I may have discussed my Singapore related investigations here before so if you've read something similar, apologies in advance.
After discovering an article on The Federalist that later became tricky to share on social media, I found that Singapore was registering covid deaths ONLY if they came with an attendant diagnosis of pneumonia, unlike in the UK where at that time, ANY death for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test was registered as a covid death. Singapore's approach makes sense because the R in SARS stands for Respiratory & not for Run-Over-By-Bus.
"Singapore, for example, only counts deaths as COVID deaths if they are accompanied by pneumonia."
At this time, prior to it's vaccine rollout mid-2021, Singapore was reporting just over 60 000 covid cases but only 30 dead, producing a CFR (Case Fatality Rate) or as I called it at the time, Deaths-to-Cases rate, of 0.05%. The UK however was reporting 3.8 million cases+ & almost 127 000 deaths, which produces a CFR or Deaths-to-Cases rate of 2.9%. All stats came from Worldometer.
2.9% is almost SIXTY times higher than 0.05%. So I'd wager that the UK's deliberately flawed methodology was raising the initial pandemic fatality figures to around sixty times higher than they should have been. I'd also wager that Midazolam Matts "pandemic measures" were further driving excess deaths that were to be pinned on covid rather than the accelerated end-of-life pathways that were truly to blame.
What is especially interesting is how quickly Singapore's CFR or Deaths-to-Cases rate changed once their rollout picked up around May/June of 2021. Using Worldometer, I checked regularly, & posted & kept many screenshots. I was able to watch, almost live & in real time, as the data & statistics from Singapore changed. Referring to one of these screenshots that I made in Nov 2021, I can see that within about six months of Singapore's rollout, they were now reporting almost 249 000 cases (up from 60 000 in March 2021) & 641 deaths, raising their initial, pre-rollout CFR or Deaths-to-Cases rate from 0.05% in March 2021 to 0.257% in November 2021, an almost six-fold increase. In the six months following their rollout, Singapore's deaths from covid has risen almost six-fold compared to before any vaccines appeared there.
I had already been concerned at the speed of the rollout & the rush to get completely novel vaccines made using completely novel techniques into the arms of almost every single person on earth despite a complete lack of safety & efficacy data that was not being presented by those pushing the hard sell. In other words, only those who had made these vaccines & only those who were pushing the vaccines were in a position to present data as to their efficacy & safety & I prefer to get a slightly more independent analysis before rolling up my sleeves to be experimented upon. Tiffany Pontes Dover had already dropped on live TV in late 2020, & once I realised she was never going to be seen again, my concerns that the vaccines were dangerously unsafe put me off them, permanently. The data out of Singapore simply confirmed my suspicions. 1) They don't work & 2) they ARE dangerous.
Even though they aren't vaccines, the one reason I like everyone still calling them vaccines is that it taints all other vaccines with the stain of the mRNA vaccines. Other "real" vaccines aren't "safe and effective" either.
Plus, it's the reverse of what these criminals tried to do. They tried to legitimize these mRNA injections by calling them vaccines. It's one part of the reason so many were seduced into taking them. Now let the mRNA injections delegitimize all other vaccines.
I believe that although the UK was hit by Long Covid, Singapore is suffering mainly from Climate Change, being so much further south. And, as we all know, Climate Change has reached critical levels since 2020.
If the ISD-10/11 codes for not fully vaccinated and not vaccinated become popular then it will become easy for the data set to leak and the full extent of the incorrect binning to become clear.
To put a finer but essential point on it, the stats that tower way above all are the health outcomes for those did or did not get the COVID jabs who were free of significant pre-exiting health issues. How about filtering it down to those who were on no medications prior to being jabbed, which should be a matter of record?
I think you're right to simplify - there's always some risk to a patient as soon as a needle enters their arm for any reason. Some of this damage may turn out to be due to incorrect procedure so I don't think you want to rule that out.
'Inoculate' is another word that I've seen used recently in this context. If it was spelled 'innoculate' instead then we could say it came from the Latin 'in' and 'nocere' - to harm (as in 'primum non nocere'). So innoculate would be to insert harm or damage.
The Room might contain an Indian elephant. An African elephant's a bit more sizeable to ignore - but the unmentionable MRna Mastodon is soon going to squeeze so hard there will be no manoeuverability to avoid staring into the beast.
We should only concern ourselves with “never injected” and “ever injected”. - it's amazing how they can count someone as unvaccinated who has taken a vaccine! 😵💫
Since governments lie as main operation I am sure Unvaccinated includes many who were in fact vaccinated. All those with morals quit medicine. What remains are followers who only care about pay.
I am not teasing out the data in the same manner, merely showing excess weekly mortality, aiming to publish this substack soon. 2020 is a notional year of non-jab 'control'.
My understanding re. oecd.stat is that excess deaths are taken above the 2015 mean. (need to check this)
Yr. 20/21/22 and temporal relationship to the introduction of imposed jabs 1, 2, boosters,in NZ already demonstrated and published on substack. A crystal clear relationship exists.
Follows, a short commentary on the cumulative annual deaths across Australia, Canada, NZ, UK & US.
For 2022, Australia ceased reporting beyond week 38, while Canada ceased beyond week 34. NZ reported 52 weeks. (oecd.stat)
A blunt pro rata ratio calc. shows deaths continue to escalate in both Australia and Canada. Australia trends with NZ in perfect concordance since 2020 through to end 2022.
UK shows a negative gradient trend over same time period, bizarrely at complete odds with US, Canada and DownUnder, raising a range of possible (awful - denial of standard treatments and administration of DNR/Midazolam etc) interpretations.
Cumulative excess deaths ABOVE THE MEAN in NZ, Australia, UK, Canada & US >2M.
70% excess deaths above the mean (Australia and NZ) occurred in 2022 (est. 53,000).
Inflection point of 2021 is common to all the listed countries here.
+/- trend concordance from 2020 to 2021 is shared by Canada, US, NZ, Australia, together with a 2021 inflection point.
UK trend is odd, trending negatively from 2020. Thereafter inflection in 2021, both UK and US trend negatively, while Canada continues est. upward, along with Australia and NZ, though the latter two, at a considerably higher rate.
yes the unvaccinated might reasonably include anyone presenting to the hospital who the hospital has no records of vaccination. or whom the hospital can not "verify" the records" etc etc etc/ A huge game
There are almost too many scandals and intentional frauds to keep up with. But "manipulating the data" and/or "changing the definitions" should be much higher on the list of scandals that maybe one day will be investigated by some kind of truth-seeking tribunal or Commission.
Below, I outline how officials wrote definitions that preclude the possibility of an "early case" being "confirmed" as a real case of Covid. They have mastered data manipulation. Orwell was right - control the language and definitions and you can control the world.
This sentence caught my attention and applies to my research on "early spread" - "....to create the illusion of “vaccine” efficacy simply through misrepresentation of definitions."
"Misrepresentation of definitions." Remember that phrase. It's important.
This is the modus operandi of officials to sneakily change definitions to suit the result officials want.
I'm seeking evidence that would "prove" that early infections happened. Officials rule out the possibility of "early spread" by writing definitions that "confirm" (or don't confirm) a "case."
With Covid, per the official CDC definitions, the only way to "confirm" a "case" of Covid is a positive PCR test. Alas, in America, the first PCR test wasn't even administered to anyone until January 17 2020. Hardly any American got a PCR test in January 2020. Furthermore, the CDC guidance was that the only people who should/could/did receive one of the very few early PCR tests was anyone who had recently been to Wuhan, China. The first six "confirmed" cases in America were all people who had just returned from China (one was a case of a person who lived with someone who had just come back from China). In other words, public health officials didn't test anyone who hadn't been to China. If you only test people who have recently been to China, the only "confirmed" cases you'll get will be .... people who were in China.
Furthermore, all the PCR testing was being done at a CDC lab in Atlanta. That is, no local pubic health agency or hospital could or was administering their own PCR tests.
The CDC "defined" what could be a "confirmed" case, who was tested (and not tested) and only this agency could do the testing.
Significantly, a positive antibody test (in combination with a recipient who had all the Covid symptoms months earlier) is not enough to "confirm" a case.
I've identified more than 300 people who had Covid symptoms in November or December 2019 (or earlier) who later got a positive antibody test - and none of these people are listed as "confirmed" cases. So in America the first "confirmed" case of Covid is still listed as January 19 (maybe 17th) 2020.
Note: The 300 likely cases doesn't count the UNKNOWN people who infected these people (see reply below for full tally).
Bottom-line: You literally cannot "confirm" an early case of Covid, per the CDC's definitions and testing protocols. This technique worked with the definitions of early cases (there are/were no early cases); this also worked with controlling the definitions on myriad other Covid subjects, as Joel points out.
Partly agree with your definition. But we are also very much interested in 'dose-response' effects, in other words, the cumulative effect of multiple injections.
I may have discussed my Singapore related investigations here before so if you've read something similar, apologies in advance.
After discovering an article on The Federalist that later became tricky to share on social media, I found that Singapore was registering covid deaths ONLY if they came with an attendant diagnosis of pneumonia, unlike in the UK where at that time, ANY death for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test was registered as a covid death. Singapore's approach makes sense because the R in SARS stands for Respiratory & not for Run-Over-By-Bus.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/04/cdc-data-suggest-lockdowns-could-kill-as-many-people-as-covid/
"Singapore, for example, only counts deaths as COVID deaths if they are accompanied by pneumonia."
At this time, prior to it's vaccine rollout mid-2021, Singapore was reporting just over 60 000 covid cases but only 30 dead, producing a CFR (Case Fatality Rate) or as I called it at the time, Deaths-to-Cases rate, of 0.05%. The UK however was reporting 3.8 million cases+ & almost 127 000 deaths, which produces a CFR or Deaths-to-Cases rate of 2.9%. All stats came from Worldometer.
2.9% is almost SIXTY times higher than 0.05%. So I'd wager that the UK's deliberately flawed methodology was raising the initial pandemic fatality figures to around sixty times higher than they should have been. I'd also wager that Midazolam Matts "pandemic measures" were further driving excess deaths that were to be pinned on covid rather than the accelerated end-of-life pathways that were truly to blame.
What is especially interesting is how quickly Singapore's CFR or Deaths-to-Cases rate changed once their rollout picked up around May/June of 2021. Using Worldometer, I checked regularly, & posted & kept many screenshots. I was able to watch, almost live & in real time, as the data & statistics from Singapore changed. Referring to one of these screenshots that I made in Nov 2021, I can see that within about six months of Singapore's rollout, they were now reporting almost 249 000 cases (up from 60 000 in March 2021) & 641 deaths, raising their initial, pre-rollout CFR or Deaths-to-Cases rate from 0.05% in March 2021 to 0.257% in November 2021, an almost six-fold increase. In the six months following their rollout, Singapore's deaths from covid has risen almost six-fold compared to before any vaccines appeared there.
I had already been concerned at the speed of the rollout & the rush to get completely novel vaccines made using completely novel techniques into the arms of almost every single person on earth despite a complete lack of safety & efficacy data that was not being presented by those pushing the hard sell. In other words, only those who had made these vaccines & only those who were pushing the vaccines were in a position to present data as to their efficacy & safety & I prefer to get a slightly more independent analysis before rolling up my sleeves to be experimented upon. Tiffany Pontes Dover had already dropped on live TV in late 2020, & once I realised she was never going to be seen again, my concerns that the vaccines were dangerously unsafe put me off them, permanently. The data out of Singapore simply confirmed my suspicions. 1) They don't work & 2) they ARE dangerous.
Even though they aren't vaccines, the one reason I like everyone still calling them vaccines is that it taints all other vaccines with the stain of the mRNA vaccines. Other "real" vaccines aren't "safe and effective" either.
Plus, it's the reverse of what these criminals tried to do. They tried to legitimize these mRNA injections by calling them vaccines. It's one part of the reason so many were seduced into taking them. Now let the mRNA injections delegitimize all other vaccines.
I believe that although the UK was hit by Long Covid, Singapore is suffering mainly from Climate Change, being so much further south. And, as we all know, Climate Change has reached critical levels since 2020.
If the ISD-10/11 codes for not fully vaccinated and not vaccinated become popular then it will become easy for the data set to leak and the full extent of the incorrect binning to become clear.
To put a finer but essential point on it, the stats that tower way above all are the health outcomes for those did or did not get the COVID jabs who were free of significant pre-exiting health issues. How about filtering it down to those who were on no medications prior to being jabbed, which should be a matter of record?
I think you're right to simplify - there's always some risk to a patient as soon as a needle enters their arm for any reason. Some of this damage may turn out to be due to incorrect procedure so I don't think you want to rule that out.
'Inoculate' is another word that I've seen used recently in this context. If it was spelled 'innoculate' instead then we could say it came from the Latin 'in' and 'nocere' - to harm (as in 'primum non nocere'). So innoculate would be to insert harm or damage.
I'm in the never again injected category.
The Room might contain an Indian elephant. An African elephant's a bit more sizeable to ignore - but the unmentionable MRna Mastodon is soon going to squeeze so hard there will be no manoeuverability to avoid staring into the beast.
We should only concern ourselves with “never injected” and “ever injected”. - it's amazing how they can count someone as unvaccinated who has taken a vaccine! 😵💫
Since governments lie as main operation I am sure Unvaccinated includes many who were in fact vaccinated. All those with morals quit medicine. What remains are followers who only care about pay.
I am not teasing out the data in the same manner, merely showing excess weekly mortality, aiming to publish this substack soon. 2020 is a notional year of non-jab 'control'.
My understanding re. oecd.stat is that excess deaths are taken above the 2015 mean. (need to check this)
Yr. 20/21/22 and temporal relationship to the introduction of imposed jabs 1, 2, boosters,in NZ already demonstrated and published on substack. A crystal clear relationship exists.
Follows, a short commentary on the cumulative annual deaths across Australia, Canada, NZ, UK & US.
For 2022, Australia ceased reporting beyond week 38, while Canada ceased beyond week 34. NZ reported 52 weeks. (oecd.stat)
A blunt pro rata ratio calc. shows deaths continue to escalate in both Australia and Canada. Australia trends with NZ in perfect concordance since 2020 through to end 2022.
UK shows a negative gradient trend over same time period, bizarrely at complete odds with US, Canada and DownUnder, raising a range of possible (awful - denial of standard treatments and administration of DNR/Midazolam etc) interpretations.
Cumulative excess deaths ABOVE THE MEAN in NZ, Australia, UK, Canada & US >2M.
70% excess deaths above the mean (Australia and NZ) occurred in 2022 (est. 53,000).
Inflection point of 2021 is common to all the listed countries here.
+/- trend concordance from 2020 to 2021 is shared by Canada, US, NZ, Australia, together with a 2021 inflection point.
UK trend is odd, trending negatively from 2020. Thereafter inflection in 2021, both UK and US trend negatively, while Canada continues est. upward, along with Australia and NZ, though the latter two, at a considerably higher rate.
yes the unvaccinated might reasonably include anyone presenting to the hospital who the hospital has no records of vaccination. or whom the hospital can not "verify" the records" etc etc etc/ A huge game
And then there is this
Lies, Outrageous Lies, and CDC Weekly Reports?
https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/lies-outrageous-lies-and-cdc-weekly
There are almost too many scandals and intentional frauds to keep up with. But "manipulating the data" and/or "changing the definitions" should be much higher on the list of scandals that maybe one day will be investigated by some kind of truth-seeking tribunal or Commission.
Below, I outline how officials wrote definitions that preclude the possibility of an "early case" being "confirmed" as a real case of Covid. They have mastered data manipulation. Orwell was right - control the language and definitions and you can control the world.
This sentence caught my attention and applies to my research on "early spread" - "....to create the illusion of “vaccine” efficacy simply through misrepresentation of definitions."
"Misrepresentation of definitions." Remember that phrase. It's important.
This is the modus operandi of officials to sneakily change definitions to suit the result officials want.
I'm seeking evidence that would "prove" that early infections happened. Officials rule out the possibility of "early spread" by writing definitions that "confirm" (or don't confirm) a "case."
With Covid, per the official CDC definitions, the only way to "confirm" a "case" of Covid is a positive PCR test. Alas, in America, the first PCR test wasn't even administered to anyone until January 17 2020. Hardly any American got a PCR test in January 2020. Furthermore, the CDC guidance was that the only people who should/could/did receive one of the very few early PCR tests was anyone who had recently been to Wuhan, China. The first six "confirmed" cases in America were all people who had just returned from China (one was a case of a person who lived with someone who had just come back from China). In other words, public health officials didn't test anyone who hadn't been to China. If you only test people who have recently been to China, the only "confirmed" cases you'll get will be .... people who were in China.
Furthermore, all the PCR testing was being done at a CDC lab in Atlanta. That is, no local pubic health agency or hospital could or was administering their own PCR tests.
The CDC "defined" what could be a "confirmed" case, who was tested (and not tested) and only this agency could do the testing.
Significantly, a positive antibody test (in combination with a recipient who had all the Covid symptoms months earlier) is not enough to "confirm" a case.
I've identified more than 300 people who had Covid symptoms in November or December 2019 (or earlier) who later got a positive antibody test - and none of these people are listed as "confirmed" cases. So in America the first "confirmed" case of Covid is still listed as January 19 (maybe 17th) 2020.
Note: The 300 likely cases doesn't count the UNKNOWN people who infected these people (see reply below for full tally).
Bottom-line: You literally cannot "confirm" an early case of Covid, per the CDC's definitions and testing protocols. This technique worked with the definitions of early cases (there are/were no early cases); this also worked with controlling the definitions on myriad other Covid subjects, as Joel points out.
Partly agree with your definition. But we are also very much interested in 'dose-response' effects, in other words, the cumulative effect of multiple injections.