Too busy fighting this battle at home, and I don’t need any more info to persuade me that we are witnessing a truly demonic and globally coordinated campaign of coercion and control that has no precedent, even in Nazi Germany.
This is my yardstick, by which to judge the honesty and bona fides of “authorities” pushing the vaxing campaign for all they are worth, and now heavying reluctant people into getting the jab to avoid losing their jobs, while instituting a vaccine passport. ALL opposition to the program is called “anti-vaxer” and filled with abuse and intolerance and threats. … My yardstick has always been and continues with force to be the “vaccination” - with mRNA - of children and pregnant women, for whom there have been NO TRIALS. Australia is about to authorise the use of Pfizer for 5-11 year olds, only a week after Pfizer said they had approved its “efficacy and safety”.
Even if parents don’t know, and young mothers don’t know, Pfizer and Moderna have known from the beginning that these drugs may have any number of dangerous side effects in the future, that may not easily be provable or evident, just like sub-clinical myocarditis is not. THey also ALL know - drug companies and health authorities and leaders, that this disease has absolutely minimal effect on kids under 18, which is why some agencies like the JCVI have recommended against their use.
The added giveaway of their malign agenda is the total failure to note that infection leads to natural and lasting immunity, and the freedom to abandon ALL restrictions. That these people who have actually “endured” the disease and “recovered” are still being vaccinated is the worst of crimes, and medical incompetence at its worst. What doctor worth his salt could possibly not understand this?
Funnily I heard that in Austria people are given an antibody test before being vaxed to make sure they haven’t already gained immunity, and the shot will be refused if they have. Here we have a 17 year old held up on TV last night who nearly died after catching it (she was obese…) and as a warning to those who don’t want the vax as to what will happen to them if they don’t have it. From this I imagine that this young woman had the shot despite having had the disease…
So it doesn’t really matter who many people die or don’t die from the virus or the vaccine, when the whole project is not really about either; they are just the means to an end, and this is THEIR end not ours.
So once again when faced with actual real-world death certificate data showing a decrease in deaths during the vaccine rollout most people just prefer to ignore it.
I’m 100% sure that if I had shown an. increase in deaths during the rollout, it would have been unconditionally accepted here, and I would be invited onto UKC with great fanfare, who are happy to use ONS data if it proves their point. I would have also accepted it as strong evidence.
For those who are still trying to understand what’s going on, I leave the following open question
If the vaccine was causing large numbers of deaths, how did the actually recorded deaths in that period drop below the 5-year average of background mortality?
This doesn’t seem possible to me. If anyone has a good explanation then I’m all ears.
Until then I continue to see zero evidence that the vaccine had caused a large number of deaths in the UK, despite the tearful anecdotes going round.
Your U-shape is not particularly evident in the actual data. And the recorded deaths are below the average background. It is a cunning source of death that manages to kill a lot of people by killing fewer than the average… There are no extra deaths hiding in the numbers there. If you can find em I’ll definitely take a look.
That’s exactly how modellers are taught to start their data analysis. You start with the simplest analysis and build up in complexity as needed. In this case the data is so obvious that no appeal to multivariate is needed.
There is a very clear pattern to saving lives. I explained it above. Have another read.
It’s not a possible point really. I’ve explained it several times now. If the vaccines were killing people we should see that pattern in the data. We don’t.
I have actually addressed - with data - all the points you raised. You’ve addressed none of mine so far.
I think you’re right that we won’t come to agreement. I think we won’t even get to anyone actually analysing the data I’ve shown.
If no one wants to really examine the data, then we won’t get to agreement… How could we?
I’m also happy to agree to disagree. If yourself, or anyone else, wants to look at the data with me and have a discussion around what it’s showing, I remain open.
Presumably if there have been excessive excess deaths (although that’s up for debate) then would one not expect a period of time, albeit brief perhaps, where those prior excess deaths had ‘soaked up’ the vulnerable resulting in fewer subsequent deaths? If so, then people could be still dying in significant numbers from the ‘vaccine’ but hidden, so to speak.
Yes, you’re right. But that limits the number of vaccine deaths that could have occurred. We can’t have the numbers that are being handled about as real. What covid did was kill off large numbers of the vulnerable. People who might have died in September, say, died in February instead.
Those people are all part of the background death rate.
If a new source of death had suddenly appeared - a new disease, say - that killed a lot of people, we should see a new spike in deaths above the background rate, in addition to those who died of covid.
I don’t see any evidence for any new such source of deaths above the background, be it a new illness, or deaths from the vaccinations.
OK a final one
There is no U-turn! Just a difference of plus or minus two and a half thousand per week, depending on what season you are in
And it hid 800 deaths per week in homes (as I said already).
It’s not like an expedition where you find wonderful objects and instantly recognize them. You have to define them properly, and separate the real from the artefactual.
If you haven’t encountered confounding, you can get upside down results because you’ve missed the main variable.
It is never the case that anlyzing one variable is sufficient. A missed variable if it’s key renders your analysis useless.
You can’t run just with correlation, I think you overestimate it’s power and underestimate pitfalls. If you use it in a multivariable setting you need to use multiple regression.
I think there’s an element of circularity in your denial of X+Y=0. We should see that pattern in the data you say…you seem to deny it using the outcome that you are trying to reach.
No point in your pretending that you have presented lots of sound stats and argument while I have ignored them. The discussion fell down at eqach others’ explanations. Probably because we started off with you responding to other threads and me responding to that - we should have haggled more over the basics before firming up our divergent lines of thought.
Let’s reach a posture-free agreement that we do not agree!
Cheers
ED
But if, let’s say, there were 10,000 excess deaths in any given period (compared to a similar period in previous years) and then you introduced a magic pill; not only, as established, would there be fewer deaths due to there being fewer vulnerable people and thereby make it look like a direct result of the pill, but it could also hide the pill-related deaths given that they too would be being compared to previous ‘normal’ years.
Your thought experiment doesn’t match up to the actual data showing what happened. There is a clear relationship between vaccination and a reduction in deaths… I’ve spoken about it at length above. Have another read.
It would only hide pill related deaths if the numbers of such deaths were tiny in comparison. Otherwise the correlations would show through against the background mortality and they don’t.
I’m not sure what you’re showing with your graph there. I have showed the actual 5-year average from ONS above and showed that where there should be a spike in deaths there was a fall. Your chart changes nothing and doesn’t address any point I’m making…
Multivariate analysis is pure red herring. It would be better if you actually looked at the analysis I presented and showed me why is not sufficient. Deaths at home is another red herring… Let’s stay on the actual subject.
There were fewer than expected deaths during the vaccine rollout. There is no pattern visible in the deaths that did occur.
There is no large vaccine death toll hiding in the data.
Not really, no. It would seem to me that you could have an excess of 10,000 deaths in a given period over previous years, (bringing us into negative 10,000 from baseline if you will), then, after the introduction of a ‘pill’, 5,000 pill-related deaths could be swallowed up by the fewer ‘natural’ deaths (i.e., the vulnerable being fewer) and still show a decrease.
The 5K extra deaths would still be visible as a bump on the chart. They would occur at a specific time (during the vaccination period) and in a specific pattern (more vaccinations → more deaths)
That bump would still be there even if the mortality was below the average in general
Can you show me that bump or that pattern in any actual data?
Would it though? More vaccines, more deaths, yes, but set against fewer overall deaths due to the vulnerable that might have died having already been removed from the equation.
Incidentally, over on Children’s Health Defence there’s an article showing a considerable spike (in percentage terms) of probable vaccine-related deaths in the male 15-19 age group.
Yes it would. It would be even more obvious as a pattern if mortality from other causes was reduced in the manner that you suggest. That would make a new cause of death (vaccines) stand out against the background even more strongly than in a normal year…
There is no vaccine bump. There is no suggestion that the vaccines did anything except reduce covid mortality.
Thanks for the reference. I’ll try and get over to children’s health and find the article your referring to and have a read.
Cheers
Edit: found the article. It was posted in a different thread… Waiting for Rhis to denounce it as garbage because it uses mortality data from the ONS
Hi PP you say
“I’m not sure what you’re showing with your graph there. I have showed the actual 5-year average from ONS above and showed that where there should be a spike in deaths there was a fall. Your chart changes nothing and doesn’t address any point I’m making…”
Er, you made a point that “Your U-shape is not particularly evident in the actual data.”
Then I showed an underlying U-shape with, as I said, a range of up to 5K, or plus/minus 2K+, per week. That addresses there not being a U-shape?
“Multivariate analysis is pure red herring. It would be better if you actually looked at the analysis I presented and showed me why is not sufficient. Deaths at home is another red herring… Let’s stay on the actual subject.”
We talked about your analysis and you know perfectly well I didn’t buy it; you haven’t really let go of that Twitter piece that you liked and I found appalling.
Deaths at home - just to spell it out again, such a mostly non-covid death toll questions the alleged covid death toll. 90K excess deaths the ONS now says (probably 100K if that’s only E+W), and also says 70K excess deaths at home. That would leave room for plenty of vaccination deaths to be concealed. A point I made to you months ago. It also questions your verbal explanations of why, in X+Y=0, X should be treated different from Y.
FInally the unexpected deaths at home tally also showsthat the data was, in fact, capable of concealing large numbers of excess deaths.
The data is murky enough with confounding variables, the worst thing to do is look from further away for clouds in the atmosphere; rather you need to drill down.
PP, in order not to create any more ‘red herrings’ for you in a few months time, I’m going to leave it there and vacate this thread; you’re welcome to a final comment for the board.
I’m not entirely sure what PP’s point is. Is it that the Vaers figures are wrong or is it that the contention they represent just a fraction of actual deaths isn’t borne out by the figures? Presumably the latter, but so what; the reported figures stand alone as outrageous and unacceptable, even if you accept (which I do not) that the genetic manipulators (I dislike gene therapy as the word ‘therapy’ has positive connotations) have saved lives in significant quantities. What we also do not know and as many have pointed out (including Zelenko is the video posted above) is what the subacute and longterm consequences are. It may well be that all the highly-qualified doomsayers are wrong, but if they are not, should not the precautionary principle hold? It seems to me, that even if PP is right, unless that rightness exists within a broader understanding of the undoubted potential for great harm, then it’s a muddying of the situation that if not careful, would contribute to the notion that the ‘vaccines’ are safe, which we know they aren’t.
Completely agree with you Jamie – the already proven dangers plus the potential harm should make it unacceptable to push these jabs.
Dimac is spot on here:
It is reckless to coerce people to take this – but that is precisely what they’re doing all across Europe and the US and many other places. Their safety can’t be assured by checking graphs to see if “only” a few thousand died.
Sorry if this post inappropriately derails an otherwise serious thread but I love that poem… A few years ago I was at the hairdressers and an older woman was having streaks put in her hair and was worried they looked too radical (they looked gorgeous). Anyway, I piped up from the adjacent chair with “When I am an old woman I shall wear purple with a red hat that doesn’t go…” and she looked at me as if I had gone completely nuts and then said “Really?” in a very doubtful and puzzled manner. I explained it was the first line of a poem about ageing however you like and wearing and doing what you like and not worrying about what is “age appropriate” and that I thought her hair looked gorgeous. I’m not sure she got it… The rest of the hair appointment was a little awkward
