Does the Annual Flu Jab Save Lives or Take Them?
Preliminary analysis using my new mortality model suggests the latter.
There are currently no fewer than six flu vaccines available in the UK for everyone aged 6 months and older. But are they necessary and do they actually work?
Using my new mortality model, I set out to preliminarily test the hypothesis that the flu campaigns in the UK are beneficial in terms of public health, using empirical data rather than dogmatic assertion.
To keep things concise (and minimise the risk of confounding), I limited this analysis to women born between 1930 and 1950, i.e. aged between 50 and 70 when the public funded, Big Pharma advertising public “health” campaigns really ramped up in the year 2000.
As it happens, no matter how I tried to slice and dice it, I could not calibrate my model to accommodate data before and after 2000 to 2010. The regime change was evident1. But which way did things go? If the flu jab campaigns were responsible for the regime change, we should expect mortality to drop underneath the model after the inflection point.
Let’s take a look:
For all birth cohorts between 1930 and 1950, mortality outcomes become demonstrably worse after the year 2000.
The inflection points are at different ages, signifying that it was an exogenous event that was responsible for the regime change, rather than something that naturally occurs with age.
The impact is not observed under the age of 65 (coincidentally, the target age to maximise uptake).
Looking at the annual excess mortality since 2010, it seems apparent that whatever was responsible for the substantial excess mortality in 2020 (the year of “COVID”) and even more so in 2021 (the year of the “COVID” “vaccine”), it was the same thing that has been killing elderly women in the UK for over 20 years, and getting progressively worse each year until the pull-forward effect finally kicks in.
My colleagues, who are vastly more experienced than me in matters of public health, suggested we consider changes to palliative care recommendations like the Liverpool Care Pathway that was introduced in the 1990s but eventually phased out by around 20132.
Indeed, I noticed that the older cohorts (1920 to 1930, not included here, and also 1930 to 1940) exhibited unusual excess at least 10 years prior to the younger cohorts which would adequately explain and support this.
However, for me, the evidence here strongly suggests that the annual flu jab may be the causal factor in worsened mortality expectations, not improved.
Moreover, the maniacal response to COVID has given us a trove of empirical evidence, clearly demonstrating that those who continually subject themselves to faulty inoculations, subverting their immune systems, ultimately end up with more infections, severe disease and death3.
If it's respiratory pathogens, they are evidently getting more virulent, i.e. either systematically more pathogenic OR the host is getting more immunologically compromised? Occam’s razor leads me back to the latter, i.e. the jab interfering with the natural immunological process.
If it’s not flu vaccines, where’s the evidence of reduced mortality instead?
Whilst doing my (own!) research, I discovered this old piece I had shared on LinkedIn near the start of the declared COVID pandemic, showing a very strong correlation between flu vaccination uptake and COVID mortality:
And there is this corroborative information based on US data compiled and analysed by Jessica Hockett:
Still waiting for the ONS to respond with a quote for the more complete and accurate dataset so that we can do a conclusive analysis but these preliminary results are not pointing in the right direction if you’re on the side of the public health agencies and their vaccine propaganda messages.
The only thing I'm currently convinced of is that the vaccine industry is an effective way to transfer public funds into private hands.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
Incidentally, this regime change was not apparent in older cohorts, e.g. those women born in 1905, i.e. already dead or substantially moribund before they could “benefit” from these public health interventions.
Albeit still retained psychologically by medical practitioners of the era.
I had noticed that those taking the flu jab almost immediately had....flu. As you know, I spent my life as a Headteacher surrounded by hundreds of children. I never took the flu jab despite repeated invites and only once had flu. We have an immune system--fighting infection is what it has done for ever and is what it is for. I strongly object to babies being forced to have a flu jab and to young parents being coerced to have their child jabbed.
I never took one. In the Netherlands we get a flu jab invite from 60 years onward. I figured I should be able to survive a flu. If not, its apparently time to meet the grim reaper. Already realised that these viruses mutate rapidly, so its a Russian roulette anyway. Did do a bit of research, and apparently in the past it was possible (even in MSM) to express doubts about certain medical interventions. Found an article from 2014 that basically said no evidence of efficacy of flu jabs was ever found.
Which leaves the possible adverse effects, and makes the scale tip towards a no.
I am afraid its another money making scheme.