’t think there’s any restrictions if you’ve recovered from Covid. In fact, I think they use blood with antibodies as a form of treatment.
Haha. The best thing about this BS is that it’s bringing free thinkers from across the political spectrum together. There should be more of this. Remember, the government works for the people not the other way around.
There is likely selection bias. People that are sicker took the "vaccine" while people that have a lot of confidence in their health for good reasons did not take the vaccine. This is another reason a large blinded study should have been done.
I considered this, but it is not plausible; the gap has remained large even as the number of people in the vaccinated group has risen more than 10-fold, from fewer than 2 million people to almost 20 million. Vaccinated people now easily outnumber the unvaccinated, but the gap remains. And the difference in vaccination by age from 20 to 60 is not enough to account for the gap either.
The explanation doesn't matter as much as the fact that the "scientists" aren't asking why, or sharing their concerns, and are still pushing forward without pause.
Yup, and people a...r...e dying. Healthy people, sick people, young, old, athletic, sedentary...in all combinations! I've been saying for some time now, that in the end, it's prolly gonna come down to a 'survival of the fittest', dependant on one's genetic makeup and whether thAT can override the toxic jabs' intent. I mean, isn't that what "They" want? To remove those they see as least useful, as most wasteful, most burdensome (costly) to society? That's what I see...sadly.
Some rationale to cull the "useless eaters," but I don't see enough emphasis, in my opinion of course, on the fact that the jabs will all take out a lot of the productive members of society, especially the workers who are encouraged or mandated to take the experimental juice. Now, I'm sure it's possible that many supposed vaxxings of elite have been staged or otherwise lied about. But fact is you can only lose so many essential or even critical mid- and upper-level functionaries before organizations begin to seize up.
I'd like to believe that's true. It mAkes sense. Honestly though, that's what kinda scares me... nothing at this point makes any sense. As diabolical, as insane, downright evil and sadistic "They" are... they probably have some crazy "recovery" plan in place, ready to implement. Who knows. I'm just absolutely terrified for my all my jab'd loved ones, our future... : (
It would be interesting to see "cause of death" delineated. The raw data is hard to interpret. Self selection can be very hard to evaluate. No healthy person in their right mind should take the "vaccine" until long term safety is proven. I have said that since the beginning.
Also, where is the data on what the selection bias looks like? I just hunted around. Many Covid studies saying "may have selection bias" but it would be perfectly possible to quantify the impact of some of the strongest covariates and get them out of the way. Where is that study.
I can also tell you that there doesn’t seem to be much of a trend from what I can tell here with who is and isn’t. It’s more to do with trusting “authorities” not health status. There would definitely be more of the younger population unvaxxed but the difference here does seem to be very stable despite big shifts in proportion over the period. Personally I think it’s more deadly to those over 60. These are the ones that get missed as having strokes and heart attacks is seen to be more usual at that age and is not noted as anything to do with vaccination. I know of 3 that have died suddenly from strokes, one of whom comes from a family of doctors and they believe it was due to the “vaccine” even though it wasn’t treated as such .
Can definitely agree there. My 80yr old cousin (and neighbor), generally pretty healthy - mild high BP, mild diabetes - ate healthy, took good care of herself...2wks after 2nd shot (early spring), massive stroke (they think) during the night. NOOObody gave it a second thought. Unnerving!! : (
If the data existed, perhaps look at unvaccinated with and without co-morbidities and compare to vaccinated with and without co-morbidities; compare chi-squares?
THAT'S why they are trying to make sure there are as FEW people as possible, who have NOT been 'vaccinated'. To GET RID of that possible "control group" to compare vaxxed people with!
There may be some truth to that (find an excuse to erase the actual control groups, as was done in the Phase 3 (?) study once emergency approval was obtained. But beyond that, I argue this is just another weak "conspiracy theory" that doesn't stand up to analysis. For example, imagine the population, somehow, got 100% vaxxed. No hold-outs. Based on what we're seeing now, there would still be an unexplained increase in all-cause deaths. Big Pharma can perhaps admit error that they "prematurely" terminated their control group, but to put years of vital statistics (deaths, cause of death, etc.) into the Memory Hole would be much harder.
Any data before the Delta variant became widespread , and vax rates achieving 2/3rds of a population are too obsolete now to be included in any data set. True "real-time"data starts after july1, 2021. The last 90 days gives the clearest picture of trends in Vax effectiveness or Vax harm. But the Medical Establishment keeps hiding the damage being done by starting data sets to far back.
You make a valid point, as those with underlying issues have been getting pushed from day one to get 'jabbed', by the sadistic pLandemic enforcers. However; there aRE those with underlying issues that either are extremely cautious when it comes to taking new meds, especially unapproved, EAU forced new meds, and have remained unjabbed...and/or those, myself included, that were sceptical from the get go, are now fUlly aware of the scAmdemic, and have remained unjabbed. Aand...what about all the healthy jabbed individuals that are now suddenly dying? Soo...how biased really?
Agree. I know a ton of people who are healthy and didn’t want the jab yet took it because they feared losing their jobs and not being able to provide for their family. I also know people (like my own mother) who took it because they’re older and unfortunately still believe the mainstream narrative.
A more honest appraisal would be "Most of them have no apparent health issues at the present time." The fact remains that the mRNA jabs had never even been approved for human use before December 2020, much less tested for long-term safety. Thalidomide, DES, Vioxx and many other products seemed very promising early in their careers, too. The entire establishment broke a lot of rules and standards to get these products to a wide (and often, unwilling) market. There have already been plenty of red flags that should have halted their use, or at least, severely limited it. The blatantly obvious lies, the data either not being collected or the collection suddenly and inexplicably stops, and perhaps most ominously, the continuing mandates for injecting people, fly in the face of science and common sense. This ceased being about public health long ago. What it's about, I leave for others to debate.
"The study author concluded that 'mRNA [vaccines] dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.'”
Thank you for posting this - this report seems very significant. Please everyone share and tweet. Doctors are more easily impressed (sometimes) by lab results -- here showing a more than doubling of heart attack risk after mRNA jabs -- than by any number of young men dropping dead on the playing field. Mind you this study was in patients in a "preventive cardiology practice" so presumably had some pre-existing risk. Still seems like a clear warning to the rest of us.
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
With Fauci saying he wants toddlers and babies to take the shot next I can't say I'm laughing at the idea of depopulation anymore. Oh no that's crazy... or it was.
I shudder to think what would happen to a baby.
I don't get it. The govt gave Big Pharma the money - whether the shots are given or go in the bin. Why are they willing to go so far?
That little evil gremlin needs a double dose of 5.56. Anyone who gives their kids this poison is either ridiculously dumb or insane. Most children (like my own were) will be asymptomatic. Those who do get sick will have symptoms similar to the flu or cold. Why give your kids an experimental “vaccine” for this??? What blows my mind is that there’s obviously issues with this “vaccine” yet theres a black out against all adverse reactions. I know it’s only anecdotal but Ive known more people seriously injured by the vaccine than Covid itself including a 43yo friend who died after being vaccinated due to a “congenital” heart issue that ironically manifested itself weeks after the vaccine.
You omitted the parents probably have a low, no, very low math aptitudes. Couple that with CNNs of the world doing the critical thinking for them. Unbelievable
I was thinking the same thing last night. We shouldn't say to ourselves, we have spent all of this money on vaccines and even though they are causing increased mortality, we have to get vaccinated or we will be wasting our money. That would be a crazy position to take.
Much of the discussion here is about whether or not this proves the vaccine is killing people. There are nuances for sure, and age-adjusted data is preferable. But this also misses the forest for the trees. What is clear - crystal clear and indisputable - is that those who favour the vaccine can't produce data to say it works. The data if anything favours that it kills people. Yet they can get away with hand-waving, while we can't oppose it without some kind of solid mathematical proof. This framing of the whole situation is the real problem, and data is not the way out - it's a human problem. We have data, they have hypnotists.
That’s exactly what I just said to Viv. With all due respect to her arguments, whether or not the vaccine is literally killing people is not the point of this. I do think there’s some truth to it but I’m not here to debate that. The actual point is that the vaccines aren’t doing shit to save your life if you’re under 60 and thus all mandates and firings and children injections are utterly pointless. The data has shown it time and time again. But no one listens.
"show there have been thousands more deaths than the five-year average in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and diabetes since the summer."
One reason not to draw too much of a conclusion is that 10 to 59 is a really, really broad age group, and the underlying death rate at the top of that group will be much higher than at the bottom.
If the vaccination is also unevenly distributed in that group (and you would imagine the vaccination rate to be much lower among 10 year-olds than 59 year-olds) that would probably provide a sufficient explanation.
Before everyone piles on, I am opposed to mass vaccination, to mandates, to (most) child vaccination against Covid, and all the fascist tyranny being imposed on the back of this slightly worse than normal respiratory disease. It's just that I work in clinical research and we come across all the time things like this that look like something but very often aren't when you dig deeper.
Those of us pushing back need to be scrupulously careful with data and the analysis thereof, the exact opposite of what the propagandists do.
Is it definitive? No.
Is it worth investigating? Yes.
Will it be investigated? No.
Absolutely worth, and needs investigating! My hunch is it is confounding rather than vaccine-induced mortality, but we could check, if data better stratified by age group is available.
There is one little clue in that you see the death rate in the unvaccinated halve from the beginning of the series (at which point the population vaccination rate was very low and very skewed towards elderly) to the point where vaccination roll-out is essentially complete. That is consistent with changing the unvaccinated population from almost everyone at baseline to only the younger people (with lower underlying mortality) from late summer.
That struck me as well - the evolution of the death rate of the vaxxed.
I think Alex jumped the gun on this one.
PS - I would also want to fully subscribe to your comments on your previous post (technical and philosophical). As you, I also work in a field related to this.
It's a hell of a lot more informative than the crap and lies coming out of CDC & FDA. And it's also factual. They are in fact dying 2x as often. Alex didn't jump anything at all.
Twice the rate is staggering. One thing that I suspect would factor in is that the more vulnerable (ill, obese, etc.) in the population would have been more likely to get vaccinated in the first place, and the more robust less likely to. But even if that affected the results by 50%, that leaves a lot of excess deaths.
Yup, I was wondering about this as well. The vaccinated likely skews older. That said, you should see them start to converge again as more younger people get vaccinated if that were the case. Still need to see it broken down.
In fact, you do see some convergence. This needs to be separated by smaller age brackets.
So Viv, why do YOU think that more vaccinated people are dying than unvaccinated? Could it be related to the CDC's refusal to conduct a 30-year retrospective health comparison of ~50K vaccinated and unvaccinated people? It's not that Big Pharma doesn't know - they don't want to know.
You would expect the death rate to reduce coming out of winter. Let's not generate "clues" about man's abilities when it may be Mother Nature's winter doldrums.
I would like to be scrupulously careful with the analysis we present to the world. There are a lot of people, highly professional manipulators (fact checkers, etc), and the smaller attack surface you give them the better. Exaggerating anything even by a small amount gets your claim written off for being inaccurate, even if the substance is correct.
As for coming after children and the general societal pushback we now desperately need, sure, I would be, metaphorically, on the streets of Rotterdam for that, were I younger, healthier and braver. I am not so do what I can with robust arguments that withstand critical scrutiny.
Very well said...thank you. I am unvaccinated as is my wife, two of our adult children are vaccinated and we are both reading everything we can to help our kids make it through what both of them now see as a bad decision. Correct information is critical. We are much more likely to be scrutinized than the bastards forcing this crap into our children.
Is there any treatment for vax injury?
There is nothing false about the chart.
Would like to like this multiple times
ClotShot Induced Immunity Collapse Syndrome
ADE (antibody dependent enhancement).
This was warned about by the many animal experiments, starting at the SARS I virus in 2003 (and on) The animals were generally WORSE off after 'vaccination'. They were never able to make a effective vaccine because of ADE.
Robert Malone, MD (maybe most responsible for mRNA vaccines) has warned about this.
It's why they are trying to get EVERYONE 'vaccinated'. This IMO is to REMOVE the 'control' group, making it more difficult to tell overall mortality of 'vaccinated' versus 'unvaccinated'
IOW, they KNEW this was likely (Big Pharma) and you can see their confidence because they won't distribute 'vaccine' unless the government COMPLETELY exonerates Big Pharma (in advance) of ANY responsibility.
Maybe that's why they recently acknowledged they want to 'seal' vaccine experiments (before release, and how the figures of 95% efficacy were obtained)
FOR THE NEXT 55 YEARS.
Actually, I didn't hear that they want the records sealed. They wanted something else, a disclosure rate of X pages per day that would end up keeping many docs unavailable for that long.
About the same thing as “sealed.”
Yeah, we didn't STEAL it we BORROWED it!
It won't even be acknowledged as a valid concern....
WINNER!
What explains the overall higher mortality in England?
Or, for that matter, in the US. Go to USmortality.com and look at the 25-44 and 45-64 age group mortality trend. These people are not dying from covid. What are they dying from?
Killing themselves as the prospect of living in this insanity aint worth it.
Suicide and drug overdose would top my list of culprits to start out. I don't know how it is in England.
I wondered about suicide or drug overdose as well but then the Indiana Life Insurance and Hospital information popped out.
Life Insurance wouldn't cover suicide.
And the hospital indicated their mortality rate uptick matched the Life Insurance uptick, so you have to think that the additional deaths are health related.
If overdose deaths were high at the hospital, one would think the hospital would jump on making that notification. Instead hospital indicated the deaths were for a variety of reasons and suggested state residents were simply in poor health.
Life insurance policies typically have a 2-year suicide clause which states the insurance won't pay if suicide within the first two years. Thereafter, they will pay the claim.
I have no idea why you think life insurance doesn't cover suicide.
Suicide generally requires a wait period before coverage begins
Fentanyl overdose deaths were recently released as being wildly record-breaking. No surprise, given the circumstances, sadly.
Heart issues too. As I lay in the hospital after an ablation I ponder not why, but when this awful sore throat going away. You know the one you get when the anesthesia dude basically breathes for you.
BTW 2 HOURS, TWO, 2 , 5-3, TO TOO ,2 HOURS before going down for procedures and inpatient 4, FOUR,4, four days, they advise me I must have a covid test! What?! In f Florida? In a red county 70/25? Yep and if positive? You're sent home immediately if not systematic! I was nervous and pissed, almost cleared up the afib. Anyhow I was a negative pureblood.
I should mention I prepaid after being admitted thru the ER. $ 495 per day for 3 days less 20%. After 3 days I'm card blanch, so get on with the testing!
Brand new private room, wifi, cable and free insulin. The begals are awesome!
Sounds a bit hyperbolic, BUT:
"Kyle Warner: Pro Mountain Biker Says He Knows 6 People Affected By Vaccine Injury Who Have Committed Suicide In The Past Month"
Source:
https://rupreparing.com/news/2021/11/20/kyle-warner-pro-mountain-biker-says-he-knows-6-people-affected-by-vaccine-injury-who-have-committed-suicide-in-the-past-month
Well the Pfizer trial showed 5 people with suicidal behaviour onset compared to 1 in the control group. I think I'm right in saying many suicidal tendencies show brain inflammation. So seems there's a physiological mechanism for this. Could be mountain bikers already have head trauma head start too where spike protein issues coalesce but that would need research and you'd also expect NFL players to be dropping if that latter thing was the case.
Constantly hearing of a rise in suicides…have we seen data?
Probably a mixture of vaccine adverse effects (which appear high enough to cause a small rise in mortality) and lockdowns. Unfortunately it is really hard to tease out the causes of small changes in mortality over long periods, much harder than seeing obvious spikes in mortality at the same time as covid waves.
For example. Vioxx was estimated to have brought forward some 100,000 deaths in the USA, and no one noticed.
Vioxx was over a period of what, 4 or 5 years? If you just look at all cause mortality in the groups I mentioned, we're talking 7-8k per week, some 60% above normal. And, it's been persistent for months.
I know it's a big country, but that's a big jump and as far as I can tell, there's been no explanation.
I agree. Sorry, I wasn't clear in that there is going to be a long, decades long, tail of lockdown deaths that won't be easy to attribute to lockdown (as the Vioxx deaths weren't easy to attribute to Vioxx). Even the shorter-term excess mortality is going to be broken down into hundreds of different causes of death, which makes it hard to point at one or three and say "lockdown" or "side effect".
In other words, lockdown and vaccine side effects are very likely responsible for at least some of that excess, but proving it is not easy.
Got it, yes.
To add to the confusion, as you probably are already aware, VAERS is showing such a bizarre, almost incredible, diversity of adverse events. Cardiovascular, neurological, auto-immune, etc, etc, etc. It's perfect for hiding the football.
Not really. The sudden cardiac and thrombolytic deaths in *young* people is easy to see. Heart attacks are common. Heart attacks in young adults is bizarre. Myocarditis in teens is bizarre. Huge upticks in exotic neurological disorders that were very rare, now suddenly not unusual. Miscarriages have dramatically increased. If you know what you're looking for, it's clear.
"Hiding the football". Lol that's good
Rules for me but not for thee? it appears that you are not heeding your own advice to exercise an overabundance of caution in interpreting causes of increased mortality. Thus, you conclude that "vaccine adverse effects appear high enough to cause a SMALL rise in mortality", while you attribute the rest of the increase to lockdowns. This is an altogether incautious conclusion given the probability of under-reporting of vaccine adverse events to VAERS. Amirite?
You can't conclude anything about vaccine-induced death from the all-cause mortality data Alex has presented.
You can definitely conclude from VAERS that the covid vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines to ever have been licensed for widespread use. This is why I do not support either mandates or widespread full-population vaccination. These products need to be used with more careful consideration of individual benefit/risk.
That said, as dangerous as they are, the vaccines are causing such a small proportion of overall mortality that it is difficult if not impossible to see that signal in any analysis of all-cause mortality.
Different sets of data, collected in different ways (overall mortality very reliable, VAERS, like all pharmacovigilance data very unreliable) help us to answer different questions.
"That said, as dangerous as they are, the vaccines are causing such a small proportion of overall mortality that it is difficult if not impossible to see that signal in any analysis of all-cause mortality."
How do you know this? How exactly do you know what these shots are doing to people? You have no idea. Nobody does. That is the whole point.
Definitely needs in depth investigation. Those age ranges are generally healthy,especially 25-44. Something is amiss.
What are the chances of higher mortalities across the uk, usa, almost other European countries happening in the same period wouldn’t happen, unless something links them
The damage done to the immune system would go a long way towards explaining it. If you are involved in sports that stress the cardiac system that seems to be a risk factor. And the people who die of heart attacks, strokes, and various immune disorders won't be classified as dying from the vaccine.
Viv, you said: "It's just that I work in clinical research and we come across all the time things like this that look like something but very often aren't when you dig deeper".
It would be helpful to know what area of "clinical research" you work in and what your role is in that area. Moreover, you have not actually "dug deeper" to provide any evidence to support your opinion that Alex is wrong. We are just supposed to accept that you are correct based on your claim to your own ill-defined experience and expertise.
You also said: "Those of us pushing back need to be scrupulously careful with data and the analysis thereof, the exact opposite of what the propagandists do".
In other words, you are advising Alex and other critical thinkers, to abide by a double standard whereby we hold ourselves to rigorously high ideals and proceed with an overabundance of caution while elected officials and government appointees and pharmaceutical CEOs basically get up day after day and fling handfuls of shit at the walls.
Let's be clear: Alex doesn't fling shit at the walls. His work is impeccably sourced and his interpretations are informed by a community of data analysts and research scientists whose work is well above the pay grade of those who are running the shit-show.
JP, I think this comment is unfair to Viv.
Her suspicion is there may be confounding, and I think she did provide evidence to support it. Deaths always skew older, and "vaccinations" (experimental injections) also skew older, so it's likely that the "vaccinated" bucket skews older, meaning more people toward age 59 than toward age 10; and the "unvaccinated" bucket skews younger, meaning more people toward age 10 than 59. Little evidence is required for this, it's basically common sense or facts that we all know to be likely to be true.
If the bucket composition is skewed in that way then you would expect more deaths in the older ("vaccinated") bucket, and it could be that the age skew is itself explanatory.
I agree with your concern, that our opponents have no scruples, and that we need to avoid fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs by fake ethical restrictions that they impose on us and ignore when it suits them. However, Alex has positioned himself as a calm, rational voice of reason in this debate and it is important to his brand that he take care not to exaggerate or draw unsupported conclusions.
The right thing to do here is seek disconfirming (or confirming) data. Maybe injected people really are dying at twice the rate. But it may also be the case that they are dying at 1.05X the rate and the rest of it is a false signal from the age skew. Inquiring minds want to know which!
.
Well, Abhijit, it looks like you and Viv are a team then. Some readers may appreciate your "concern" without appreciating that it has some overtones of concern-trolling;-)
We note that you claim to have deep respect for Berenson's exceptionally high standard of investigative journalism which, BTW, includes years at the New York Times where is reporting exposed profoundly inconvenient truths about the pharmaceutical industry and resulted in prison time for key culprits. Yet your commentary casts aspersions on his competence.
QUESTION: Do you think Berenson accomplished any of this without being fully cognizant of something as rudimentary as "confounding" variables in medical research? I'd wager the concept is somewhat less familiar to you.
So, please spare us the patronizing, undermining and doubt-sowing critique. Berenson doesn't need any of us to tell him how to do his job. Nor does he need advice about preserving his "brand", which is not just another lacklustre "calm, rational voice of reason". The man is a damn MAVERICK who thoroughly knows his shit. If that's not what you're looking for, maybe it's time to find a different hero.
.
The entire reason I am here looking at the data and whether it supports the claim is my respect for Berenson and his commitment to honest and incisive exposure of what is going on!
Do I think he gets everything right? No more than I think I get everything right!
If you've read the thread you will see a couple of places where I invite challenge to my arguments. That is how we do science. Playing the man - that's what the corona fascists and tyrants do. Let's not play that game because they will drag us down to their level and beat us with experience.
JP you are still missing the point. You're assuming bad faith, going full ad hominem, and not understanding that this analysis is technically flawed and needs refinement. Berenson is a journalist, not a mathematician. We are here to help him.
I disagree. @Viv has presented her comments very clearly and respectfully. They are valid. The skewed age may be representing a larger part of the effect than the vaccines. Berenson, like many of us jumped the gun on this one. We are all a bit eager. This is how science works.
Disagree. Just a few posts above, I made what I think a valid point, a flaw in one his recent articles. You can examine my argument for yourself, if you like. What's relevant here is that Berenson is most certainly a high-quality journalist. However, that doesn't exempt him from being human and thus making the occasional mistake. To be a successful critical thinker, you MUST always keep doubt in your arsenal. Traditional science takes nothing for granted, everything is, or at least should be, subject to question and verification.
JP, what matters is the truth, not what team you are on. I apprfeciate VIv's warning re age bias. I don't focus on this exclusively. I appreciate being reminded. However, I am sure I have seen the analysis broken down into narrower age groups, while still concluding that the vax correlates with death. It would be good to keep the more detailed breakdown on hand for people whose conclusions follow the data.
The skew could go the other way. Some believe the unvaxxed are healthier and younger, having decided the risk isn't worthwhile, while vaxxed are older, fatter, lazier, etc, relying on pharma to save them. Others believe the vaxxed are healthier and "taking better care of themselves," while the unvaxxed are older and too frail go vax, or out on the fringes of medical care to access vax, as Eugipius (also on substack) believes. A case could be made either way, the data is purposely murky. I didn't see Viv's comment, but I agree that we form hypotheses and get surprising, counterintuitive results in many disciplines, mine included.
Totally. I think the basic takeaway is we should understand the data deeply enough to draw correct conclusions. (Rather than something that at some level we all want to be true because we cling to the belief that a smoking gun will hasten the end of this nightmare.)
A proper comparison - which I have yet to see - is per capita deaths by age group, side by side for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That should be the smoking gun which would inform us. Good luck compiling that from the excel spreadsheet. If Alex - or anyone else - has actually done that , please show us the side-by-side comparis
on.
An update:
A person on this UT blog (or possibly on another platform) mentioned Dr. Norman Fenton. In a video he posted on November 17th, he does the age-group by age-group side by side analysis that I mentioned above on the recent British data. The 10 to 59 age group is too broad to do a proper statistical analysis, but his analysis of the older cohorts may be of use to some of the readers of this blog.
Dr. Fenton does an excellent job of explaining the confounding effects of age on the underlying vaccinated/unvaccinated data, and his graphs and charts very much help. I thank the person who first posted about Norman Fenton. I found his recent you tube videos especially informative.
Thanks for mentioning this! I hadn't heard of this and went and watched. Dr Fenton's explanations of how you can easily misinterpret data is fantastic!
For your convenience, here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umArFc-fdc&ab_channel=NormanFenton
A worthwhile read for me was "How to cheat at statistics"(1954)
Marvelous vocabulary paired with simple sentence construction. (How times have changed!) Refresher course mostly, but the final chapter came as somewhat of a shock. Issues then vs issues today, more similar then I would have thought. AMZN carries it I think, if you wish to electronically turn a page or two to check it out.
I agree. Mr. Fenton is best I've seen at explaining stat concepts.
Yes, I'm advising anyone who wants to push back on this madness to hold themselves and the arguments we make to a higher standard than the charlatans forcing this stuff on us.
I am not making any claim based on my experience and expertise, but on the indisputable fact that older people are more likely to die in the next N days/weeks/years than younger people. I'm not even claiming for certain that the skew is responsible, only that it is a very likely explanation, other analyses of covid and vaccines have fallen afoul of exactly the same phenomenon (particularly vaccine efficacy), so we should take care to rule it out before claiming this shows vaccine kills, or some such.
From the CDC life table you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Excerpt_from_CDC_2003_Table_1.pdf
you can easily calculate that the probability of a 59 year-old dying in the next year is 75 times the probability of a 10 year-old dying in the next year.
A 75-fold difference in general, normal mortality risk between the top and bottom of the age range is huge.
I respect your well reasoned arguments. I also agree that the best way to beat back against these tyrannical charlatans is with good data analysis. The one thing I will say as far as defending alex, is that he simply presents the data, and gives somewhat of his opinion on what he finds. I would encourage you personally to parse the data yourself, since you have experience in this type of thing, and present it here. I honestly would be interested in what conclusion you come to.
No you misunderstood. We're talking about mathematics which is objective. It doesn't matter if he is a researcher or not. That's not relevant. The problem is the average age in the 10-59 vaccinated category is definitely higher than the average age in the 10-59 unvaccinated category, so you would expect the mortality rate in the first category to be higher than the first (excluding vax causes) because the average age is higher. Your odds of dying increase as you age. So this needs more careful analysis to compare the same average age person who is vaxed versus unvaxed. In my opinion the factor of 2 difference is very high and indicates the vax is increasing mortality but this needs deeper investigation because the age distribution in that category between vax versus unvaxed is very different.
Didn't Alex say this data was compared by age buckets, group for group, not everyone between the ages of 10-60 together?
And besides, some of the vax injuries I've seen are worse than COVID, and arguably worse than death. This broad statistic is only hinting at the tip of the iceberg of the actual horror show that is happening right now.
You can just click on the link and check the data yourself. That's what I did. I downloaded the spreadheet from ons.gov.uk. They put 10-59 in a single age bracket. So it's not a straightforward comparison as the age distribution is quite different within that large bracket.
Here you can see in Section 1 the vaccination rate by age group shows younger people have much lower vaccination rates, therefore it skews the 10-59 unvaxed category to a lower average age. Because of that difference in age distribution we need to compare all-cause mortality in vaxed versus unvaxed for those smaller age brackets instead of the larger bracket 10-59. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/COVID-19-monthly-announced-vaccinations-11-November-2021.xlsx
Partly disagree. I admire what Alex does, and am a paying supporter. But he's not exempt for sensationalism at times. In his recent scandal piece about Pfizer admitting to a couple more deaths in their study, I pointed out that while this did seem an oversight, by my calculations the reported deaths in both cohorts (vaxxed and control) were still far less than what normal expected deaths would be. There may have been flaws, perhaps even deliberate fraud, in the study, but to make much of what might be a ten percent difference against normally expected all-cause deaths is pretty close to irresponsible journalism, in my opinion.
I have not looked at this one, but the additional deaths were probably simply from a later data cut. In such a huge trial there will always be additional deaths not in the first analysis. So as long as they keep watching the patients that number can of course only go up.
You’re thinking too much. Just take the table for what it is and compare it to the lies we’re fed on a daily basis from authorities and media.
I’ll do a basic KISS (keep it simple stupid) analysis for everyone.
By and large people under 60 shouldn’t die. If they do it’s usually very surprising and “they died too young” they say.
This graph evaluates death rates for people between 10-60, which is the vast majority of the learning and working world.
Given vaccine mandates, firings, forcing jabs into children, follow up boosters, etc, it is reasonable to expect we SHOULD be seeing data that shows the death rate of vaccinated 10-59 year olds is practically non-existent and death rates of 10-59 year olds should be astronomically worrisome. Thus anyone who looks at the graph would say “holy bleep, if you haven’t gotten the vaccine you are insane.”
However it’s not showing anything close to that. Quite the opposite actually. Do 50-59 vaccinated people dying skew it a little bit? Sure, probably so. Even so if the lines were adjusted to be identical to each other, what do we take from that then? That your chances of dying of any cause are pretty much the same, vaccinated or not? Ok then why am I losing my job over this?
If you don’t look at it from assessing whether or not the vaccines are killing people, then it makes plenty of sense and is completely usable data in any argument.
At extremes you could take the data and argue vaccines are killing people at a higher rate than unvaccinated people are dying.
At the bare minimum baseline you could take the data and argue (without a solid rebuttal) that the vaccines don’t do shit to protect most of the under 60 population from dying (sure it can protect you from dying from “Covid”, but you’ll just die of something different then). Fantastic.
Yes, there is something to see here.
hear! hear! People are dropping like flies. An old neighbor of mine (in her 70's) told me a few weeks before she suddenly dropped dead that her health was fine. She had been vaxed. I have been unable to find out if she got the booster before she died. The one person who knows won't tell me. I assume because she knows my views about vaccines.
4th grader at my kids school went to ER with chest pains 2 days after getting the vaccine. 8th grader in our city died in his sleep of brain hemorrhages.
Holy shit! I am so sorry this is happening! Parents must start screaming.
I am putting what you said on Twitter
To be fair I don’t know if the 8th grader had the vaccine or not. I don’t know them at all. I do know 8th graders don’t die in their sleep very often though.
it would seem that if she knows your views on vaccines and she won't tell you - you know what the answer would be already.... if she had NOT had the booster, that person would have told you right away... at least that's what logic tells me.
I found out she died of a heart attack, confirming my suspicions, but she did not have a third shot.
Hmm... well that was not what I expected... thanks for the update.
The other day I found out she died of a heart attack which is consistent with vax adverse effects.
I disagree. I think we are pretty certain that the vaccine is dangerous, and I think we can prove it. But this graph does not prove anything about the danger of the vaccine. 90% of this is a function of the age distribution in the two populations. If there is a vaccine death signal it's much smaller than 2x.
A much better example of a proof is here:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-from-germany-confirms-higher
That study shows a correlation between full population all cause mortality and vaccination rate. That is a very clear signal that something is wrong, and I don't see any statistical problems.
Yeah, I mean, that's the buried lede, isn't it? We're looking at death rates of 2 per 100k. The black death, this is not.
Looking at total deaths is a completely flawed way to look at the data. People that have preexisting conditions are more likely to get vaccinated and are more likely to die of other things like heart disease, diabetes, etc... You need to look at covid19 deaths which table 6 shows are 9x for the unvaxxed. If you were looking at how effective seat belts were would you look at car accident deaths? Or would you look at total deaths across the board. The vaccine protects against covid19, so look at covid19 deaths. Not too difficult.
The reason for doing all cause is to account for fallout from vaccine side effects. A better analysis of this data shows precisely no benefit because the lives saved from C19 are balanced out by other deaths, presumably side effects.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/uk-data-shows-no-all-cause-mortality
"Not too difficult".
Obnoxious.
All cause mortality is the only non-flawed way to look at the data, because going off of "covid deaths" is utterly dependent on how you define 'covid death'. In order to be able to write something so silly, you must be completely unaware of all the problems in that space.
Second, you are just asserting without evidence that people with preexisting conditions are more likely to get vaccinated. Is that true? Who knows, because your evidence for this in non-existent. Did you get vaccinated? Do you have a preexisting condition? The people I know who got vaccinated are uninformed mostly neurotics. If you consider that a pre-existing condition, then maybe I'll agree with you.
Finally, if the shots are giving people heart attacks, which certainly appears to be the case, they will only show up in all cause mortality. So will deaths like car accidents caused by people passing out behind the wheel.
Your car analogy is just pathetic question begging. You invented an analogy that fits your conclusion. The problem is, it doesn't fit the question.
If the world this seems simplistic to you, consider the possibility you're a simpleton.
Another support of my claim that those with pre-existing conditions and other issues were the first to be vaccinated is evident in the data. Why do you think the rate of total deaths among the vaccinated started off high and has been dropping since? That's because, (YOU GUESSED IT), as time went on healthier and younger people were gettng vaccinated more. Ask any reliable statistician and they will tell you looking at total deaths in this time period is just a trick to make people that have no analytical knowledge (such as yourelf) to believe garbage.
"No analytical knowledge".
And, in your other comment, you claim ad hominem, lmao.
You didn't claim people with pre-existing conditions were the first to be vaccinated. You claimed they are "more likely to be vaccinated".
Curious...have you heard of vaccine mandates? Do they only apply to those with pre-existing conditions?
I note you didn't answer my previous question. Did you get vaccinated? Do you have co-morbidities?
"ask any statistician".
Is this a "no true Scotsman" gambit? Because there are plenty of statisticians on record saying all cause mortality is the correct way to measure vaccine impact, all up.
You are aware that all cause mortality was greater in the Pfizer vaccine trial cohort than the placebo, right?
Tommy, if you like we can go over the data together. This is a classic ad hominem attack. I suppose your anecdotal evidence is what actually matters right? You have to compare apples to apples. You can't lump ages 10-59 y/o over a span of time when only older people and the immunocompromised were allowed to get the vaccine in the beginning of the timeline. You know this to be a fact. I suppose covid deaths are inaccurate but all other deaths aren't? My how that fits with your belief. But then again, I'm just a simpleton :-)
I agree that 10-59 is a bad way to lump data. I also find Alex's post likely suffers from Simpson's Paradox.
What I disagree with is the assertion that all-cause mortality is a flawed measurement because it isn't. "Covid-19" deaths is flawed measurement for all kinds of reason.
The UK is 80% Fully Vaxxed 12yo & Up, and 25% have had a Booster jab. It seems Mortality follows the Jabs; the higher the JAB rate , the higher the All-Cause Death rate. No one anywhere in the MSM and Politics , or Establishment Medicine will confirm the obvious. Not even when young kids start dropping. There is now an ad campaign to "normalize" strokes and heart inflammation in Kids. "Kids get Strokes too" The Kool-Aid drinkers will lap it up.
Hard to believe parents will buy that, but, then again, I saw them rushing to a vaccination center (in Chicago where I live) to get their little ones jabbed.
Sad, beyond sad.
I find it infuriating, not sad.
Yes, I saw (or rather heard) the ad, "you are never too young to have a heart attack". The "Powers that Be", know EXACTLY what is going on. They perceive more advantage in the power they are now accumulating, than what the truth will eventually reveal.
Their CONFIDENCE is what is MOST disturbing- what power do they foresee to gain to counter this DELIBERATE MURDER of people?
Chinese Communism + Big Tech + Big Pharma + corrupt US election equals WHAT?
A new DARK AGE?
My reaction to that was totally, "Kids get strokes, too"??? Since when? This is the stuff that will be fun to look back at 20 years from now and see how many strokes and heart attacks in <20 yo and compare vaxxed vs. unvaxxed. We'll finally have definitive data, way too late to save anybody.
True. Did you see that the FDA asked the court for 55 years to release all the Pfizer data ?
You should watch this interview. Elsevier censored data that shows myocarditis risk from vaccination is much greater than we've been told by CDC and FDA. DR. McCullough is suing Elsevier. https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/11/19/dr-peter-mccullough-sues-medical-journal-for-refusing-to-publish-study-highlighting-risks-of-covid-19-vaccine-in-children/
I asked the same question about age distribution. This article addresses that and visually shows age distribution and timing. I think it is a correlation with the timing of when each age group was permitted to get the vaccine. https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/04/are-vaccines-driving-excess-deaths-in-scotland-a-professor-of-biology-asks/
Great article. Thank you!
Yes, good point. I always try to think of all the possible explanations for a particular data set and the age issue is probably central in these numbers.
These charts (and the high all-cause mortality happening in highly-vaccinated countries) raise important questions that are not being asked except by a few de-platformed journalists.
Very likely nothing to see here. Vax rated for 50-59 is ~88%, while 18-29 is ~56%. Throw in the few million 10-17 year olds in the denominator of the unvaxxed and that likely explains the entire difference.
None of what you say explains what is happening on the right side of the graph.
The closer you look the more it explains. Why is the vaccinated death rate highest just after vaccines start rolling into the 10-59 age group? One possibility is "vaccines killing people", but you would expect to see that peak sustained for longer if true. The other possibility is "start with 59 year olds, then 58 year olds, etc". Which explains the peak as vaccination starts and the decline (in the vaccinated group) thereafter, and even more marked decline in the unvaccinated group as older unvaccinated people move into the vaccinated group.
As ever, I'd be happy to see data (in this case better stratified data) that defeats this argument.
I FREELY admit I am like a five year old when it comes to statistics and data analysis. I just don’t see why there is such a large difference between the group toward the end. It would be helpful to see the same data broken out in age bands. Thank you though for your discussion points.
Caution! Made up numbers below!
Let's say at the end of the series the average age in the vaccinated group is 50 and 99% of people in that group are over 30, and the average age in the unvaccinated group is 15, and that 99% of people in that group are under 30.
Which group is going to have the higher death rate?
You see, even though they are labelled "10-59" so the same age range, the two different populations within that group are very different in ways that are important to what we are measuring (how many of them die).
Exactly. That is why it would be so helpful to have this same data broken out in tight age cohorts.
It's a well known phenomenon called Simpson's Paradox in statistics. There are good explanations all over the web, but this talk by a statistics professor is specifically about the UK data in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umArFc-fdc
This was very informative. Thank you for the link.
Ok, so I went back to the raw data. Unfortunately it does not break down the age groups preventing us from blocking for age. It literally indicates "10-59". Also previous versions of the database do not go back further than Jan 2021.
Essentially the way this data is provided by the government, prevents any meaningful analysis. It is impossible to tease out the effects of age and vaccination.
This data is entirely consistent with the possible scenario that the vaccines were so effective prior to April that they actually over-powered the age effect, and after April the effect wore off and the death rates regressed to the normal for these (skewed age) groups, 2:1.
Yes, that's the problem.
Have you looked at Table 2? It has a different take on the data, which isn't necessarily more useful: age-standardized mortality for the population as a whole. Take a look at the rates for partially vaxed in May (week 18-21). This was a period where the vax was rolling out for 30-50 age. So you know those columns are in those age groups. The mortality for those weeks was very high compared with unvax
(for rollout see figure 1, page 9
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018416/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_37_v2.pdf )
Esp with C19 being in remission at that time, it's hard to argue this isn't directly caused by the vax.
Yes, I think table 2 is a more informative set of data.
(Also I'm delighted to see your thoughtful response resonating with so many people on here!)
Viv. Question. Wouldn’t the underlying death rate at the top of the group be higher for both groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated), thereby keeping the comparison of the two valid?
I 100% agree with the point of your post. I don’t us to rush to judgment. The argument must be airtight. But this graph is devastating. ACM is hard to fudge.
Yes. But what is going on is the distribution of people at risk of age-related death is different between the two groups. The unvaccinated group is now overwhelmingly younger people, relative to the vaccinated group.
Also the distribution of age between the groups changed over time (at the beginning almost no one in the vaccinated group, at the end probably >60% of people in the vaccinated group, and in between people moving from unvaccinated to vaccinated _by the oldest first_)
If you haven't seen it, look for Professor Fenton's Nov 18th youtube video "Analysing Covid Vaccine efficient and safety statistics". He breaks a lot of this down and finds a lot of *very* strange things in the data. Highly recommend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umArFc-fdc&ab_channel=NormanFenton
Thanks for your analysis Viv. The obvious question is why aren't they releasing sufficient data that does allow 'apples to apples' comparison?
The "very strange things in the data" probably are that they are going to great pains, so it appears, to obfuscate, change definitions or methodology mid-stream, or simply withhold data. The question remains "Why?"
Bingo. Instead of them classifying the data into vax/unvaxxed/etc for us, just release for each recorded death their date of birth, date of death, date of 1st shot (or n/a), date of 2nd shot (or n/a).
I am not sure there would be a significantly uneven distribution of injection rates in the 40-59 age band. You mention a 10 year old child but that is not relevant here. People in their 40s and 50s are in the autumn and early winter of professional working life.
The UK has been notorious at terrorising people about sars-cov2 (it is official government policy to "scare" people according to an infamous document dating from March 2020), the media there is uniformly and relentlessly on-message and the coercion is oppressive. If someone wanted to resist, they would be more able to do so if they are older and more likely to own their home and have some money saved. Someone in their 40s would be far more vulnerable to coercion. So an uneven distribution may actually show people in their late 50s less likely to have accepted the injections.
The fact therefore remains that people in that - admittedly broad - age band have a distinct difference in the death rate as to whether they are injected or not. Double. That is a big difference.
The "inflexion" point, where the curves cross, is interesting because around that date, the proportion of the population with 1 dose crossed the 50% mark, while the 2nd dose was around 20%.
If these injections (please forgive my insistence on precise language - a spade is a spade etc) are not the cause for this large disparity, then what else can explain this?
If the same data is analysed with different variables - say, smoking or obesity - it is likely that a difference will be found, but I am fairly certain it will not be "double". That is a huge disparity. Can anyone think of any other factor that opens up a "double" difference within this age band?
Where do you see data on 40-59? Table 4 has only 10-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80+.
That's really the crux of the problem. If they had it for 10 year groups it would be possible to do a comparison for a group that's not heavily vaccinated and get some more reliable numbers. Or if they age-standardized the mortality rates. Table 2 has age-standardized rates for the full population, which is more promising. But shows the *opposite* result if you compare post dose 2 with unvax. The partial vax data looks pretty bad but I have not had a chance to try to analyze that in detail.
ok. My mistake. I actually thought this was all about 40-59 not 10-59
Not sure how I mis-read 10 as 40
Maybe it has to do with the Beaujoloais Nouveau that came out on Thursday (I am in France).
I agree the age band 10-59 is huge and needs sub-dividing. As an earlier commentator said: this is worth investigating further.
No worries... the Beaujolais sounds like one of the few bright spots these days.
BTW, I was just trying to create an analysis of the Table 2 data that is age-standardized and the results are interesting.
What it showed was from weeks 8-15 the vaccinated category was showing initially much lower mortality, to weeks 16-24 where the mortality in the vaccine group rose *above* that of the unvax group. Not 2x but substantially higher - around 10/100K on a weekly basis. Then weeks 25-38 the vaccine group again showed an advantage. This data seems to comport with registered "covid 19 deaths", which would suggest the protective effect of the vaccine; but also shows a higher death rate for the vaccine group in the absence of a C19 outbreak.
There is also very clearly an increased mortality rate in the partially vaccinated category, in the period of time when there is no ongoing outbreak, which would seem to clearly indicate hazards with the vaccine itself.
The problem with this dataset remains - it is over the full population. The argument against mass vaccination is that the risk for young people outweighs the benefit for them, and does not protect old people (due to ability to still transmit). But a full population metric will not make that distinction.
(And of course the real reason these numbers exist is that early treatment is not being done, making the disease appear much more deadly..)
If the chart included people 10-79, you could make that argument. But 59 is a relatively young age - people don’t generally drop dead at age 59. Also deaths of all causes are higher than they were historically, which makes your argument fall flat on its face. The gist of your argument is that the division of people into “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” groups in this chart is no different than dividing them into unhealthy and healthy. If this is the case, then why are more people dying overall? Unless people have somehow become much more unhealthy in the last 2 years? I’m sure bacon and eggs are to blame, as a recent newspaper article cover suggests.
Look at the life table I link below.
Death rate among 59 year-olds is 75 times that of 10 year-olds. Incredible but true.
I don't find that incredible :)
Those who reach the age of 59 have had ample time to do all kinds of permanent, cumulative, damage to their bodies!
The biological processes of aging alone fits the bill, which is precisely why all known forms of life are mortal.
Is it possible that people who choose not to take vaccinations are just healthier people in general? A comparison of total non Covid deaths, from 2020 on, would be interesting to track, alongside this. We're just comparing death rates by vaccination status, but I really want to see if more people are just dying generally.
100% James. Look at table 6, it shows that there are 34k unvaccinated COVID deaths ad 4k vaccinated. The graph here is misleading because it's counting total deaths. Sicker, unhealthier, and older people are more likely to be vaccinated so using total deaths is a bad metric. Look at COVID19 deaths and it's much clearer.
Yes, do look at those deaths in table 6.
"Table 6: Comparison of deaths by vaccination status included in the Public Health Data Asset (PHDA) and the full mortality dataset, age 10+, England, deaths occurring between 2 January and 24 September"
The majority of the population wasn't vaccinated for the majority of that time.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
You can't have it both ways. The total deaths are higher for vaccinated people, but covid deaths are 9x less. So your "majority of the population wasn't vaccinated for the majority of the time" doesn't hold up.
Pages 14 & 15...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034383/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-46.pdf
Inside the wire. Caught. Sad.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/uk-data-shows-no-all-cause-mortality
Also 50% of the UK had at least one shot by April. Fully by July. ;-)
Well, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that one shot is not protective...according to the "public health experts". In fact, people are not considered "fully vaxxed" until at least 14 days past the second dose.
Page 15...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034383/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-46.pdf
You could make the argument that the unvaxxed are healthier or that they are less healthy and unable to take the jabs. I've heard people make both arguments to support or refute data they don't like.
Like a number of countries, England is reporting excess deaths that cannot be attributed to C19 infection. Are they a result of vaxx injury or missed care or despair or all of the above?
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00NDk2LWFlMTAtOTg0OGNhNmFiNGM0IiwidCI6ImVlNGUxNDk5LTRhMzUtNGIyZS1hZDQ3LTVmM2NmOWRlODY2NiIsImMiOjh9
From Mathew Crawford...
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/uk-data-shows-no-all-cause-mortality
Agreed. Scrupulously careful is exactly what we need to be. I think Alex is doing great work, but he might consider hiring someone who is trained in data analysis to kick the tires on things like this so as not to risk discrediting the work in general.
Perhaps we first should establish that the data he posted is wrong before we allege that Alex has discredited himself.
I didn't mean to allege that - sorry. I believe that the data he posted is absolutely correct. But to assume it must be from vaccinations is a leap. It might be, but it might be much more complicated than that. At first glance - especially if you believe (as I do) that the push to vaccinate is wrong headed and stupid at best and evil at worst - it seems to say that vaccinations MUST be the reason. But we can't know without a deeper investigation. (Why that isn't being done transparently by our public institutions is deeply troubling.)
"The unvaccinated are literally murdering the vaccinated!!!"
Well, now you know why they want to seal the Pfizer test results for 55 years.
[added]You also know why they want everyone vaccinated. you can't draw that blue line if you do. You then can blame Covid for the higher deathrate.
Vaxxes are like timeshares. Buy the hype, regret for life.
https://markoshinskie8de.substack.com/p/vaxx-promoters-resemble-timeshare
I once vacationed with a companion who bought two (two!) different timeshares in a period of a few days. Fortunately, I had no financial or emotional obigations to said person. 😂
😅😅😅
"You then can blame (the expert ) Covid ( response ) for the higher deathrate."
Exactly!
"Dying of covid" can mean whatever the hoax pushers want it to mean. All cause mortality tells the tale accurately, since the vaxx kills via several different methods.
Except they may release something to target the unvaxxed and only the unvaxxed
I doubt that "they" would be willing now to release some kind of new, engineered virus when only the idea of a virus was released to start with.
Real pandemics aren't controllable the way a phony pandemic is. An actual killer plague virus might just spread to the people who hope to gain from a pandemic. These bogus vaccines aren't intended to protect anyone from anything, apparently, so the vaxxed subjects would probably be the first to die in an actual pandemic.
I think that if whoever started this whole fake pandemic panic actually had a way of creating a virus that would selectively kill people who hadn't been vaccinated, then it would have been released already.
The UK is 88% Partial & 80% Fully Vaxxed 12yo & Up, and 25% have had a Booster jab. The last 10% of unvaccinated are not going down without a Fight!
But aren't the English using AZ? I thought that is not mRNA. So ALL the jabs are equally poisonous !
All make the SPIKE !
The spike was a poor choice. Also AZ/J&J are DNA which makes mRNA which make the spike. After it makes mRNA it is very similar to the other vaccines. But the problems appear to come from the Spike. I would just like to know how different the spike is from the spike while on the virus. I mean it can go places the full virus can't for one.
I also believe they used a mix of vaccines like in the US. Pfizer, Moderna, and AZ.
I personally think it’s how and when the body sees the spike protein. When we get sick (any virus) our body sends signals to eliminate the virus AND to protect ourselves from that inflammatory response (anyone who has an auto immune disease knows how devastating our inflammatory response/system is). With these mRNA/DNA vaccines, the “protective response “ never happens because the “vaccine” never triggers this; it only triggers the inflammatory response (and obviously not completely) & formation of the spike protein. Therefore, the spike can do a lot of damage without the cellular protective mechanisms in place (vascular damage, clots, auto immune reactions, cell death). In my opinion, if you’re lucky that the majority of the vaccine stays in the fat/skin then you likely won’t develop the severe effects but if it gets in the muscle (very vascular) or heaven forbid in a blood vessel, then…
Good points. More: at least for the mRNA products, the "wrapper" is an artificial molecule. The mRNA protected inside is partially artificial. One of the RNA "letters" is a synthetic analogue of the natural, I think, to delay breakdown by the body. Who knows what adjuvants are used? They are often trade secrets. Finally, NONE of this stuff has any proofs of long-term or I suspect, even mid-term safety. They simply don't know, they can't possibly know, what if any long-term harms these may cause to the patient.
One of the worst toxins used in the vaccines is polyethylene glycol, used for the first time in vaccines, and this is what kills those people with cardiovascular collapse after the first shot, and gives some people anaphylaxis.
Slight correction, unless you are a medical researcher - my understanding is that the mRNA shot is into the muscle, where most of the antibody response is triggered, but in a few cases it gets into the bloodstream, causing the spike protein to be expressed in places, and on cell types, where the immune response can do much more damage.
It goes into the lymphatic system and then in lesser amounts, into spleen, liver, lung and even cerebral spinal fluid. From what I know every first year med student knows intra muscular shots are dispersed around the body because of the rich vascularization of the muscle tissue. They knew all along the mRNA/DNA could end up all over your body. They just didn't want to talk it up.
There is another vax called Novavax which is apparently an attenuated or killed multivalent vax like the traditional flu vax. So this agent, if its approved , might solve a lot of these problems.
That traditional type of vaccine has never been successful for coronaviruses.
Exactly!!
Actually no, it uses a lab-grown spike protein. What you may be thinking of is the Valneva vaccine, which is a whole virus, inactivated, adjuvanted vaccine candidate in clinical trials.
I thought the novavax was more like the current influenza vax. But thanks i will catch up on the current trials. I would not be averse to considering taking a whole attenuated virus vax. Im a doc in NJ USA. Ive taken hepatitis and the shingles booster. I havent gotten a flu shot in along time but as i get older (im 53 now) i will consider it. I had full blown influenza in med school when i was 23 years old and i missed three weeks of classes . I was miserable. And i am a very fit trim individual. I had covid in aug 21 and it wasnt nearly as bad for me as influenza was 30 years ago
I hear you on that one. I'm considerably older than you are, now well into Medicare age. In the early1980's I had a truly terrible flu that had me convinced for days that I was dying. After that I got flu shots religiously, until finally having a bad reaction to one. Haven't had a flu shot in 30 years now, nor the flu. Also agree about Covid. My husband and I both came down with it way back in the beginning, March 2020, and it was NOTHING. Slightly drippy sinuses, and 3 days of bad nausea, then it was over. I'm convinced the vitamins, minerals, and other supplements we take on a regular basis had a lot to do with the outcome. Also agree that if there comes a time when vaxing cannot be avoided (i.e absolutely no life otherwise), the only type I would even consider is the whole-virus variety. That's the reason I'm following Valneva so closely. Unfortunately it's availability in this country appears to be quite a ways in the future.
It's my understanding that Valneva is made from specimens of the earlier SARS virus, the one that never produced the pandemic that the vaccine makers hoped to stop in its tracks. It isn't made with "covid19 virus" since that one isn't available for study, mainly because it is imaginary. As we may remember, the earlier SARS virus stopped itself by mutation as almost every pathogenic virus does.
Don’t believe there is an isolated Covid 19 Virus.
SARS 2 maybe but have not seen anywhere that they are isolating the SARS 2 from any of the dead.
Logic and Critical thinking here …why not?
Novavax still pumps the spike proteins into you. No thanks. Plus it makes heavy use of fetal cells. To hell with Novavax
I'm hoping that an 80s pop guitarist will release one called Aldonovavax, but that's probably just a fantasy, can you live this fantasy life? 😎
Agree! It is a “traditional” in that it has the spike protein (lab created) attached to an adjuvant which stimulates a more complete immune response, similar to hepatitis A and B vaccines
But it still has MRNA and full spike. The full spike as the most recent study shows us is the big issue. As long as the full spike and MRNA is being introduced it seems all bets are likely off.
The Novavax does not have the mRNA, but does have the spike
Mifly,
You first, Big Pharma hack
I am in a completely private medical practice and have no ties or conflicts of interest to any pharma companies. Some vaccines make sense for some people. The having an influenza vaccine or even a covid19 vaccine might make sense for some people in certain limited circumstances. Not all vaccines and vaccine makers are inherently bad or evil. If the United states never adopted the constitution and we still operated under the articles of confederation like we should have, we might have a loose affiliation of independent societies with no incomes taxes no property taxes and a robust free market. The overall wealth and health of the population would be far greater . THere would still be vaccines but they would be so much better and safer because free market forces would have produced them instead of this vicious soul crushing fascist system we live under now.
They made the spike in the vax to last a lot longer than the spike in the virus. They also made it more efficient, i.e. to produce more spike than the virus mRNA. AndI think it also does not "fold" i.e. it stays on the surface of cells.
This is a really good article about it: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/.
And the explanation continues here: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/part-2-reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/
As I understand it, they've wrapped the spikes in nano-lipids, which slide them into tiny places they otherwise couldn't access.
The spike from the vaccines can end up anywhere the viral one does.
In Europe Pfizer is used too in places. But yes, whether mRNA or DNA they all make the spike and use lipids to coat the mRNA and DNA so the stuff can get everywhere.
Yes, my parents had Pfizer. Some of my family had AZ. They are in Belgium. I had the wrong idea that the UK had used mainly AZ. I think very little Belgians had J&J, and I have no idea if they even use Moderna. Same crap!
U.K. uses Pfizer and Astra Zeneca. I think Moderna too.
I was talking to my old man about all this yesterday. Our family is funny and he’s actually a very smart person but my Lord if he and I haven’t been individually all over the place about all this. He was rightfully calling out problems with the data very early on and was anti-lockdown, anti-mask. I bought the “we gotta crush the curve” horse-doodoo and wore the diaper and stayed home. He’s jabbed. I’m not. Likely the age difference being the biggest factor. But he’s largely been on top of all the really news since the beginning but somehow hadn’t heard about the ask to withhold the Pfizer data for 55 years.
“What? Why do that?!”
“Because best case the shots do nothing and worst case they’re actually hurting people.”
“And everyone responsible is dead and can’t be held accountable in 55 years.”
“Bingo.”
The point is, the request to seal the data is a very useful red pill now for those who got the shots who have not had adverse events and who trust companies rather than governments. Spread it far and wide. It’s an anti-jab conversion generator.
every time a leftist uses "literally" they mean "this does not happen"
that's literally not true!
Really???
And yet nobody says a word in the medical field for fear of being fired/cancelled. Have you ever seen such weak and cowardly humans than these doctors/nurses. Grateful for the few that are stepping up and speaking out but you see whats happening to them. It would have to be a high percentage of these people - like 50% to stand together. They wouldnt be able to operate any medical facility’s if they all did the right thing. But they wont because again…theyre cowards.
The group that did early on, started with 100 Belgian doctors, was blocked from every possible website. Geert Vanden Bosch is blocked from every forum, no one listens to him, they keep on going with that nitwit who parrots the government. Dr Tozzi is being blocked in Canada. The world is gone mad.
I just watched an interview with Geert Vanden Bosch the other day. His interview starts around the 45 minute mark. https://thehighwire.com/watch/
I no longer watch any mainstream media, political to medical, it's all the same propaganda. Independent journalism on Substack is the best.
The best interview with Geert Vanden Bosch, must watch.
It's NOT going 'mad'. It's just that you don't know WHO the people are that are benefiting from this 'situation'
"Covid-19 and the global predators: We are the prey" by Peter Breggin MD has opened my eyes (hyperbole alert!)
I think this is a VERY important book.
Just as what happened with the “mainstream media,” I doubt “mainstream medicine” will ever recover.
Maybe that’s a good thing…mainstream anything is just “one size fits all” socialist garbage!
Fauci has had a BIG effect on 'medicine' in the US (and elsewhere!) He has presided over the entire downfall of US medicine.
I'm (also) reading, "the REAL Anthony Fauci" by Robert F. Kennedy.
FASCINATING.
And VERY disturbing-that someone like this EXISTS and has such a high station in the US.
A PREDATOR.
Unfortunately everything is tied to $$$ and if you speak out or go against the narrative, there goes your funding and license and reputation.
Again - cowards. What would these hospitals do without 50% of their staff. They wouldnt need funding.
Overall deaths are higher in the US, too.
Look at USMortality.com and the trends in deaths for the age 25-44 and 45-64 age groups in the past several months. What are these people dying from?
It seems like the biggest story in the country and I've not heard one media outlet comment on it.
Nothing to see here. The vaccine is 1000% safe. Even supreme ruler Biden said the vaccines are safe and you won’t get Covid after being vaccinated. He also said vaccines will not be mandated in the US. Supreme ruler Biden and his administration would never lie or mislead the people. So stop spreading this propaganda and go get your 40th booster shot because…science.
How often do you hear about countries with a low % of vaccinations? India is no longer in the news as they essentially stopped the “pandemic” with ivermectin. What about the majority of Africa? Haven’t heard anything from that continent outside of S. Africa in awhile…
The so called experts are truly idiots....People in African routinely take HCQ and IVM as prophylactics against parasites. A virus is the ultimate parasite,is it not?
This is definitely by design. I don’t know if it’s groupthink run amok or some other nefarious reason but these people know what they’re doing and they want full compliance. Free thinkers both left and right are now the enemy of the state.
This virus in particular is very parasite-like due to the synthesized spike. It shares an epitope w the malaria parasite, so as a result populations w endemic malaria & strong immunity haven’t been hit as hard by Covid. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.650231/full
Very interesting! First I have heard this. Will check out the link. Thanks.
You're placing quite a lot of implicit faith into the statistics of a given country. Covid-19 stats are not to be believed even in the best of times. When you add the incredible variance of quality of governance, they become downright absurd. Here's a one-stop proof of concept. Check the enormous variation in reported deaths by nation. I've said it before, I'll say it again for emphasis: the Covid-19 statistics are rubbish.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Texas - just saw a Newsweek article about the "mystery" of why low vaxxed Africa is doing so well with covid.
But all my mainstream friends believe it’s because India began vaccinating. Which I do think they did after the big catastrophe after stopping ivermectin.
...about as often as we* hear about adverse effects of the "vaccines" on the mass media. 🤡
*I confess jumping to conclusions, since I rarely consume any content of the MSM.
I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Glad I'm one of the ignorant, redneck, anti-science fools who decided to be in the control group.
Same here. I had Covid a year ago and recovered with no issues as I’m fairly young and not a fat sack of sh!t. I had my antibodies tested last week when I gave blood and still have them after a year. Natural immunity is far superior yet not acknowledged by the Biden regime. Hmmm wonder why?
The simple fact is that if they acknowledged acquired immunity, then many many people would make the (correct) decision to get the virus instead of the jab. Obviously that's not acceptable to people who are selling jabs.
The vaccine isn’t mandatory but if you don’t take it you won’t be able to work, receive unemployment, go to stores, restaurants, etc…again, it’s definitely not mandatory.
Coercion is a choice. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
But we'll own NOTHING and be HAPPY!
Yes, and we will eat bugs and be happy.
I hate to keep telling you guys this. But the Bible says this will happen.
Preach. That is the end game. The great reset and they have said so all along. Eyes. Wide. Open people.
I had a friend who took the J&J in July. Horrific headaches, vomiting, fever... it was awful. A month later, she went to the doctor and asked that her antibodies be tested. They came back at ZERO and no one could explain why. Natural immunity for the win.
I’ve got an idea…
Let’s just not put barely-tested, no-long-term-data crap into our bodies…how ‘bout that?
Amen, Annie! But you know how the “smart set” discourages common sense.
"Our patience is wearing thin"
Let's go Brandon !!!
Read Bottle of lies an expose on the generic drug industry Butt really it’s on the fda and drug manufacturing industry published in 2019. Isn’t it possible that we aren’t even getting what they say we are getting in the shots at all, ie no quality controls in the manufacturing?
You are exactly right. Peter Breggom MD writes about the 'captured' FDA and their SHAM of testing. He has some horror stories in there.
Breggin knows what he's talking about.
I think that may be happening.
I had covid aug 2021. The fact that natural immunity is not recognized is a scandal and a crime. Its unconscionable that this should not be consider good.. I got aby tested and Im willing to do it over and over again if necessary. The CDC has been grossly negligent about this issue.
This goes beyond negligence. CDC, WHO, NIH are avoiding natural immunity with criminal intent
Wish it was ONLY negligence. I am sure it's more than that. It's Fauci. He's like a SPIDER at the center of a huge web.
This 'pandemic' has been PLANNED for for many years.
WHY?
Big Pharma (and Anthony Fauci)
Fauci did the same in the 1980's with AIDS. Came out with AZT (Big Pharma) and Fauci pushed that (just like he did Remdisivir)
Fauci has been a stooge for Big Pharma for his entire career in government.
"The REAL Anthony Fauci" by Robert F. Kennedy just came out, it's HARD to put down!
Yes, it's magnificent. Everyone should read this amazing, gripping book.
The giving blood thing is another good point. What of our blood supply? They did not separate the blood supply so that has, as I understand it, caused a challenge with the plasma treatment options. And frankly, as an unvaxed, am I safe to get a transfusion now if all the blood supply has vaxx done blood? How does that work? Genuinely asking.
Biden regime? This is a globalist regime. Same deal in New Zealand. The government does not recognize immunity, only Pfizer doses. In three weeks we will be required to show proof of Pfizer dose or else we cannot participate in society.
Most politicians across the globe are garbage. However, there are a few against this BS, mainly on the right in the US. I’ll throw Tulsi Gabbard in that group too. The major difference between America and the rest of the world is our strong distrust of authority which is ingrained in most of us at birth. Plus the shear amount of weapons we own. There’s probably more guns here in my rural Texas community than most small countries.
Australians were that too and look how quickly they fell.
Ahh, yes, the dreaded FSOS, factor. The one that nobody will talk about or attempt to remedy.
I’ve never once heard any of these government “experts” mentioning a healthy diet and exercise to mitigate the effects of Covid. The government and big pharma love sick people. The bigger the $$$$.
Now, now! That's "fat-shaming." Mustn't do that. Just give 'em another bag o' Cheetos & a Coke.
Most of those people would choose a "Diet Coke" to go with their Cheetos.
The funniest and saddest thing I’ve heard is medical professionals refusing to give care to the unvaccinated. Since when do we start judging peoples lifestyle choices and deciding who does and doesn’t get medical attention? Sure, give attention to those who destroyed their body and health by making bad choices yet don’t treat the healthy who aren’t inoculated with some BS test “vaccine”.
They let you donate blood with positive antibodies? And they offered to test antibodies?
Yup. Carter Blood Care is still doing antibody tests with donations. I don’t think there’s any restrictions if you’ve recovered from Covid. In fact, I think they use blood with antibodies as a form of treatment.
?!?!? Following.
https://www.vaxcontrolgroup.com/about.html
Haha. The best thing about this BS is that it’s bringing free thinkers from across the political spectrum together. There should be more of this. Remember, the government works for the people not the other way around.
There is likely selection bias. People that are sicker took the "vaccine" while people that have a lot of confidence in their health for good reasons did not take the vaccine. This is another reason a large blinded study should have been done.
I considered this, but it is not plausible; the gap has remained large even as the number of people in the vaccinated group has risen more than 10-fold, from fewer than 2 million people to almost 20 million. Vaccinated people now easily outnumber the unvaccinated, but the gap remains. And the difference in vaccination by age from 20 to 60 is not enough to account for the gap either.
The explanation doesn't matter as much as the fact that the "scientists" aren't asking why, or sharing their concerns, and are still pushing forward without pause.
Yup, and people a...r...e dying. Healthy people, sick people, young, old, athletic, sedentary...in all combinations! I've been saying for some time now, that in the end, it's prolly gonna come down to a 'survival of the fittest', dependant on one's genetic makeup and whether thAT can override the toxic jabs' intent. I mean, isn't that what "They" want? To remove those they see as least useful, as most wasteful, most burdensome (costly) to society? That's what I see...sadly.
And they are pushing it on our KIDS!!!! our healthy KIDS WHO HAVE LITTLE TO NO RISK of Dying of COVID but KNOWN risks with vaxx. It’s criminal.
YES, it IS!! It's absolutely horrifying what's happening and it's so heartbreaking to noT be able to get through to their parents!! : (
Some rationale to cull the "useless eaters," but I don't see enough emphasis, in my opinion of course, on the fact that the jabs will all take out a lot of the productive members of society, especially the workers who are encouraged or mandated to take the experimental juice. Now, I'm sure it's possible that many supposed vaxxings of elite have been staged or otherwise lied about. But fact is you can only lose so many essential or even critical mid- and upper-level functionaries before organizations begin to seize up.
I'd like to believe that's true. It mAkes sense. Honestly though, that's what kinda scares me... nothing at this point makes any sense. As diabolical, as insane, downright evil and sadistic "They" are... they probably have some crazy "recovery" plan in place, ready to implement. Who knows. I'm just absolutely terrified for my all my jab'd loved ones, our future... : (
It would be interesting to see "cause of death" delineated. The raw data is hard to interpret. Self selection can be very hard to evaluate. No healthy person in their right mind should take the "vaccine" until long term safety is proven. I have said that since the beginning.
When this started I chose a wait and see attitude, I'm glad I did.
Except that they are.
Also, where is the data on what the selection bias looks like? I just hunted around. Many Covid studies saying "may have selection bias" but it would be perfectly possible to quantify the impact of some of the strongest covariates and get them out of the way. Where is that study.
I can also tell you that there doesn’t seem to be much of a trend from what I can tell here with who is and isn’t. It’s more to do with trusting “authorities” not health status. There would definitely be more of the younger population unvaxxed but the difference here does seem to be very stable despite big shifts in proportion over the period. Personally I think it’s more deadly to those over 60. These are the ones that get missed as having strokes and heart attacks is seen to be more usual at that age and is not noted as anything to do with vaccination. I know of 3 that have died suddenly from strokes, one of whom comes from a family of doctors and they believe it was due to the “vaccine” even though it wasn’t treated as such .
Can definitely agree there. My 80yr old cousin (and neighbor), generally pretty healthy - mild high BP, mild diabetes - ate healthy, took good care of herself...2wks after 2nd shot (early spring), massive stroke (they think) during the night. NOOObody gave it a second thought. Unnerving!! : (
Thank you! ❤️
Here in the UK
I’d agree on over 60 group
If the data existed, perhaps look at unvaccinated with and without co-morbidities and compare to vaccinated with and without co-morbidities; compare chi-squares?
THAT'S why they are trying to make sure there are as FEW people as possible, who have NOT been 'vaccinated'. To GET RID of that possible "control group" to compare vaxxed people with!
There may be some truth to that (find an excuse to erase the actual control groups, as was done in the Phase 3 (?) study once emergency approval was obtained. But beyond that, I argue this is just another weak "conspiracy theory" that doesn't stand up to analysis. For example, imagine the population, somehow, got 100% vaxxed. No hold-outs. Based on what we're seeing now, there would still be an unexplained increase in all-cause deaths. Big Pharma can perhaps admit error that they "prematurely" terminated their control group, but to put years of vital statistics (deaths, cause of death, etc.) into the Memory Hole would be much harder.
Any data before the Delta variant became widespread , and vax rates achieving 2/3rds of a population are too obsolete now to be included in any data set. True "real-time"data starts after july1, 2021. The last 90 days gives the clearest picture of trends in Vax effectiveness or Vax harm. But the Medical Establishment keeps hiding the damage being done by starting data sets to far back.
Does the pattern hold if broken down by decades (10-19, etc.)?
Please reply to the comment by Viv about your conclusion from table 4.
Without blinding and without control groups almost nothing but associations can be found. Causation is hard to know and leads to speculation.
It's not about associations, its about data.
Thanks for the added clarification, Alex!
Be interesting to see graph of BAME population
You make a valid point, as those with underlying issues have been getting pushed from day one to get 'jabbed', by the sadistic pLandemic enforcers. However; there aRE those with underlying issues that either are extremely cautious when it comes to taking new meds, especially unapproved, EAU forced new meds, and have remained unjabbed...and/or those, myself included, that were sceptical from the get go, are now fUlly aware of the scAmdemic, and have remained unjabbed. Aand...what about all the healthy jabbed individuals that are now suddenly dying? Soo...how biased really?
What about those older than 60? Is there data for them? Do they also have a higher death rate?
That’s my observation with my circle of friends/family….
sick-type people think they need it, so the get vaxxed…
healthy-type don’t think they need it, so they don’t
Annie - my experience is different.
My liberal health nut skinny friends all lined up first.
My conservative Christian overweight friends said no thanks to vax.
And most of your fat Christian friends still alive?
My experience also
Same. Except I have quite a few liberal, Christian health nuts who got it.
150 million Americans are jabbed. Most are health.
Agree. I know a ton of people who are healthy and didn’t want the jab yet took it because they feared losing their jobs and not being able to provide for their family. I also know people (like my own mother) who took it because they’re older and unfortunately still believe the mainstream narrative.
What’s your definition of healthy?
A more honest appraisal would be "Most of them have no apparent health issues at the present time." The fact remains that the mRNA jabs had never even been approved for human use before December 2020, much less tested for long-term safety. Thalidomide, DES, Vioxx and many other products seemed very promising early in their careers, too. The entire establishment broke a lot of rules and standards to get these products to a wide (and often, unwilling) market. There have already been plenty of red flags that should have halted their use, or at least, severely limited it. The blatantly obvious lies, the data either not being collected or the collection suddenly and inexplicably stops, and perhaps most ominously, the continuing mandates for injecting people, fly in the face of science and common sense. This ceased being about public health long ago. What it's about, I leave for others to debate.
That could explain part of it but what percentage the people between 30 and 60 got the jab....over 70%?
While selection bias could come into play, we'll be seeing more data like below, I'm sure. These vaccines ARE NOT "safe and effective."
https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-biomarkers-mrna-covid19-vaccine/
"The study author concluded that 'mRNA [vaccines] dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.'”
Thank you for posting this - this report seems very significant. Please everyone share and tweet. Doctors are more easily impressed (sometimes) by lab results -- here showing a more than doubling of heart attack risk after mRNA jabs -- than by any number of young men dropping dead on the playing field. Mind you this study was in patients in a "preventive cardiology practice" so presumably had some pre-existing risk. Still seems like a clear warning to the rest of us.
As many have said the extreme push to get everyone vaccinated is to eliminate the placebo group!
Now we are beginning to see why!
But everyone must get jabbed anyway to dispense with that annoying control group, or something. It seems that what is in short supply is brains!!!
https://summit.news/2021/11/19/official-public-health-england-data-says-covid-infection-rates-higher-in-vaxxed-then-unvaxxed/
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
If following CDC Guidelines is all there is to practicing medicine, why can’t we all write our own prescriptions?
Bam !💥
With Fauci saying he wants toddlers and babies to take the shot next I can't say I'm laughing at the idea of depopulation anymore. Oh no that's crazy... or it was.
I shudder to think what would happen to a baby.
I don't get it. The govt gave Big Pharma the money - whether the shots are given or go in the bin. Why are they willing to go so far?
That little evil gremlin needs a double dose of 5.56. Anyone who gives their kids this poison is either ridiculously dumb or insane. Most children (like my own were) will be asymptomatic. Those who do get sick will have symptoms similar to the flu or cold. Why give your kids an experimental “vaccine” for this??? What blows my mind is that there’s obviously issues with this “vaccine” yet theres a black out against all adverse reactions. I know it’s only anecdotal but Ive known more people seriously injured by the vaccine than Covid itself including a 43yo friend who died after being vaccinated due to a “congenital” heart issue that ironically manifested itself weeks after the vaccine.
You omitted the parents probably have a low, no, very low math aptitudes. Couple that with CNNs of the world doing the critical thinking for them. Unbelievable
I also
Same here
Stories of death and harm among 5-11 yo is leaking through now, don't expect local news or MSM to cover it, even if their own kids die.
And parents will not be speaking out unless they are willing to admit they made the ultimate mistake and responsibility of ending their child's life.
Boosters=more money. There is never enough money to be had by some people, and we all know corporations are people, my friend.
Trust The Plan
No
I was thinking the same thing last night. We shouldn't say to ourselves, we have spent all of this money on vaccines and even though they are causing increased mortality, we have to get vaccinated or we will be wasting our money. That would be a crazy position to take.
Much of the discussion here is about whether or not this proves the vaccine is killing people. There are nuances for sure, and age-adjusted data is preferable. But this also misses the forest for the trees. What is clear - crystal clear and indisputable - is that those who favour the vaccine can't produce data to say it works. The data if anything favours that it kills people. Yet they can get away with hand-waving, while we can't oppose it without some kind of solid mathematical proof. This framing of the whole situation is the real problem, and data is not the way out - it's a human problem. We have data, they have hypnotists.
That’s exactly what I just said to Viv. With all due respect to her arguments, whether or not the vaccine is literally killing people is not the point of this. I do think there’s some truth to it but I’m not here to debate that. The actual point is that the vaccines aren’t doing shit to save your life if you’re under 60 and thus all mandates and firings and children injections are utterly pointless. The data has shown it time and time again. But no one listens.
Mark Twain said it was easier to fool someone, that to convince someone that they have been fooled.
I think we (as the human race) were SMARTER 100 years ago. Technology (and easy times) have crippled the richest nations on the earth.
I would like to see some stats from the funeral home industry.
Worldwide, It's Booming !!
https://news.yahoo.com/nhs-delays-height-pandemic-linked-184014656.html
"show there have been thousands more deaths than the five-year average in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and diabetes since the summer."
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SCI?p=SCI&.tsrc=fin-srch