Maybe all the men stood up in restaurants when taking off their masks? Or ate sandwiches standing up on trains? Walked the wrong way around supermarkets? Drove their cars alone without masks on? Did that bloke thing of not going to A&E when collapsed on the floor with heart attacks? Were all bus drivers in London (I remember that being a definite marker for covid death)?
As was the Spanish Flu which also affected primarily robust military age males.
Gee I wonder why? Crazy bug no? Maybe SARS-COVEE DEUX great grand daddy?
"Exploding the Spanish Flu Myth"
An Unusual Flu That Kills the Young and Strong and Spares the Old
Unique to all of epidemiological history the Spanish Flu was said to have an “unprecedented age-specific mortality pattern, in which young adults were at extraordinarily high risk of dying, a feature not observed in influenza outbreaks before or since.”
The mortality profile of the 1918 epidemic was exceptional in many ways.The age-specific mortality pattern for this flu was radically different from the traditional U-shaped patterns, meaning high mortality in the very young and the very old, and low mortality in the in-between age groups, as seen in all previous influenza outbreaks.
In contrast with past influenza mortality patterns the Spanish Flu produced a peculiar W-shaped mortality age profile, meaning that the age groups 15–24, 25–34, and 35–44, experienced the highest rates of mortality.
Also of note is that the male death rates for influenza in 1918 far exceeded the female death rates among adults.
This depicted an unprecedented age-specific mortality pattern, in which young adult males were at extraordinarily high risk of dying, a feature not observed in influenza outbreaks before or since.
The young males who were most severely impacted by this ostensible illness were by and large precisely those who were involved in WW1 combat, “The first of three waves hit soldiers in France early in 1918. But the flu soon spread from there, in two subsequent and far more virulent waves, to sicken soldiers and civilians almost everywhere.”
Explanations for these uncanny deviations from all known medical history were perfunctory, insufficiently explained and usually came with qualifiers, “Elders may have acquired immunity from exposure to a previous flu outbreak” or “The less than predicted mortality in the elderly conceivably could be attributed to 19th century exposure either to then-prevalent influenza A viruses containing H1 or N1 surface proteins.”
Another stab at explaining away this mortality mystery suggested, “the disproportionate increase in frequency of secondary bacterial pneumonias in healthy young adults might be an additional manifestation of viral virulence associated with differential host immune responses.”
With no definitive explanations ever offered some experts would admit, “The extreme virulence of the fall wave has never been explained”, while obliquely suggesting, “Both the nature of the virus itself and accompanying bacterial pneumonias may be involved.”
In 2008 researchers at the National Institute of Health (NIH) concluded that bacterial pneumonia was the killer in 92% of the autopsies of those who died of so-called “Spanish flu” between 1918 and 1919. Their research looked at 8,398 autopsies from 15 countries. Virtually all of the lung tissue examinations showed, “compelling histologic evidence of severe acute bacterial pneumonia, either as the predominant pathology or in conjunction with underlying pathologic features now believed to be associated with influenza virus infection,” including damage to the bronchial epithelium.
Ignored in this profusion of conjecture, research and speculation were the concrete realities of the mass amounts of toxins, stressors and non-stop biological assaults being confronted on a daily basis by the group most heavily afflicted by this mysterious flu.
No matter how obvious it was that the victims of this alleged disease were under the most violent of assaults in multiple ways, officialdom only allowed for ‘the pathogen’ to be considered as the explanation for these illnesses and deaths.
You tell people that medical treatment is the 3rd leading cause of death (at least in US) and they can't believe it. If we were to include the long-term consequences of medical treatment it would easily be #1 as it often causes #'s 1 and 2.
The one person I know whose death was attributed to Covid was a man (May 2020). During the Delta phase (summer/fall 2021) my health care provider told me that it was most challenging to treat young men. They were sicker and required higher doses of ivermectin to clear the virus. It was during this same period that the FLCCC recommended anti-androgens as part of their protocol. The suspected reason for the difference was testosterone.
I’m a medical copy editor and so I search and read medical articles fast and easily. My recollection of the mainstream medical consensus during 2020 is that male sex, increasing age, increasing BMI, and nonsmoking all increased the severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 illness.
The question I find more interesting is why low BMI and cigarette smoking, which are risk factors for most respiratory infections, were actually protective in COVID-19 cases.
There's not any explanation, not intubation/ventilation nor remdesivir, that would be expected to have a lesser impact on smokers vs. nonsmokers.
However, revisiting this four years later, it appears that the finding was a fluke, and cigarette smoking does appear to increase COVID-19 risks. Probably.
This systematic review is a good example of science correcting itself the way it's supposed to. Unfortunately, the conclusion is also a good example of the tendency of modern authors and journals to make sweeping statements not justified by the data in the paper. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35126740/
Well...you gotta get RID of the males in a population to make a smooth conquest. Cuz then it's just women and children to topple. I know...there are some fierce women out there, but men are bigger and stronger.
All colonizers know this and practice it. Ask any indigenous people.
As men are more likely than women to stay away from the doctor at the best of times, I suspect the widespread partial closure of health services had something to do with it.
Clever idea! Maybe someone had already thought to look at the data for age cohorts by year born before, but I don't remember seeing it and I certainly didn't see age-sex cohorts.
It is hard to accurately calculate excess mortality because of the various assumptions that go into the calculations. Is there any reason to think that your excess mortality calculation for males and females is not skewing the data? The signal seems big so I don't think this would be the case, but I thought I would ask.
Also, have you done this same calculation for each year (age), sex for all the years you have data for?
I've written hours and hours on my methodology. You can (in)validate it for yourself if you like! It's considerably more intuitive and empirically robust than any of the garbage coming from the official agencies though. ;-) It also happens to be the same methodology that actuaries use to derive life tables...
Are they though? Or, are we letting our prior assumptions obfuscate some other cause? In the article you shared, there is no mention of biological distinction, only exogenous factors like smoking and air quality - no mention of anything biological in the pathogen or the host that explains why men might sometimes be more susceptible to a respiratory pathogen than women.
At the very least, we must accept that it is an interplay of pathogen and host and it is not necessarily a fair one?! In other words, if it is materially a function of the quality of the host, any treatment of the pathogen, per se, e.g. NPIs to limit spread (OMG!!!!), are likely to be of little consequence. Checks notes... they were. And if some really are sex discriminatory and some aren't, where is the body of evidence that was used to treat appropriately? We might both argue in favour of heterogenous intervention, regardless of our beliefs on the matter? And yet, with "COVID", we got a completely homogeneous response. It was a catastrophically inappropriate reaction how ever you look at it.
It's all total nonsense. Men are not more apt towards "respiratory pathogens" and also has nothing to do with "interplay of pathogen and host."
Has all to do with real life conditions. I will cite two examples there are many, many more- hundreds probably thousands.
In the late 1800's, early 1900's they were studying "pneumococcal disease" and the potential for vaccines to eradicate it. The initial studies were done in the mining areas of S Africa were there were high rates in the all male miners. The studies focused on lung infections, bacterial causes (Pfeiffers) etc. The solution of course to be the vaccine. It was all bullshit even putting aside the rigged studies. It was the miners getting hammered by their working conditions in the miners (particularly silica dust) and not some bacteria.
Fast forward to the Covid Con 2020 in N Italy. Why was it males were getting hit harder in early 2020 and why were rates of lung cancer deaths higher for males in that area. Targeted virii-? Interplay of pathogen and host? Nope.
===============
Ongoing and accelerating “epidemics” of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,( a severe and progressive lung disease), interstitial lung disease and high rates of bronchial and lung cancer were signature epidemiological features of Northern Italy long before an alleged virus ventured onto the scene.
In the Lombardy region there is also an ongoing asbestos problem from occupational asbestos exposure in the 1960s and 1970s. A 2016 study, “Incidence of mesothelioma in Lombardy, Italy: exposure to asbestos, time patterns and future projections, predicted a rise of malignant mesothelioma (MM), an aggressive and deadly form of cancer primarily impacting the linings of the chest and abdomen. “This study documented a high burden of MM in both genders in the Lombardy Region, reflecting extensive occupational (mainly in men) and non-occupational (mainly in women) exposure to asbestos in the past. Incidence rates are still increasing; a downturn in occurrence of MM is expected to occur after 2019.”
Go here and see links and you will find that while women were also impacted more men were being hit by lung cancer than women in this region.
1) Obeys geographic borders
2) Racist
3) Sexist
Follow the Science!
''Humanity is about to be tested....... mayankjeptha.substack.com/p/qbpe
Maybe all the men stood up in restaurants when taking off their masks? Or ate sandwiches standing up on trains? Walked the wrong way around supermarkets? Drove their cars alone without masks on? Did that bloke thing of not going to A&E when collapsed on the floor with heart attacks? Were all bus drivers in London (I remember that being a definite marker for covid death)?
Nailed it.
Women knew to stay on the safety dots.
Men were risking it all by straying off of them.
As was the Spanish Flu which also affected primarily robust military age males.
Gee I wonder why? Crazy bug no? Maybe SARS-COVEE DEUX great grand daddy?
"Exploding the Spanish Flu Myth"
An Unusual Flu That Kills the Young and Strong and Spares the Old
Unique to all of epidemiological history the Spanish Flu was said to have an “unprecedented age-specific mortality pattern, in which young adults were at extraordinarily high risk of dying, a feature not observed in influenza outbreaks before or since.”
The mortality profile of the 1918 epidemic was exceptional in many ways.The age-specific mortality pattern for this flu was radically different from the traditional U-shaped patterns, meaning high mortality in the very young and the very old, and low mortality in the in-between age groups, as seen in all previous influenza outbreaks.
In contrast with past influenza mortality patterns the Spanish Flu produced a peculiar W-shaped mortality age profile, meaning that the age groups 15–24, 25–34, and 35–44, experienced the highest rates of mortality.
Also of note is that the male death rates for influenza in 1918 far exceeded the female death rates among adults.
This depicted an unprecedented age-specific mortality pattern, in which young adult males were at extraordinarily high risk of dying, a feature not observed in influenza outbreaks before or since.
The young males who were most severely impacted by this ostensible illness were by and large precisely those who were involved in WW1 combat, “The first of three waves hit soldiers in France early in 1918. But the flu soon spread from there, in two subsequent and far more virulent waves, to sicken soldiers and civilians almost everywhere.”
Explanations for these uncanny deviations from all known medical history were perfunctory, insufficiently explained and usually came with qualifiers, “Elders may have acquired immunity from exposure to a previous flu outbreak” or “The less than predicted mortality in the elderly conceivably could be attributed to 19th century exposure either to then-prevalent influenza A viruses containing H1 or N1 surface proteins.”
Another stab at explaining away this mortality mystery suggested, “the disproportionate increase in frequency of secondary bacterial pneumonias in healthy young adults might be an additional manifestation of viral virulence associated with differential host immune responses.”
With no definitive explanations ever offered some experts would admit, “The extreme virulence of the fall wave has never been explained”, while obliquely suggesting, “Both the nature of the virus itself and accompanying bacterial pneumonias may be involved.”
In 2008 researchers at the National Institute of Health (NIH) concluded that bacterial pneumonia was the killer in 92% of the autopsies of those who died of so-called “Spanish flu” between 1918 and 1919. Their research looked at 8,398 autopsies from 15 countries. Virtually all of the lung tissue examinations showed, “compelling histologic evidence of severe acute bacterial pneumonia, either as the predominant pathology or in conjunction with underlying pathologic features now believed to be associated with influenza virus infection,” including damage to the bronchial epithelium.
Ignored in this profusion of conjecture, research and speculation were the concrete realities of the mass amounts of toxins, stressors and non-stop biological assaults being confronted on a daily basis by the group most heavily afflicted by this mysterious flu.
No matter how obvious it was that the victims of this alleged disease were under the most violent of assaults in multiple ways, officialdom only allowed for ‘the pathogen’ to be considered as the explanation for these illnesses and deaths.
...
https://healthfreedomdefense.org/exploding-the-spanish-flu-myth/
100 years of BS and still going strong! Pharmaceutical and NPIs are the biggest causes of death!
You tell people that medical treatment is the 3rd leading cause of death (at least in US) and they can't believe it. If we were to include the long-term consequences of medical treatment it would easily be #1 as it often causes #'s 1 and 2.
Exactly! Throw the childhood vaccination program in there and it's a fait accompli!
Logic and Sex...
Victoria Starmer has a husband
Kier Starmer is a penis
Therefore Victoria has a penis
QED
Starmer was right after all.
Sir kiers father was a tool maker, therefore kier is a tool
Thank you, Oscar.
I should have included that as a lemma.
The one person I know whose death was attributed to Covid was a man (May 2020). During the Delta phase (summer/fall 2021) my health care provider told me that it was most challenging to treat young men. They were sicker and required higher doses of ivermectin to clear the virus. It was during this same period that the FLCCC recommended anti-androgens as part of their protocol. The suspected reason for the difference was testosterone.
I’m a medical copy editor and so I search and read medical articles fast and easily. My recollection of the mainstream medical consensus during 2020 is that male sex, increasing age, increasing BMI, and nonsmoking all increased the severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 illness.
The question I find more interesting is why low BMI and cigarette smoking, which are risk factors for most respiratory infections, were actually protective in COVID-19 cases.
I recall that too. Maybe it wasn't a respiratory virus what got them after all?! Sometimes the most obvious answer isn't the most obvious one!
There's not any explanation, not intubation/ventilation nor remdesivir, that would be expected to have a lesser impact on smokers vs. nonsmokers.
However, revisiting this four years later, it appears that the finding was a fluke, and cigarette smoking does appear to increase COVID-19 risks. Probably.
This systematic review is a good example of science correcting itself the way it's supposed to. Unfortunately, the conclusion is also a good example of the tendency of modern authors and journals to make sweeping statements not justified by the data in the paper. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35126740/
Well...you gotta get RID of the males in a population to make a smooth conquest. Cuz then it's just women and children to topple. I know...there are some fierce women out there, but men are bigger and stronger.
All colonizers know this and practice it. Ask any indigenous people.
Girl Power...👧
As men are more likely than women to stay away from the doctor at the best of times, I suspect the widespread partial closure of health services had something to do with it.
remind me what Covid is/was?
what pandemic?
how do you know you have Covid?
''Humanity is about to be tested....... mayankjeptha.substack.com/p/qbpe
As usual, the biologics are full of gobbledygook and politics. "Covid is sexist" is a non-sequitur. Neither exist in my world.
Clever idea! Maybe someone had already thought to look at the data for age cohorts by year born before, but I don't remember seeing it and I certainly didn't see age-sex cohorts.
It is hard to accurately calculate excess mortality because of the various assumptions that go into the calculations. Is there any reason to think that your excess mortality calculation for males and females is not skewing the data? The signal seems big so I don't think this would be the case, but I thought I would ask.
Also, have you done this same calculation for each year (age), sex for all the years you have data for?
I've written hours and hours on my methodology. You can (in)validate it for yourself if you like! It's considerably more intuitive and empirically robust than any of the garbage coming from the official agencies though. ;-) It also happens to be the same methodology that actuaries use to derive life tables...
Fail safe methodology- "They are lying about everything."
K. Just checking.
Have you only looked at 1940 data?
Other respiratory pathogens are more deadly for men than women, too.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9605880/
Are they though? Or, are we letting our prior assumptions obfuscate some other cause? In the article you shared, there is no mention of biological distinction, only exogenous factors like smoking and air quality - no mention of anything biological in the pathogen or the host that explains why men might sometimes be more susceptible to a respiratory pathogen than women.
At the very least, we must accept that it is an interplay of pathogen and host and it is not necessarily a fair one?! In other words, if it is materially a function of the quality of the host, any treatment of the pathogen, per se, e.g. NPIs to limit spread (OMG!!!!), are likely to be of little consequence. Checks notes... they were. And if some really are sex discriminatory and some aren't, where is the body of evidence that was used to treat appropriately? We might both argue in favour of heterogenous intervention, regardless of our beliefs on the matter? And yet, with "COVID", we got a completely homogeneous response. It was a catastrophically inappropriate reaction how ever you look at it.
It's all total nonsense. Men are not more apt towards "respiratory pathogens" and also has nothing to do with "interplay of pathogen and host."
Has all to do with real life conditions. I will cite two examples there are many, many more- hundreds probably thousands.
In the late 1800's, early 1900's they were studying "pneumococcal disease" and the potential for vaccines to eradicate it. The initial studies were done in the mining areas of S Africa were there were high rates in the all male miners. The studies focused on lung infections, bacterial causes (Pfeiffers) etc. The solution of course to be the vaccine. It was all bullshit even putting aside the rigged studies. It was the miners getting hammered by their working conditions in the miners (particularly silica dust) and not some bacteria.
Fast forward to the Covid Con 2020 in N Italy. Why was it males were getting hit harder in early 2020 and why were rates of lung cancer deaths higher for males in that area. Targeted virii-? Interplay of pathogen and host? Nope.
===============
Ongoing and accelerating “epidemics” of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,( a severe and progressive lung disease), interstitial lung disease and high rates of bronchial and lung cancer were signature epidemiological features of Northern Italy long before an alleged virus ventured onto the scene.
In the Lombardy region there is also an ongoing asbestos problem from occupational asbestos exposure in the 1960s and 1970s. A 2016 study, “Incidence of mesothelioma in Lombardy, Italy: exposure to asbestos, time patterns and future projections, predicted a rise of malignant mesothelioma (MM), an aggressive and deadly form of cancer primarily impacting the linings of the chest and abdomen. “This study documented a high burden of MM in both genders in the Lombardy Region, reflecting extensive occupational (mainly in men) and non-occupational (mainly in women) exposure to asbestos in the past. Incidence rates are still increasing; a downturn in occurrence of MM is expected to occur after 2019.”
Go here and see links and you will find that while women were also impacted more men were being hit by lung cancer than women in this region.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/03/07/italy-2020-inside-covids-ground-zero-in-europe/
Well there are people with other ideas https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7820860/
But, indeed the completely homogeneous response doesn't have much going for it besides simplicity.
And control..