5 Filters

Dr Mercola: How Many COVID Deaths Are Actually From the Vaccines?

#1

(Disappearing link: Dr Mercola: How Many COVID Deaths Are Actually From the Vaccines?
Posted under Flee Speech :frowning_face_with_open_mouth:)

21/10/21 Are the COVID Jabs Responsible for Rising Mortality Trends?

Story at-a-glance

  • According to all-cause mortality statistics adjusted for population growth, the number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 14% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 16% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019
  • Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of it?
  • The COVID jab killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign
  • When counting only deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, the death toll from the jabs is estimated to be between 200 and 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called “COVID-19 deaths” may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths
  • Data from 23 countries reveal the number of new COVID cases (i.e., positive tests) after the start of the COVID jab campaign is 3.8 times higher than it was before the rollout of the shots, and the daily COVID death rate is 3.82 times higher

According to all-cause mortality statistics,1 the number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019. Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.

The obvious question is, why did more people die in 2021 (January through August) despite the rollout of COVID shots in December 2020? Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?

Vaccine-Induced Mortality

In a two-part series,2 Matthew Crawford of the Rounding the Earth Newsletter, examined mortality statistics before and after the rollout of the COVID shots. In Part 1,3 he revealed the shots killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered (note, this is doses, not the number of individuals vaccinated) during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign.

Between 800,000 and 2 million so-called ‘COVID-19 deaths’ may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths.

After adjusting for deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, he came up with an estimate of 200 to 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called “COVID-19 deaths” may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths. As explained by Crawford:4

“This does not even include vaccine-induced deaths that have not been recorded as COVID cases, though I suspect that latter number is smaller since the only good way to hide the vaccine mortality signal is to smuggle deaths through the already-established COVID death toll.”

Corroborating Crawford’s calculations are data from Norway, where 23 deaths were reported following the COVID jab at a time when only 40,000 Norwegians had received the shot.

Not taking into account the possibility of underreporting in Norway, that gives us a mortality rate of 575 deaths per million doses administered. What’s more, after conducting autopsies on 13 of those deaths, all 13 were determined to be linked to the COVID jab. As reported by Norway Today back in January 2021:5

"‘The reports might indicate that common side effects from mRNA vaccines, such as fever and nausea, may have led to deaths in some frail patients,’ chief physician Sigurd Hortemo in the Norwegian Medicines Agency noted.

The Norwegian Medicines Agency and the National Institute of Public Health (FHI) jointly assess all side effects reports. As a result, the FHI has updated the corona vaccination guide with new advice on the vaccination of frail elderly people.

‘If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated,’ Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists …"

Is the COVID Jab Responsible for Excess Deaths?

Crawford goes on to look at data from countries that have substantial vaccine uptake while simultaneously having very low rates of COVID-19. This way, you can get a better idea as to whether the COVID jabs might be responsible for the excess deaths, as opposed to the infection itself.

He identified 23 countries that fit this criteria, accounting for 1.88 billion individuals, roughly one-quarter of the global population. Before the COVID jabs rolled out, these nations reported a total of 103.2 COVID-related deaths per million residents. Five nations had more than 200 COVID deaths per million while seven had fewer than 10 deaths per million.

As of August 1, 2021, 25.35% of inhabitants in these 23 nations had received a COVID jab and 10.36% were considered fully vaccinated. In all, 673 million doses had been administered. Based on these data, Crawford estimates the excess death rate per million vaccine doses is 411, well within the window of the 200 to 500 range he calculated in Part 1.

Equally intriguing is the finding that the number of new COVID cases (i.e., positive tests) after the start of the COVID jab campaign is 3.8 times higher than it was before the rollout of the shots, and the daily COVID death rate is 3.82 times higher.

Morocco and Saudi Arabia were the only two nations in which the case rate and COVID death rates went down after the vaccination campaign started. “If deaths were scaled by 3.82 due to the vaccines, then there were 276,465 excess deaths during this time span,” Crawford writes.

He goes through a number of adjustments to remove outliers that might skew the data sets, so for a more detailed review, see the original article. But in summary, after removing nations with more than 100 COVID deaths per million before their vaccination program (to evaluate the impact of the shots alone), he came up with 13 countries with a combined population of 354 million.

The number of doses administered in these 13 countries is similar to the original cohort. The adjusted number of excess deaths per million is now 318, which is still within the 200 to 500 per million range.

Remarkably, though, the number of COVID deaths in these 13 countries is 11.61 times higher post-vaccination, compared to before the jabs were rolled out. In five of the 13 countries, a whopping 90% of their COVID-19 fatalities have been logged after their vaccination campaigns began! This obliterates any fantasy that the COVID injections are actually helping.

“On face, these results reinforce the case that the experimental vaccines are killing people,” Crawford writes. "At the very least, this is one more dramatic [lack of] safety signal that should spur authorities who care about our health to come to the table for a discussion about how to refine the data they’re not analyzing to anyone’s knowledge …

More concerning is that numerous of these nations — largely located in Asia — seemed to have no susceptibility at all to the pandemic prior to vaccination. There are a lot of theories as to why this might be aside from just vaccines triggering deaths.

• Might PCR testing pick up signals from attenuated virus vaccines, resulting in case explosions (from almost none) to match the [new] deaths?

• Could some of these vaccines have faulty production … during polio vaccine rollout? This could result in cases and deaths?

• Paraguay has by far the greatest signal of vaccine-induced mortality. It stands out as one of the only nations on Earth to use both Chinese and also Western vaccines. Is there any reason such a combination could result in more volatile disease spread?

• Do we really believe that the braintrust at the FDA and CDC are entirely unaware of these observations?

Meanwhile, health authorities still seem to have no issue with the lack of risk report or risk-benefit analysis performed by any of the vaccine manufacturers or anyone else. This strikes me as one of the worst signs in my lifetime that corporations have taken over government on an essentially complete level."

[CONTINUES]

1 Like
#2

[Mercola, continued]

US Whistleblower Highlights Underreporting

In mid-July 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors, represented by Renz Law,6 filed a lawsuit7 against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra. In that lawsuit, they cite whistleblower testimony by a computer programmer with expertise in health care data analytics and access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

According to this whistleblower, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths caused by the COVID shots by a conservative factor of five or more. She claims the number of Americans killed by the shots was at least 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.

At that time, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths following COVID injection. That number is now 16,310 (as of October 1, 20218). Using an under-reporting factor of five, that gives us an estimated death toll of 81,550.

COVID Shots May Have Killed More Than 200,000 in the US

Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, has come up with even more drastic numbers. In the video "Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,"9 he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 212,000 Americans have already been killed by the COVID shots.10

Anywhere from 2 million to 5 million have also been injured by them in some way. Kirsch is so confident in his analyses, he’s offered a $1 million academic grant to anyone who can show his analysis is flawed by a factor of four or more. He’s even offered $1 million to any official willing to simply have a public debate with him about the data, and none has accepted the challenge.

Woman’s Obituary Blames COVID Vaccine for Her Death

While it may be challenging to determine exactly how many people have died as a direct result of the COVID shots, we can be certain that deaths are occurring.

One Oregon woman’s obituary11 went viral after her family blamed side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on her death. The family minced no words, calling out state and local governments for their “heavy-handed vaccine mandates.” Jessica Berg Wilson left behind a husband and two young daughters, aged 5 and 3.

“Jessica Berg Wilson, 37, of Seattle, Washington, passed away unexpectedly September 7, 2021 from COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) surrounded by her loving family,” the obituary states.12

"Jessica was an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions … Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.

She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat.

But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education — which included being a Room Mom — was, once again, blocked by government mandate.

Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed. It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife."

Picture of Jessica (killed by COVID jab) with her family.

COVID Jab Effects Are Rapidly Waning

To add insult to injury, there’s ample evidence showing that whatever benefit you glean from the COVID jab is short-lived, requiring you to risk life and limb yet again with another booster shot (and probably more to come after that).

If you need a refresher on the potential mechanisms of harm, download and read Stephanie Seneff’s excellent paper,13 “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh.

Among those incriminating data sets is an analysis by Humetrix,14 which assessed the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against the delta variant among 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 and older. Three key questions answered by the data analysis are:

Is vaccine effectiveness waning over time?

Is vaccine effectiveness reduced for the delta variant?

Does the need for a booster shot vary by sub-population?

The executive summary lays out the answers:

Yes, the effectiveness of both Moderna and Pfizer’s injections rapidly wane in this cohort.

As of mid-August 2021, the vaccine effectiveness against delta infection was only 41% and effectiveness against hospitalization due to the delta variant was 62%, both of which are “lower than previously reported.”

The shots were even less effective in those over the age of 75, and a breakthrough hospitalization risk model suggests prioritizing people over age 65 for boosters.

Breakthrough Infections Don’t Seem so Rare in the Elderly

According to Humetrix, between January 2021 and August 14, 2021, 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries (out of 20 million) were fully vaccinated with either two doses of Pfizer or Moderna, or one dose of Janssen.

Of those, 148,000 experienced a breakthrough infection, 30,000 required hospitalization and 9,400 needed intensive care. That means breakthrough infections in this age group occur at a rate of about 1 in 38, which doesn’t strike me as being particularly rare.

As per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, patients were only considered fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose. So, anyone who developed COVID-19 symptoms before then were not counted.

While the analysis reports success, saying the hospitalization rate for breakthrough infections was reduced by one-third compared to the hospitalization rate between March and December 2020, and the death rate in breakthrough infections was reduced six-fold, a central problem remains.

The shots don’t protect you for very long. As shown on Page 8 of the PowerPoint, the breakthrough infection rate at five and six months’ post-vaccination is double the rate at three and four months’ post-vaccination.

Considering the risk of lethal vaccine injury is elevated in the elderly — as noted by the Norwegian Medicines Agency — starting them on a treadmill of booster shots strikes me as an idea that can only end in heartbreak for families around the world.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/10/21/vaccine-induced-mortality.aspx

1 Like
#3

Hmmm

Looking at all-cause mortality and correlations with vaccines. What a great idea! Someone should do that for England…

Oh wait. Turns out no one is interested unless it can be spun to their own biases.

No increase in all-cause mortality in England = everyone ignore the data.

Oh well. We all have our blind spots

:frowning_face:

1 Like
#4

Hi PP
I think these are before and after effects rather than statistical correlations.
The analysis starts with excess deaths, as opposed to starting with total deaths.
Whatever way you go you need to break down into the various causes of death.
There is a role of chance just looking at one country, assigning a pattern on the basis of ‘that’s it there’ when the place to look, and the nature of the pattern looked for, isn’t pre-specified. Much easier to ‘be lucky’.
If managed carefully, the analysis will be bolstered when there are a lot of countries giving similar signals. Whether this is a careful analysis - would need to be examined to see. I think it’s for paid subscribers. I’m sure Dr M can afford it.
Before and after effects (perhaps you have used the term correlation to mean this?) are more straightforward than statistical correlations but still require clean start and separation and quantification of competing effects.
I might be making it sound complicated but neither the effects nor the vaccinations are uniformly spread in time. One that is uniform is the excess death in the home - they need to be applied and the other effects adjusted, then a better picture should emerge.
Pesky interactions need to be considered. Some of the home deaths will be covid-related, though I think not many. Vaccines causing covid deaths in the first few weeks? Needs to be dealt with!
Cheers

#5

If it’s any consolation, one reader at least has been finding your posts on this topic clear and convincing, and even quite reassuring (but not reassuring enough to make me want to have anything to do with the COVID-19 vaccines). I just don’t want to write anything about the subject at the moment (possibly ever).

3 Likes
#6

Thanks Twirlip. Given that you’re someone whose maths ability I rate higher than my own, I appreciate that.

1 Like
#7

That’s a can of worms! It’s a very long story (story of my life, and others, ha-ha), and I’d better not go into it.

In order for people not to take too much from what I wrote above, I ought to admit that I have very little understanding of statistical inference.

This is partly because the Fisherian approach has always seemed insane and unethical to me. It is also partly because even to understand the basics of the Bayesian approach, I would have to do an awful lot of reading. I am currently slogging through a big graduate-level textbook on general measure theory, which does teach some probability theory towards the end, but even then, no statistics. I estimate - entirely unscientifically :slightly_smiling_face: - that even reading that one book, in my present state (broken down by age and sex :slightly_smiling_face:), will probably take me until the end of May, at least.

I did once work in an epidemiology department (and before that, radioimmunoassay), but I never had a clue what I was doing.

In these matters, I accurately rate your knowledge and ability far in advance of mine.

(I now anticipate being told rudely that the two of us should get a room.) :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#8

I feel - excluded (sniff!)

The data and situation is complicated but that doesn’t imply that complex maths or stats are needed, or that they would be any help. Simple techniques can be applied, the most important thing is care - especially with the other factors. If you neglect (or even…ignore) the other variables, even measure theory won’t save your analysis from the dustbin. That’s why I’ve been trying to encourage PP to widen the scope of his considerations.
Cheers

1 Like
#9

I agree. One thing maths is very useful for - not its only use, fortunately - is mystification.

1 Like
#10

Yes.
(…) of the… ‘mysts’ ? :slightly_smiling_face:

#11

Personal story, one I’ve already told, but worth repeating here; daughter admitted to hospital for non-covid related reason. Whist there, tested positive for Covid (mild sore throat/mild temp. ten days before for two days). Weeks later letter arrives asking to ‘interview’ daughter regarding her admission to hospital, quote, “…due to Covid.”

So, sticking my head of my front door once again, I know for certain that covid hospital admission rates are wrong by at least one. How many more? Many, many, many, I suspect and so covid hospital admission rates is just one statistic not worth the paper it is written on.

2 Likes
#12

ALL statistics at this deeply corrupt, dishonest moment, Jamie. ALL! Most probably it will take several years, at least, depending on how the current criminal power grab prospers or falters, before we can begin to test the ice again and see whether any - actually-reliable - figures are to be found yet. A lot of delayed sets of realisations have to percolate into the minds of specific populaces, along with the waking from mass hypnosis, the sobering up of ideas, and a general revival of the will to return to basic ethical norms, before that time will be here.

Until then, heads out of doors, along with a careful, ego-less cultivation of fine-tuned intuition, are the best instruments we have to fly on. (Score minus one for mixed metaphors: ice, doors, and bad-weather piloting… :slight_smile: )

1 Like
#13

I think it’s quite unfair how you paint everyone the same. Just because people don’t post or respond minimally does not mean no interest or evidence of bias – like you do in that other thread (interesting conversation though it is with E_D). Personally, a few thousand deaths from these “vaccines” (that’s not contested) is already proof of utter disregard for the side effects and then to force this on kids is pure evil.

Whether its 10K (or 50K – who says that?) deaths from these jabs is, horrible as it sounds, almost academic. It might well be true as much can be hidden by statistics – CJ1 had some good examples of figures appearing to go up or down while the truth is hidden and very different. Sums up the trouble with statistics.

What we do know is that governments and medical officials make outright lies about the effectiveness of lockdowns, masks as well as the safety of vaccines (that Bigtree video about the vaccine safety conference in December 2019 couldn’t be clearer). Further, there’s a clear agenda to coerce people to take these jabs. That’s enough for me to seriously distrust just about any figures coming from said institutions – not because I have made up my mind what the truth is.

4 Likes
#14

Amen to that Willem: mind still entirely open, as ever; but with sharp, street-level common sense fully in gear too. Doesn’t take much to suss what’s happening, does it?

1 Like
#15

Hi Willem

Perhaps I’m being unfair. It’s not hard to put together a list of examples of posts cherry picking data to try and minimise excess mortality data, or pretend that very few (maybe no one!) died of covid, to try and prove hospitals were not getting overrun, and that vaccines are killing hundreds of thousands of people (or even increasing the risk of death by covid by 500%).

I see posts like that here all the time. Fair enough - everyone should contribute what they feel is important - I’m not a curator for content for the site - far from it! Plus I enjoy reading a wide range of viewpoints, it’s one of the strengths of this forum.

On the other hand, evidence that excess mortality has been extremely high, that it’s extremely unlikely that vaccines have killed anything like the number claimed, that Covid’s CFR was significantly higher than flu etc etc. simply gets ignored (my favourite reason so far: “the academics were Canadian - we can’t trust Canadians to tell us the truth”) or dismissed.

For example, despite the clearly obvious data on all cause mortality in the UK, and the fall in mortality as the vaccine rollout progressed (and lack of any sort or correlation) I suspect that it won’t be longer than a week or so before we see the same breathless argument that jabs in the UK are “killing 10s of thousands of people”. I also predict that article will be accepted as fact without analysis or critique.

This kind of double standard towards evidence is sometimes funny, and sometimes frustrating. It’s particularly egregious when a source of data (ONS, CDC etc) is unquestioningly accepted if it matches the pre-determined conclusion (e.g. vaccines = bad) but the same source is instantly determined unreliable if it shows the opposite…

But perhaps that’s just me. I find it ironic that such a clear example of the propaganda model passes unseen here on 5F. The same was true (in the opposite direction) on TLN. Perhaps there’s no escaping it…

Anyway. If you have any thoughts as to improvements I could make on the analysis I’ve done, I’d be interested to hear them. I seem to vaguely recall that you, too, have a background in maths… Or maybe i misremember.

Cheers
PP

#16

You remember correctly, I do have a mathematics background and indeed still very much in it. But, as I mentioned in my post, I find it

  1. to some extent pointless (as even a thousand deaths must be enough to halt the jabs and investigate before going further – and definitely not extend them to the young) and
  2. difficult to come to any clear conclusion from the type of graphs you’re considering.

Eg, the five-year average is taken to be some sort of absolute figure from which to calculate excess deaths. But there are variations year by year (especially if many vulnerable died in 2020). Can’t that easily hide, say, 20K deaths?

The sort of graphs I do find convincing is if we compare like with like – eg Covid deaths over some period in various European countries, side by side. If they’re all coming down in roughly the same manner but some employ harsh lockdown measures and others nothing, that to me strongly suggests the measures were neither here nor there. More likely the disease had run its course. The same could simply be happening after Jan/Feb 2021.

This reminds me of MSM reporting of middle eastern wars. It’s quite unreliable with lots of state propaganda thrown in but if they (as occasionally happens) mention some atrocity committed by US/UK troops, you can be sure that is correct (and probably an understatement). Why? Because of the flak they’d get if it was wrong. So then yes, one can quote the MSM, but it’s not cherry-picking. And the CDC and WHO are the MSM in this case.

The ONS is, I suspect, reliable in terms of total no. of deaths. How deaths are ascribed to covid and what conclusions one can draw is another story.

4 Likes
#17

Excellent comments, thanks Willem.

I agree with you, and I even said as much in the thread on this. 1000 deaths should be investigated and depending on who was dying it might or might not be cause to stop the vaccines. I agree that I see no reason to extend the vaccines to the young.

But. You have agree that 1000 deaths is very far from 30-50K or even hundreds of thousands. That’s a significant point to get right, I feel.

I’m very open to suggestions of different graphs that might show an effect more clearly. If you can think of something then let me know and I’ll definitely take a look.

I agree that there are variations in the 5 year average, but it’s the best indication we have of what baseline should look like. Perhaps we should have an envelope with one or two standard deviations either side? I’ll have a think about that. Actually, that is essentially what the z-scores that Euromomo use show. Perhaps z-scores might be more appropriate… Any thoughts?

On the point about hiding 20K deaths m not sure I agree. We’re not smearing 20K deaths over the year somehow - it has to be correlated to the vaccines rollout, if the vaccines are the cause of those deaths. The rollout has a very distinct profile over a short amount of time and we should see some correlation in deaths to that profile.

20K deaths with the profile of the vaccine rollout happening during the period of lowest mortality should be visible on the chart. If I have time I’ll think about how to redraw the chart and add in 20K deaths - the correlation coefficients and the r^2 should both pick that up in a way that I just don’t see currently.

What might constitute a like for like comparison for vaccine deaths? A year with vaccines vs a year without? Probably not exactly that. That’s why comparing the year with to the 5-year average without is what I did. We use the 5-year average as a standard way to judge excess mortality, after all, it seems reasonable to judge excess mortality due to vaccines this way too especially as the numbers are alleged to be the same order of magnitude as excess mortality numbers usually are, but compressed into a few months rather than over a year. I’m open to suggestions as to a better like for like graph though, if you have some.

A very interesting analogy. It reminds me of that too, but for very different reasons I suspect. Remember the various efforts that were made to quantify how many people died in the Iraq war? The surveys and analysis from Johns Hopkins and others. Remember how hard the mainstream fought to simply ignore the data and find any reason whatsoever to discredit it, instead relying on newspaper counts (essentially anecdotes) to counter? That’s what’s happening here.

There is raw data from the ONS that even you think is probably reliable (I think it’s the most reliable data we have) and it clearly shows a huge spike in mortality in the UK correlated almost 100% with covid cases (yes, those meaningless “cases”).

The knots that people tie themselves up in to avoid seeing that and trying to rely on various bits of anecdotal evidence is exactly the same as the MSM refusing to look at actual data and relying solely on the IBC accounts for mortality.

The same ONS data has no clear signal that I can see regarding vaccine deaths, and yet, once again, the anecdotes are taken as gospel and the data pushed aside.

On many issues I think your analogy might hold - the effectiveness of NPIs, vaccinating kids or mandating vaccines for example. But there is a lack of data in those discussions and a overload of spin.

That’s not the case with mortality, however. I think that’s an important distinction. Where we have actual mortality data, we should probably pay attention.

Cheers
PP

#18

Hear hear. Furthermore the clear direction of travel is to label any counter argument as heretical disinformation, as online harm, and thus to be memory holed. Steadily the ‘facts’ are whittled away, the window of acceptable discourse is not merely made narrower but slammed shut entirely.

1 Like
#19

Hi folks, just to muddy the waters completely- I keep hearing commentators suggesting that there could be as many as 85% of all “vaccinations” filled with placebos so that side effects can never be tracked and injury literally becomes a lottery.
The reasoning is to lull the early takers into habitual jabees ready for the stuff they really want the 99% to have.

Just saying.

cheers

#20

Hi CJ
I haven’t heard this latest suggestion at all so wondering if you have any links - or if you don’t right now if you could post one if you come across it again?
Thanks
J