I would like that, too!
Are deaths being hidden? Could they be?
I hope! that those that provide the numbers are not in cahoots with those that produce the published numbers. But, where are all the deaths that are being talked about, yet still do not show up in the monthly deaths?
āSo does that mean that, like me, you donāt understand what conclusions can be drawn from the article you posted?ā
Is this not a conclusion:
āSo 4+ times the death rate is likely to put the vaccine into negative equity, even on short term calculations. Long term - who knows, and we await the effects of however many boosters as well.ā
This suggests the vaccine - that we are giving to children as fast as we possibly can - is probably now doing overall harm. I posted it as a piece of evidence, like you are always asking for. Along with a warning that these are only short term vaccine effects. It seemed important enough - Iām not sure what more you can conclude from one piece of information.
Thanks ED
Iām in agreement with you that vaccinating kids seems like a bad idea. I donāt have kids, but if I did I would not have them vaccinated for covid.
I didnāt see anything in the linked article about kids though. Was that the conclusion that they came to in the article? I donāt really see it. There are lots of stats and comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. None of the comparisons were between similar cohorts (vaxxed 60+ Vs unvaxxed 60+, for example) - an error which the same team have made in previous analyses. In fact, now that I think about it, Iām pretty sure that I had the same response to the last article by this group - I couldnāt work out what conclusion could be drawn from their analysis.
I canāt really work it out from this article either. Does a vaxxed 65 year old woman have a lower risk of dying from Covid than an unvaxxed 65 year old woman, for example? This article doesnāt really tell me. How about a vaxxed vs unvaxxed 15 year old boy?
Certainly their claim that:
Therefore, this shows that the Covid-19 injections are increasing the risk of death when exposed to Covid-19 by a huge 500%
Seems very wrong. Without carefully matched cohorts there is only confusion in the analysis. I find it highly doubtful that a vaxxed 65 year old with COPD has a 5x greater risk of death from Covid than an similar but unvaxxed person. Quite apart from the fact that a 5x increase in mortality as a result of the vaccine should give us a 5x increase in covid deaths for the same number of cases. The opposite of what we actually seeā¦
I didnāt really understand the source of your 4x number? Is the 4x for children only or for people across the board?
I have to say Iām pretty confused by this analysisā¦ Anything you can do to help me understand what they/you are getting at would be appreciated.
Cheers
PP
Incidentally, I thought the bit they did on transmission of covid was better than their analysis of mortality. The matched cohorts are less important in that case, so the omission matters less. I did see an analysis today that says (I hesitate to bring this up, but here goes) there is an almost zero correlation between how vaccinated a population is and how many covid cases there are. The vaccines are clearly doing almost nothing to stop transmission and spread of the Delta variantā¦
Hi @PontiusPrimate, if the impossible is happening in the data then it can only be because the deaths from injection have supplanted deaths that have occurred for other reasons :
A.
B.
flu = 500
covid= 100
heart = 500
cancer= 500
C.
flu = 400
covid=50
vaccine injury=100
heart=500
cancer=500
Here the actual covid deaths in year 2 of only 100 have fallen to 50, flu has fallen to 400 to produce a total fall in deaths of 150 but at the same time vaccine injury has introduced a rise in deaths of 100 to show a net fall in deaths of 50 in the official numbers. This would mean that to avoid one covid death you would incur two vaccine injury deaths.
If we trust the numbers then we can say " the numbers tell usā¦" , but if we donāt then we can say the numbers say one thing but the data must be wrong because too many experts are saying people are dying from this other cause not mentioned by the numbers.
cheers
Thanks for the example CJ - itās helpful to have such an example to try and get a sense of where youāre coming from.
Iāll give a quick response now and a more thoughtful one soon - Iāve spent way too much time on the internet today!
The quick response is that the massaging the youāre talking about could be happening. People could be trying to pull the wool over our eyes and the cause of death could be faked or gamed to try and make a point. The only way to handle that fakery is to ignore the cause of death and take all-cause mortality as the raw data.
Then any tricks of attribution are bypassed. It doesnāt matter what they try to say was the cause of death - weāre ignoring it.
Ok now what?
Now we look for patterns in the mortality figures. We have a gigantic upside-down 'V" shape that corresponds to millions of people getting vaxxed during a certain period. If the vaccines are killing people in the numbers weāre taking about (30-50K in England maybe?) We should see an upside down V shape of deaths following the vaccines. Perhaps delayed by a week or three, but it should be there.
It doesnāt matter if they try to say these are cancer deaths or what have you - we should be able to spot the pattern in the data.
Additionally if we have a new source of massive numbers of deaths then this should push us over the 5-year average mortality rate before we started monkeying around with vaccines (or maybe āvaccinesā).
So this is what I was looking for:
Instead I found nothing like the pattern I was looking for in the deaths, and the mortality was well below the 5 year average.
Completely the opposite of what should be there, even if the PTB are playing games with how they are attributing the causes of deathā¦
To my mind this makes no sense. There cannot be a huge increase in deaths and simultaneously a big drop in all cause mortality. There canāt be a localised new source of deaths (the V shape) and no correlation with the deaths that occurredā¦ Something is just not right here.
Personally, unless they are literally not giving out death certificates to people that suspect died of the vaccine, I find the ONS all cause mortality the most reliable data. We cannot ignore itā¦
Itās like the cops hearing of a terrible mass shooting. They quickly rush out a statement blaming guns, terrorism, Islam, incels etc etc. They do lots of analysis about this that and the other, but when they actually go to the school that canāt find any bodies.
Where are the bodies?
No idea.
Cheers
PP
Hi @PontiusPrimate , thanks for your prompt reply.
I understood that in the 2020/2021 respiratory cycle year there was a complete disappearance of death by flu at the same time as covid deaths started to pile up in the numbers. The flu numbers in the UK in previous years were in the tens of thousands.
The same thing happened in the US - Zach Bush made the comment as he showed the graph for the period, saying that it was totally impossible for all respiratory deaths to disappear within weeks and be replaced by the same number of deaths but under a covid label.
Would it not be possible to remove deaths by injections by replacing them with both flu and covid and possible other types of deaths in such a volatile two year period? How many could be switched in this way in this period without being picked up by non-official unbiased experts? Lockdowns, isolation, masking, health sytem disruption, care home disruption have all affected health and will have caused deaths - could these new types of death absorbe the number of injection deaths as well?
In other words are there ways of nibbling around the edges of a multitude of causes to hide maybe 25,000 injection deaths in the UK during this volatile period. Where we have no comparable data from previous years as this sort of thing has never happened before.
cheers
Ah I see.
The kids comment didnāt refer to anything in the Expose - just me ranting.
The (Daily) Expose sometimes present a bit of a jumble, so I didnāt try to follow the rest about the ages. Also PHE seem to choose different groupings so itās a bit too much to try to follow everything.
I mainly checked the 81% claim, which I think is correct.
The 4x came from my calculation. The problem was that the unvaxxed are younger, and die less frequently anyway, but how much less frequently? Without knowing this you canāt accurately interpret the 81% figure - though on its own it certainly means that the āPandemic of the Unvaccinatedā is a piece of deceitful propaganda (like a Curse of the Zombies!) which was used to tremendous effect in the US, where the CDC suppresses ābreakthroughā cases already (link NPR Cookie Consent and Choices)
I obtained a figure from somewhere (UK data I think), of 18 (Edit -I typed 19 by mistake) years for this (average) age difference between the vaxxed and unvaxxed, and from that I obtained a ratio of likelihood of dying of between 3 or 4 times for the older group (assumed average ages) compared to the younger group. The 81% to 19% ratio (above 4) edges ahead of even the 4.
I didnāt give links as I just looked around to crib these two figures, without particular care. For the ratio of the respective risk of dying for two age groups when there is a 19-years difference between their average ages, I found a couple of insurance tables and got two numbers, between 3 and 4.
Doesnāt the 500% claim apply to people who already have covid? If so I think Iāve seen it before, and thought it correct from what I saw. If memory serves, the last time I saw it it was the case that the vaxxed were much less likely to get covid but for those that did get covid the vaxed were more likely to die. (dit: that could be a result of vaccinationg people who already have immune from catching covid)
I think it may have been here, either in Dimacās post:
Link: Deaths from Delta infection in over 50s following 2 doses vaccine - #2 by Evvy_dense
or in my reply, or both.
In this Expose article it comes from this:
" ā¦ Therefore based on the unvaccinated death figures of 26 in the week beginning 11th September the case-fatality rate is 0.1%. However, when we carry out the same calculation for the fully vaccinated population with 101 deaths and 17,093 cases we can see that the case-fatality rate is 0.6%."
These figures are given by PHE tables 16 and 18. You need to scroll up to get Table 16.
Hope helpful.
Yeah the vaccine seems to be doing almost nothing to stop transmission these days.
David Davis MP makes that point in the Parliament speech posted by @Twirlip, that insisting on vaccination in big venues is therefore not for the public good, so should clearly a matter of an individual choice. And, that the purpose is therefore to force people to get the vaccine. Edit: This seems kind of obvious, but it should also be noted that he polled a third of the votes in his run-off with David Cameron for the Tory leadership, so he is likely in a position to know.
Cheers
ED
I havenāt been following these various arguments closely, so I might have missed something.
What seems to be left out is how totally corrupt, immoral and evil big pharma is. This is easily provable, over many decades.
Those who agree to allow these scum anywhere near our children should be held equally culpable (that, by the way, includes just about every parliamentarian in the world today).
When scum are allowed to go after our children, itās war, Iām afraid (itās the same as the pedo stuff)ā¦
Suggest you guys and dolls watch Amazon Primeās Goliath series. The end game was the trial and conviction of a huge pharma company for knowingly selling a hugely addictive and life changing opiad tablet just for profit. Sound familiar?
Yes, I enjoyed that, all four seasons were good but the last one really didnāt pull any punches wrt pharmaceutical industry. Apart from Halt And Catch Fire itās about the only original series of theirs which is any good.