Compare the excess death rates of countries that banned Ivermectin versus those that used it. My guess is that the usage of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are more highly correlated with death rates than vaccination rates.
Poorer countries are more likely to approve usage of HCQ and Ivermectin than rich countries.
The correlation with high income might be a spurious. There is likely a correlation between eating ice cream cones and excess deaths because ice cream cones are more often eaten in high vaccinated countries.
"The greater the life expectancy, the lower the difference in death. This might indicate a better quality healthcare system or a generally healthier older population better able to deal with the vaccine injuries."
But, from your other post, the older (more affluent) populations have been dying more. So, likely, it is sicker, less able to deal with the vaccine injuries OR Covid population dying either/or? Vaxxed or not vaxxed - Covid or "Zee Tschab" will do you in? Therein lies the beauty of this depopulation program. First, the more vulnerable old ppl died of Covid, leaving more healthy among them to go on and get jabbed the next year and succumb, again, this time of the jab?
We know the situation is a whole lot more complex than my rather simple model! But I do try and rationalise the results of the analysis all the same. I don't mind being wrong. That's how you learn stuff!
Glad you've met David! He's always lurking in the dark alleys of internet, ready to pounce on an unsuspecting Substack author as soon as confounding factors might be in play. Keeps us on our toes! Thanks, David!
I am pretty much anti-vaccine. I just like doing the best possible analyses. Been at it quite some years. I have unpublished research almost proving MMR vaccine is in fact associated with autism, after you correct for some selection biases. Dying to publish that someday.
Thank you for the analysis. I also dig into this and I think you are right with your assumption:
"This might indicate a better quality healthcare system or a generally healthier older population better able to deal with the vaccine injuries."
In my opinion the excess deaths are not from virus but are caused by collapse of hospital care, overwhelmed hospitals, lack of nurses, doctors, panic and also with collapse of hospitality care for older people in old homes. The New York is very good example for this - see Andrew Cuomo response during lock down.
Thank you for article and video. I am not exactly sure, if the virus is really non-existent. I think it can be both - the virus is real but almost like flue causing no harm.
In my understanding, there has been some kind of artificially created virus (bioweapon) what caused the panic and someone used that to help to support the story of deadly virus to justify lockdown, restrictions and other measures which were planned ahead.
The bioweapon was not deadly as presented and disappeared very soon. The real deaths were caused by mistreatment in hospitals, government intervention, quarantine and other consequences of lockdown and the panic.
Hiya, thank you for your reply and we definitely agree on your final sentence.
2 years ago I believed viruses were real and made people sick. The 'pandemic' events and how they've been promoted, how debate has been censored, has lead me to the opposite conclusion.
The reason myself and others go on about the importance of looking at the original Wuhan paper where 56 million random fragments of RNA were somehow put together in a computer to make a 'virus genome', and understand what is meant by 'isolation' of a virus, which is not in the English language sense of separated or seen!, is because if we don't get it clear in our heads it leaves the door open for them to do this to us again. And again.
Wasn't there that thing that different countries were getting different versions of the vac? Eg some for sale just in Africa? Again that would make comparison impossible.
Also in hindsight , I don't think they wanted the vac to kill us. Like most drugs they're meant to make us sicker- with myocarditis and cancer in this case- so we need more drugs. Higher income countries will be the ones targeted more in this way- as they can still afford these hugely expensive treatments. Another way of giving our money to Pharma.
I suppose the huge numbers of deaths caused by either covid or vaccines maybe just don't mean that much due to "pulling forward".
There are some decent papers that list different explanations for either high or low mortality in Italy or African countries. Latitude (sunlight) and population density would be relatively easy to test. Some master list of confounders/variables could be made. I sort of keep a running list actually. The real question in my mind is not covid deaths, but covid severity. I operate under the presumption that everyone will get covid, so severity when we get it is what matters. Regression of a bunch of variables as regards severity is the most interesting question to me. But severity of covid in a country is possibly hard to invent a valid metric for. Would likely need to just find a paper that already estimates IFR's by country.
I tested density. In fact a few times. It doesn't correlate. But then, country densities are not reliable anyway. Really you should test against aggregate city densities and distances between them. UV is massive.
For severity of COVID, I use "death"! It's a very reliable metric!!
are 'confounding factors' such as sunlight a concession to terrain theory in explaining why some people get sick and others not at all? I operate under the presumption that nothing exists until proven to, and that everyone will probably get sick if they are eg elderly, not allowed to go outside, live in highly polluted areas, are malnourished or treated with toxic drugs etc no virus required! https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing?s=w
The type of vaccine makes a difference according to Christine Stabbell-benn of S Denmark university. The MRNA shots seem to have ACM greater than 1.0 ( kill more than save from covid) while the DNA shots like AstraZenica improve ACM. Can you redo your analysis according to brand to confirm?
Compare the excess death rates of countries that banned Ivermectin versus those that used it. My guess is that the usage of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are more highly correlated with death rates than vaccination rates.
Poorer countries are more likely to approve usage of HCQ and Ivermectin than rich countries.
Indeed. It was a hypothesis I had in my head yesterday but obviously difficult to test.
The way to do it is find a county that either stopped or started it at a certain time, then compare mortality just before and just after.
The correlation with high income might be a spurious. There is likely a correlation between eating ice cream cones and excess deaths because ice cream cones are more often eaten in high vaccinated countries.
respectfully disagree, not in all countries ice cream is served/sold in cones.
"The greater the life expectancy, the lower the difference in death. This might indicate a better quality healthcare system or a generally healthier older population better able to deal with the vaccine injuries."
But, from your other post, the older (more affluent) populations have been dying more. So, likely, it is sicker, less able to deal with the vaccine injuries OR Covid population dying either/or? Vaxxed or not vaxxed - Covid or "Zee Tschab" will do you in? Therein lies the beauty of this depopulation program. First, the more vulnerable old ppl died of Covid, leaving more healthy among them to go on and get jabbed the next year and succumb, again, this time of the jab?
We know the situation is a whole lot more complex than my rather simple model! But I do try and rationalise the results of the analysis all the same. I don't mind being wrong. That's how you learn stuff!
Hear, hear!
Or is it "here, here"?
Glad you've met David! He's always lurking in the dark alleys of internet, ready to pounce on an unsuspecting Substack author as soon as confounding factors might be in play. Keeps us on our toes! Thanks, David!
Oh, David and I have been sparring for months! He's more like us than he would care to admit!!
I am pretty much anti-vaccine. I just like doing the best possible analyses. Been at it quite some years. I have unpublished research almost proving MMR vaccine is in fact associated with autism, after you correct for some selection biases. Dying to publish that someday.
Request: It this legit???:
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/27/kids-death-risk-increases-5100percent-covid-vaccination/
ONS data showing vaxxed kids have 52x mortality rate?
Thank you for the analysis. I also dig into this and I think you are right with your assumption:
"This might indicate a better quality healthcare system or a generally healthier older population better able to deal with the vaccine injuries."
In my opinion the excess deaths are not from virus but are caused by collapse of hospital care, overwhelmed hospitals, lack of nurses, doctors, panic and also with collapse of hospitality care for older people in old homes. The New York is very good example for this - see Andrew Cuomo response during lock down.
I enjoyed the latest on the virus versus no virus debate this morning https://odysee.com/RFK-Jr-Enters-The-Viral-Existence-Debate:080724a4913048c468db9030d6b47281675f19bb from Sam and Mark. You may be interested in my take on Covid https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing?s=w
Thank you for article and video. I am not exactly sure, if the virus is really non-existent. I think it can be both - the virus is real but almost like flue causing no harm.
In my understanding, there has been some kind of artificially created virus (bioweapon) what caused the panic and someone used that to help to support the story of deadly virus to justify lockdown, restrictions and other measures which were planned ahead.
The bioweapon was not deadly as presented and disappeared very soon. The real deaths were caused by mistreatment in hospitals, government intervention, quarantine and other consequences of lockdown and the panic.
Hiya, thank you for your reply and we definitely agree on your final sentence.
2 years ago I believed viruses were real and made people sick. The 'pandemic' events and how they've been promoted, how debate has been censored, has lead me to the opposite conclusion.
The reason myself and others go on about the importance of looking at the original Wuhan paper where 56 million random fragments of RNA were somehow put together in a computer to make a 'virus genome', and understand what is meant by 'isolation' of a virus, which is not in the English language sense of separated or seen!, is because if we don't get it clear in our heads it leaves the door open for them to do this to us again. And again.
Dr Sam Bailey's channel has some very interesting ones https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Once-Upon-A-Time-in-Wuhan-Odysee-Exclusive-Comp:2 and on possible creation of bioweapons https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/gain-of-function-garbage:c though understand this line of questioning is not for everyone
All the best,
Jo
Do you at least have a boat? David simply may need to cross a body of water.
Thanks for your analysis. 👍🏼💕
Wasn't there that thing that different countries were getting different versions of the vac? Eg some for sale just in Africa? Again that would make comparison impossible.
Also in hindsight , I don't think they wanted the vac to kill us. Like most drugs they're meant to make us sicker- with myocarditis and cancer in this case- so we need more drugs. Higher income countries will be the ones targeted more in this way- as they can still afford these hugely expensive treatments. Another way of giving our money to Pharma.
I presume you are following https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic ?
His analysis showed the faccinations were for responsible significant numbers of deaths.
Okay, for now I'll just loiter on that bridge.
I suppose the huge numbers of deaths caused by either covid or vaccines maybe just don't mean that much due to "pulling forward".
There are some decent papers that list different explanations for either high or low mortality in Italy or African countries. Latitude (sunlight) and population density would be relatively easy to test. Some master list of confounders/variables could be made. I sort of keep a running list actually. The real question in my mind is not covid deaths, but covid severity. I operate under the presumption that everyone will get covid, so severity when we get it is what matters. Regression of a bunch of variables as regards severity is the most interesting question to me. But severity of covid in a country is possibly hard to invent a valid metric for. Would likely need to just find a paper that already estimates IFR's by country.
I tested density. In fact a few times. It doesn't correlate. But then, country densities are not reliable anyway. Really you should test against aggregate city densities and distances between them. UV is massive.
For severity of COVID, I use "death"! It's a very reliable metric!!
are 'confounding factors' such as sunlight a concession to terrain theory in explaining why some people get sick and others not at all? I operate under the presumption that nothing exists until proven to, and that everyone will probably get sick if they are eg elderly, not allowed to go outside, live in highly polluted areas, are malnourished or treated with toxic drugs etc no virus required! https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing?s=w
Thank you. I have been watching for someone to tackle this! 🙏❤️
The type of vaccine makes a difference according to Christine Stabbell-benn of S Denmark university. The MRNA shots seem to have ACM greater than 1.0 ( kill more than save from covid) while the DNA shots like AstraZenica improve ACM. Can you redo your analysis according to brand to confirm?
Thank you, Joel, for your willingness to be challenged. So unlike many others in “the sciences” these days.
Thanks for the analysis. I must admit, I am confused with the lack of a signal in the all cause mortality data pre and post vaxx. I say this because other independent analysis based on their own datasets are seeing fairly obvious signals. Take for example, probably well known to all, the insurance company anaysis (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/insurance-companies-report-increase-premature-deaths/). Of course, that is age bracketed so not directly comparable, but a sizable group analysis pre and post vaxx. The MOD data pre-change also showed a strong signal, but, since they changed the data we can ignore that. The well known analysis by Edward Dowd showed a strong signal in millenials (https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/former-backrock-advisor-alarming-data-show-tens-of-thousands-of-millennials-died-after-vaccine-mandates).
Of course this does not negate the correlation you see in the large scale data-set you are using, it is just a point of confusion on my part.