Care home massacres, remdesivir and COVID "Vaccines" - which killed the most?

Analysis of Minnesota death certificate data reveals that collectively, COVID interventions caused at least four times more excess mortality than COVID itself.

Minnesota is a state in the Upper Midwestern region of the United States, located in the western part of the Great Lakes Region. It is the 12th largest state in area and the 22nd most populous, with over 5.75 million residents.

I was fortunate to obtain copies of the death certificates of all four hundred thousand Minnesotans who died between Jan 2015 and May 2023.

Unfortunately, my analysis indicates twenty-two thousand of those deaths occurred earlier than they should have done.

As you can see above, eight thousand of those untimely deaths occurred between March 2020 and March 2021 (I will explain why I chose March 2021 as the cut-off in a moment).

After such significant excess, ordinarily we should expect deficit due to the “pull-forward effect” but, instead excess mortality continues to rise. This means the fourteen thousand excess deaths occurring between March 2021 and May 2023 under-represent the true extent of adverse mortality in the latter period.

To make matters worse, as time has passed by, it is the younger age groups who are experiencing the greater increasing excess mortality.

The over 65s have experienced slightly more deaths in the latter period than before.

The 40 to 64 year olds have experienced three times as much excess deaths in the latter period than before.

The 19 to 39 year olds have experienced at least twice as much excess deaths in the latter period (the series is evidently nowhere near complete).

So, in terms of life-years lost, the picture is actually worse still again in the latter period than when depicted in simple deaths terms.

The official narrative wants you to believe that the deadly COVID disease is responsible for this appalling situation in Minnesota.

And yet, even at face value, the twelve thousand deaths coded by the CDC as “COVID”, wiping out 0.002% of the population over three years, represent only just over half the untimely deaths, allegedly three quarters of them up to March 2021 but only one quarter since, and counting…

The narrative will also have you believe that the interventions that resulted in those “non-COVID” excess deaths saved so many more “COVID” deaths that the collateral harm was justified.

But did they?

Again, looking at the data on face value, it does look like COVID is responsible for the excess deaths. The two mortality series are very highly correlated.

But, when you start to scratch a little under the surface, things do not appear to be what they first seem…

You find yourself asking questions like:

1. Are these really deaths from COVID?

2. Are the COVID deaths, real or otherwise, really responsible for the excess deaths?

3. Did the interventions mitigate COVID deaths or cause more deaths than they averted?

Well, there’s some clues in the chart above.

1. Why is the second COVID death rate more than double the original, epidemic wave when we would expect this “novel” pathogen to be most virulent and the susceptible pool to be largest (see below for comment about non-pharmaceutical interventions)?

2. Why is the average age of COVID death so much lower in waves three and four even though the magnitude and rate of mortality remains higher than the original wave? If the oldest are already dead, then the overall mortality should be much lower, just like the average age, not higher!

3. How on earth is there any substantial COVID mortality after spring 2021 if this intervention is supposed to be so Safe and Effective™?!

This is already not consistent with the logical expectation that deaths should decline for so many reasons, including the pull-forward effect and reduced susceptibility pool mentioned above, as well as growing herd immunity and a virus that should mutate to become weaker¹.

Curiously, non-COVID / respiratory excess deaths appear to track overall excess deaths very closely too. Hmmm….

1. How can there be more combined excess COVID / respiratory and non-COVID / respiratory excess than overall excess? Nine thousand compared to seven thousand in the first period to March 2021 and twenty four thousand compared to twenty two thousand overall? That’s two thousand COVID deaths that didn’t cause excess. Non-excess deaths are not a matter of public health concern.

2. How is it at all feasible that the interventions purported to reduce COVID deaths should result in such enormous non-COVID excess mortality at the same time as successfully reducing COVID mortality? I put it to you that the interventions made the COVID situation worse not better. That is more logical and consistent with this evidence.

3. How is it that excess deaths continue when, even according to the official narrative, COVID is no longer a major mortality event (COVID mortality is pretty much non-existent after March 2022) and at the same time support the claim that prior to March 2022, the excess is predominantly due to COVID? when COVID goes away, so should the excess death. It doesn’t.

Conversely, respiratory excess mortality is in deficit throughout the whole period. Given the abundance of evidence that the non-pharmaceutical interventions (social distancing, masks, etc.) made very little to no difference to the spread of the virus, it is most likely that these are “displacement” deaths - either deaths from COVID that otherwise would have been due to some other respiratory pathogen or deaths incorrectly coded as such.

So, now when we justifiably combine COVID and other respiratory disease excess mortality, we have a starting point of less than eleven thousand, not twelve. Consider this with the two thousand reduction articulated above and realistically, we have a COVID death tally of nine thousand so far…

With so many questions, I decided to dig further still…

In addition to the age profile of a COVID death declining dramatically, the ratio of female deaths also changes substantially in the latter period, rising from a steady half to 60%.

And, there is an incredible shift in place of death. In the first wave, the majority of deaths were in nursing homes. This is a familiar pattern, observed all over the “developed” world, where elderly residents were killed by changes in the way they were treated.

But, in subsequent waves, more and more people are dying in hospital, rising from 37% in the first wave to more than three quarters in the latter period.

Again, we know that people were denied access to hospital treatment in the early days but the early days also witnessed less COVID mortality! It’s almost like going to the hospital was worse for your health (and your life) than not going?!

1. So, what then was happening in the hospitals that resulted in more COVID deaths (and more overall excess deaths) than we should have logically and reasonably expected?

2. And how does COVID go from being a disease fatally affecting old people in care homes to one that seems to discriminately target younger women in hospital??

Somewhat perplexed by the extraordinary increase in COVID mortality in October 2020, I consulted two colleagues who are much more familiar with goings on in the American system - John Beaudoin and Aaron Hertzberg².

John suggested I take a look at this:

Well, that would make sense then, wouldn’t it? The drug, colloquially referred to as as “run-death-is-near” in the medical community itself, became very popular at that time, which was also the time that people would be getting sick from all manner of respiratory pathogens that the CDC could easily code as “COVID” once remdesivir had done them in?

I remembered the analysis I did on one of Steve Kirsch’s surveys that indicated remdesivir (as part of the “Fauci protocol”) as being instrumental in death, according to the next-of-kin, even though the medical community that administered it would not admit to it³.

So, that’s one smoking gun. I’m sure those decent people in public health are already undertaking an in-depth investigation into this serious allegation since they have access to considerably more information and resource than me. My breath is bated…

Of course, there was another somewhat major medical intervention in 2021 as well. Purported to be the panacea of all things fatal, though especially for COVID, the COVID “vaccine” was, never-the-less, a little slow to be adopted in Minnesota.

Again, the public data is a bit sketchy and difficult to work with but it looks like the peak in “series complete” for over 65s in Minnesota, i.e. the most vulnerable, susceptible to a COVID death (that weren’t already dead of course), was 31st March 2021, hence my cut-off point for the first period.

By the end of June, three-quarters of the vulnerable are “fully protected”. And yet, an extraordinary “out-of-season” summer respiratory mortality event thus occurs. Weird, right?

Curiously, right in the middle of this event, those poor fragile souls were duly lining up for shot number three. What was it again that the unconflicted experts kept saying about “vaccinating” in the middle of a pandemic?

I don’t know about you but all of this is now beginning to make sense to me - why the age, sex and place of death profiles should change so dramatically over the course of this “pandemic”.

Evidently, not so much a viral pandemic as a shifting iatrogenic one -

1. first, non-pharmaceutical interventions and general disruption to health and social care provision, and treatment protocols, especially affecting care home residents;

2. second, the introduction of a novel therapeutic with known fatal side effects, only administered to those in hospital;

3. third, the introduction of yet another novel therapeutic with absolutely no knowledge about it whatsoever, except past failures of vaccines for coronaviruses, but injected into as many non-thinking people’s arms as quickly as possible, wherever they happen to be or what their risk profile was, and not paused in the slightest as evidence quickly emerged that immune systems were being compromised.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, actually, pretty much everything, as it happens. and, as it was predicted by many in spite of the risks of saying so.

Even conservatively leaving four thousand “COVID” deaths (after making some allowances for the deaths probably precipitated by remdesivir and the “vaccine”), that would still indicate that the interventions accounted for eighteen thousand excess deaths, more than four times more than COVID itself - the cure worse than the disease much?

Actually, I am even tempted to assert that the entire pandemic excess mortality in Minnesota was iatrogenic with a sprinkling of democide.

In other words, without denying the existence of COVID and that it can be fatal in certain circumstances, I honestly believe that if nothing different had been done in response, there would not have been anything particularly remarkable about excess mortality in Minnesota in the last few years.

What do you think?⁴

If your vote is in contradiction to the evidence I have presented, be so kind as to present it in the comments. If there aren’t many comments, I might have to question your sincerity! ;-)

1. In simple terms, virus virulence can be determined as a function of virus pathogenicity and immunological quality of the host. Logically, and according to the literature, less pathogenic viruses are naturally selected as the virus mutates so if the virus is becoming more virulent (killing more, younger people) then something must be interfering with the immunological response of the host.

2. Aaron has written several analyses of the death certificate data himself and draws very similar conclusions to me, albeit coming from a completely different angle. Worth a read:

3. As a side observation, I remarked that there is absolutely no death coded to “Factors influencing health status and contact with health services”. Imagine that, according to the CDC, absolutely no-one in Minnesota died due to poor medical intervention, not a single one!

4. Note to those who voted for option 1. Please read the question properly and the article first before voting. Otherwise, I’d love to hear how you got to your answer based on the evidence. Comments are open to all. Be detailed and provide the EVIDENCE that refutes mine!