All-Cause Mortality, Scotland, 2014 to 2022

Where is the evidence that COVID "vaccines" were necessary, safe and effective?

Introduction

The three most important questions regarding COVID “vaccines”:

1. Are they necessary?

2. Are they safe?

3. Are they effective?

We can answer all these questions simply by looking at all-cause mortality trends across three periods:

1. Five years prior to COVID (2014 to 2019).

2. Three years since COVID (2020 to 2022).

3. Two years since COVID “vaccines” (2021 to 2022).

---

Guidance

Recently, I read about the true purpose and authority of the jury in England. Essentially, an important part of this is that the jury has all the power in court and the judge is simply there to guide them on aspects of the law but not to make any determination in the actual case. The jury system is supposed to rely entirely on the conscience of the juror.

In this respect, I am not going to give my judgement on this Scottish mortality data but I will provide guidance based on my experience of analysing mortality data, especially related to COVID.

1. For the “vaccine” to be necessary, there must be a discernible increase in mortality during 2020, over and above what might be expected given the prevailing trend. Nevertheless, one must also take into account that trends do not continue forever so reservation must be made for potential reversal of trend. If nothing else, this should simply give us reason to contemplate greater uncertainty in our judgement. The safety and efficacy of a vaccine has no bearing on its necessity.

2. For the “vaccine” to be considered safe, at worst, there must be no more mortality in 2021 and 2022 than 2020 and the trend should be no steeper than 2020.

3. For the “vaccine” to be considered effective, there should be discernibly less mortality in 2021 and 2022 than 2020 and the trend should be no steeper than 2014 to 2019. Inevitably, the 2021 to 2022 trend should be substantially shallower than the trend for 2020 to 2022 (or decline more steeply if both trends are already downward sloping).

Note that a downward sloping trend could be due to higher than expected deaths earlier in the period, followed by lower than expected deaths. This is to be expected since lower mortality often follows periods of excess due to the “pull forward” effect. If this is evident in this latter 3-year observation period, it would be indicative of people dying only one or two years sooner than they probably would have done in the absence of some unexpected mortality event.

It is important to look whether the COVID and vaccine trends start higher than the 5-year trend to 2019, especially if they remain above the earlier trend for any length of time in spite of sloping downwards. The average weekly deaths for each period will also give a clear indication whether mortality is elevated or not and to what extent.

Also consider that mortality data is incomplete due to delays in registration. This will be most impactful on most recent data as deaths are referred to the coroner of the death was unexpected or suspicious. Typically, a higher ratio of younger deaths are reported than older deaths since older people are obvious more expected to die.

Overall, when judging an intervention such as the mass injection of an entire population with a novel therapy, the obligation for certainty should be in favour of the intervention. This means that the evidence should be consistently beneficial to find in favour of it being safe and effective. Anything less then it would be prudent to judge against it.

---

Data

---

So, let’s see how a jury might judge if this was a case in court? Although mortality data is absolute truth, analysis is still subject to interpretation.

Based only on the mortality evidence presented and not on any prior assumptions or third-party direction, and beyond reasonable doubt: