Once again, you hit the ball out of the park. A big thank you to John Dee as well. A pleasure to read these findings. They are reassuring to all of us who have declined the experimental biologicals. Heartbreaking for those who for whatever reason, consented.🥲
Couldn’t agree more. It’s clearly the JABS , plus all other government interventions - lockdowns, harming private businesses, resulting depression and substance abuse and ESPECIALLY suppressing early treatment with IVM and HCQ. I’m on HCQ and have not gotten sick in a year.
Not at all. I would love to hear your thoughts or odds you'd give to these excess deaths being the tip of the iceberg or if these excess deaths are like a car pile up where the majority of the damage is done early on but maybe another car or two fails to stop in time and add to the pile up? and everyone else will be able to stop in time.
Ex are these excess deaths going to trail back to normal levels or near zero excess when adoption of boosters drops? Ex In Canada, shot 1 is 88, shot 2 82 percent. Shot 3 51 percent. Shot 4, 12 percent. Shot 5 like 2 or 3 percent. I'm sure 6, 7 and 8 Trudeau bought for 2023 and 2024 will mostly go down the drain.
Or is the damage done and even if they stop taking additional doses, those who have been dosed are headed to one inevitable, sad, outcome within 2 to 5 years. More doses just trending towards 0 to 2 years and less towards 5.
So far, everything I've analysed appears to show the acute phase returning to a plateau as fewer people line up for another dose (perhaps all the really dumb ones are dead already?). However, I also observe new baselines or tide marks that are higher than before the experiment. This will also result from ("lockdown") denial of healthcare though. Regardless, IMO, it doesn't really matter - killed by policy interventions against COVID or killed by the mRNA experiment - you were killed by the government, their advisers, Big Tech enablers, MSM and various other supporters all-the-same.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree the reason behind the deaths is less important than the lives lost and ensuring blame is placed squarely on the responsible parties.
I do still think if this is tip of the iceberg or mostly over is an important topic to discuss as it could radically alter life in the future. Ex if for example 25 percent of the population became freeloaders over the next two years, due to vaccine related, disability before going on to die three years later, the drain on the system would be immense. We'd have children, elderly and 25% of the working age population leeching/draining resources while producing none.
Likewise if say 25 to 50 percent just flat out drops death suddenly in their sleep over the next five years. As this would large happen in Western nations and not-happen to certain vaccine-skeptic demographics. So you'd see a shift in ethnicity/ethnic makeup of some countries that might lead to social unrest over perceived, taught or even encouraged grievances. You'd also see a radically drop in Western populations compared to Asia, specifically China and half of India would be effected as about 50% took the mRNA shots. So India's manufacturing/military/power base would be crippled. The Wests would be.
Since China did not roll out the mRNA vaccine basically and went with more traditional SinoVax, geopolitically it would massively shift population distribution globally. With it potentially military power... You'd go for 1 Billion people supporting a lesser-equipped army versus 600M or so in the US+NATO Allies to 1 Billion versus 120M (assuming 2 doses of the vaccine is lethal over five years -- ie the iceberg scenario).
If its the car-pile up scenario were most of the injuries/deaths are in... then not much changes. Like 1B versus 598M rather than 600M. Very tragic that 2M people died unnecessarily for no benefit -- however -- the upside (if there is such a thing) is life might return to something similar to "normal" and the geopolitical status-quo continue for a while longer.
Who would have thought taking part in an experiment by injecting a novel drug into one's body, could have the potential of a negative outcome?
Answer: Anyone with a functioning brain.
To seek to eliminate extremely low known risk (serious adverse health outcome from Covid), by undertaking entirely unknown risk (could be inconsequential, could be catastrophic) is sheer lunacy.
That’s exactly my thinking when I avoided the jab and continue to avoid. In fact, I’ll never get a vaccine again, from what I’ve now seen. Nor my indoor cats.
I know many people who will never take any vaccine ever again. All based on fraud and none we’re never tested against a placebo group. 97% of SIDS cases happen within a week of a childhood vaccine.
The doctors and nurses were told by their bosses (administrators), who were told by politicians, to admit COVID patients because the hospitals got a big bonus for every COVID hospital admission. The hospitals also got another bonus for every COVID-19 death. Thus the politicians can put the blame squarely on the hospitals for the deaths. Some doctors complied, some didn't.
You really made me LOL! But seriously, I do actually put a LOT of thought into font and colour so you may be onto something. What, I'm not entirely sure but that is one experiment I don't mind taking part in!!
There’s definitely a theme of “old newspaper,” maybe typewriter with men authors, a lot of “red ink” like they’re correcting others’ work. I’d sum it up as: “making the case I’m correct! This is worth your time”
With the women, the aesthetic is about aesthetic, it’s about putting the reader in a pleasant calming [mental] space. I’d sum it up as: “a warm welcome to my garden” and “tea and biscuits?”
“🌸Grateful you’re here🌸”
This is quite stereotypical, so maybe not much in ways of revolutionary research, but still fun and interesting to observe… and maybe useful for appealing to more people 🤷♀️
Definitely on the “what is a woman?” Debate. There’s something to say about font and background colors… 😏
Thanks so much for including the nice charts that help those of us who cannot follow the calculations or draw the relationships from the tables, see trends with out own eyes too!
The amazing John Dee - kettle on! Wonder if he will swap his kettle as Boris advises 😆 me thinks not.
His analysis and methods to interpret data was such a revelation to me in the beginning of this mess. It really helped me and brought me to you and Steve. Thank you all for your hard work!
I know from my own experience that the guy working with the figures understands the charts much better than anyone. I have difficult getting my head around exactly what you mean when you say p=0.0.
I *think* I know what you mean, but this is a question that should be asked. A full explanation is likely to be valuable.
Thanks. My gut instinct said that the data you are working with would suggest a non-zero p value, and that the found value of p might give more insight into the processes under review.
May I suggest that the VAERS database has an inbuilt filter? One that selects for conscience driven selection and accuracy? If so would that reduce the value of p?
By the way, brilliant insight to pick up on this, and thanks for all that digging.
I'm not any kind of mathematician. I've only ever seen p values around 0.001 or suchlike, never zero before. As I understand it, the p value (probability value) is the likelihood that the finding under discussion could have occurred by random chance, so a p value of zero means it absolutely under no circumstances could have occurred by chance. I hope that's correct.
Are the deaths with/ of covid definitively determined? Are they just based on the PCR test in hospital together with a medical diagnosis? The data coming from various sources must be rather muddied if it is just the test. The MRNA jab outcomes are separate issue from covid death data? Presumably any analysis can only really 'rely' on the official inaccurate figures. Not meant to be critical here.
"Given that the sacred cow doesn’t feed me, I have no constraints in investigating any possible relationship between the mRNA and excess deaths so here goes".... Perhaps at this point, the sacred cow will finally knock on your door offering to feed you?
If the jabs have a systematic impact on the body (clots, heart damage) or immune system you would expect that to impact both covid and none covid deaths.. given only 8% of covid deaths had no other comorbidities.. ie the jabs negative impact would be an effect similar to any other comorbidities...
So the analysis should run for all cause morbidity first then split.. the R2 between vac and death should be higher in non covid deaths simply because there are less co morbidities that the “covid deaths” that also being confounded by the high rate of false positives..and the low fatality of covid itself.. by focusing only on below 60s some of that is removed because there are fewer comorbidities to influence results.. age being a very significant comorbidities.
No one is taking part in the experiment anymore? I wish! My hubby wants to take the new bivalent jab (he is 3x jabbed, now), despite having had some flavor of omicron in June. (I'm unjabbed and Delta-recovered.) I'm trying to talk him out of it, but he believes the main stream media, so we shall see if I can convince him to take a pass on this...
And now they have the bivalent one as well that includes BA.4/BA.5 plus the long-extinct Wuhan strain. I wonder how many people will even bother with that one now?
When figuring out how many people may have been kept alive by the vaxxes, it will be necessary to take into account the many people who died of COVID in spite of being vaxxed. I believe the vast majority of vaxxed people would not have died of COVID had they not been vaxxed. They helped create the appearance that the vaxxes are effective, when in fact they benefitted a relatively few people.
Once again, you hit the ball out of the park. A big thank you to John Dee as well. A pleasure to read these findings. They are reassuring to all of us who have declined the experimental biologicals. Heartbreaking for those who for whatever reason, consented.🥲
Let's not ever forget, the Covid deaths would have been almost entirely avoided by banned, and suppressed early treatment protocols.
That is, all these excess deaths are the result of formal bureaucratic, and governmental interventions.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s clearly the JABS , plus all other government interventions - lockdowns, harming private businesses, resulting depression and substance abuse and ESPECIALLY suppressing early treatment with IVM and HCQ. I’m on HCQ and have not gotten sick in a year.
BINGO. Dr. Vladimir Zev Zelenko knew what he was talking about. And his advice fell on deaf ears. As did Dr. Dmitry Kats and so many others.
In a world of Lysenkos, be a Zelenko.
Error in subheading. "of 18 to 565 year". ITS KILLING VAMPIRES TOO?!
Would you be surprised?!
Not at all. I would love to hear your thoughts or odds you'd give to these excess deaths being the tip of the iceberg or if these excess deaths are like a car pile up where the majority of the damage is done early on but maybe another car or two fails to stop in time and add to the pile up? and everyone else will be able to stop in time.
Ex are these excess deaths going to trail back to normal levels or near zero excess when adoption of boosters drops? Ex In Canada, shot 1 is 88, shot 2 82 percent. Shot 3 51 percent. Shot 4, 12 percent. Shot 5 like 2 or 3 percent. I'm sure 6, 7 and 8 Trudeau bought for 2023 and 2024 will mostly go down the drain.
Or is the damage done and even if they stop taking additional doses, those who have been dosed are headed to one inevitable, sad, outcome within 2 to 5 years. More doses just trending towards 0 to 2 years and less towards 5.
So far, everything I've analysed appears to show the acute phase returning to a plateau as fewer people line up for another dose (perhaps all the really dumb ones are dead already?). However, I also observe new baselines or tide marks that are higher than before the experiment. This will also result from ("lockdown") denial of healthcare though. Regardless, IMO, it doesn't really matter - killed by policy interventions against COVID or killed by the mRNA experiment - you were killed by the government, their advisers, Big Tech enablers, MSM and various other supporters all-the-same.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree the reason behind the deaths is less important than the lives lost and ensuring blame is placed squarely on the responsible parties.
I do still think if this is tip of the iceberg or mostly over is an important topic to discuss as it could radically alter life in the future. Ex if for example 25 percent of the population became freeloaders over the next two years, due to vaccine related, disability before going on to die three years later, the drain on the system would be immense. We'd have children, elderly and 25% of the working age population leeching/draining resources while producing none.
Likewise if say 25 to 50 percent just flat out drops death suddenly in their sleep over the next five years. As this would large happen in Western nations and not-happen to certain vaccine-skeptic demographics. So you'd see a shift in ethnicity/ethnic makeup of some countries that might lead to social unrest over perceived, taught or even encouraged grievances. You'd also see a radically drop in Western populations compared to Asia, specifically China and half of India would be effected as about 50% took the mRNA shots. So India's manufacturing/military/power base would be crippled. The Wests would be.
Since China did not roll out the mRNA vaccine basically and went with more traditional SinoVax, geopolitically it would massively shift population distribution globally. With it potentially military power... You'd go for 1 Billion people supporting a lesser-equipped army versus 600M or so in the US+NATO Allies to 1 Billion versus 120M (assuming 2 doses of the vaccine is lethal over five years -- ie the iceberg scenario).
If its the car-pile up scenario were most of the injuries/deaths are in... then not much changes. Like 1B versus 598M rather than 600M. Very tragic that 2M people died unnecessarily for no benefit -- however -- the upside (if there is such a thing) is life might return to something similar to "normal" and the geopolitical status-quo continue for a while longer.
😂
Have you ever tried to suck blood from a vein full of clots?
Who would have thought taking part in an experiment by injecting a novel drug into one's body, could have the potential of a negative outcome?
Answer: Anyone with a functioning brain.
To seek to eliminate extremely low known risk (serious adverse health outcome from Covid), by undertaking entirely unknown risk (could be inconsequential, could be catastrophic) is sheer lunacy.
There is no escaping this fact.
That’s exactly my thinking when I avoided the jab and continue to avoid. In fact, I’ll never get a vaccine again, from what I’ve now seen. Nor my indoor cats.
I know many people who will never take any vaccine ever again. All based on fraud and none we’re never tested against a placebo group. 97% of SIDS cases happen within a week of a childhood vaccine.
The doctors and nurses were told by their bosses (administrators), who were told by politicians, to admit COVID patients because the hospitals got a big bonus for every COVID hospital admission. The hospitals also got another bonus for every COVID-19 death. Thus the politicians can put the blame squarely on the hospitals for the deaths. Some doctors complied, some didn't.
The vast majority of doctors complied, many passionately so, some didn't. And, those few that didn't, were left isolated by those who did.
When it kills cockroaches (& Cher) I’ll be surprised....
It might be getting GI Jane...
Wow incredible work.
When this is over, imma write a paper on the psychology of substack authors based on the fonts and page colors they use…
😁
🫂♥️🫂
Amazing man, thank you.
Even if saying it a million times, it’s never less sincere
You really made me LOL! But seriously, I do actually put a LOT of thought into font and colour so you may be onto something. What, I'm not entirely sure but that is one experiment I don't mind taking part in!!
Thank you!
There’s definitely a theme of “old newspaper,” maybe typewriter with men authors, a lot of “red ink” like they’re correcting others’ work. I’d sum it up as: “making the case I’m correct! This is worth your time”
With the women, the aesthetic is about aesthetic, it’s about putting the reader in a pleasant calming [mental] space. I’d sum it up as: “a warm welcome to my garden” and “tea and biscuits?”
“🌸Grateful you’re here🌸”
This is quite stereotypical, so maybe not much in ways of revolutionary research, but still fun and interesting to observe… and maybe useful for appealing to more people 🤷♀️
Definitely on the “what is a woman?” Debate. There’s something to say about font and background colors… 😏
“TranSubstaX Matters?”
Thanks so much for including the nice charts that help those of us who cannot follow the calculations or draw the relationships from the tables, see trends with out own eyes too!
The amazing John Dee - kettle on! Wonder if he will swap his kettle as Boris advises 😆 me thinks not.
His analysis and methods to interpret data was such a revelation to me in the beginning of this mess. It really helped me and brought me to you and Steve. Thank you all for your hard work!
I know from my own experience that the guy working with the figures understands the charts much better than anyone. I have difficult getting my head around exactly what you mean when you say p=0.0.
I *think* I know what you mean, but this is a question that should be asked. A full explanation is likely to be valuable.
And Thanks.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/p-value.asp
Thanks. My gut instinct said that the data you are working with would suggest a non-zero p value, and that the found value of p might give more insight into the processes under review.
May I suggest that the VAERS database has an inbuilt filter? One that selects for conscience driven selection and accuracy? If so would that reduce the value of p?
By the way, brilliant insight to pick up on this, and thanks for all that digging.
I'm not any kind of mathematician. I've only ever seen p values around 0.001 or suchlike, never zero before. As I understand it, the p value (probability value) is the likelihood that the finding under discussion could have occurred by random chance, so a p value of zero means it absolutely under no circumstances could have occurred by chance. I hope that's correct.
It's zero due to rounding. You could never get a value of absolute zero unless your data was fake.
It's not letting me 'like', but that's helpful. Thanks. I was puzzled by the p = 0 Explaining that it's due to rounding makes that clearer.
Are the deaths with/ of covid definitively determined? Are they just based on the PCR test in hospital together with a medical diagnosis? The data coming from various sources must be rather muddied if it is just the test. The MRNA jab outcomes are separate issue from covid death data? Presumably any analysis can only really 'rely' on the official inaccurate figures. Not meant to be critical here.
Whatever the criteria is in the CDC data - https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Week-Sex-and-Age/vsak-wrfu
I just talked to Joel. He was going to get the booster, but I talked him out of it. Whew! Dodged that bullet. :)
The curve match is [EDIT] also interesting if I compare 'covid' deaths to jabs administered over time, rather than vaers proxy data.
[PICTURE DELETED FOR INACCURACY]
CDC source data as .csv here: https://0x0.st/of8a.csv
Sourced from https://ourworldindata.org/us-states-vaccinations
Oh, I am an idiot. I didn't scale the jabs curve correctly. Sorry. Don't share the pic.
"Given that the sacred cow doesn’t feed me, I have no constraints in investigating any possible relationship between the mRNA and excess deaths so here goes".... Perhaps at this point, the sacred cow will finally knock on your door offering to feed you?
If the jabs have a systematic impact on the body (clots, heart damage) or immune system you would expect that to impact both covid and none covid deaths.. given only 8% of covid deaths had no other comorbidities.. ie the jabs negative impact would be an effect similar to any other comorbidities...
So the analysis should run for all cause morbidity first then split.. the R2 between vac and death should be higher in non covid deaths simply because there are less co morbidities that the “covid deaths” that also being confounded by the high rate of false positives..and the low fatality of covid itself.. by focusing only on below 60s some of that is removed because there are fewer comorbidities to influence results.. age being a very significant comorbidities.
No one is taking part in the experiment anymore? I wish! My hubby wants to take the new bivalent jab (he is 3x jabbed, now), despite having had some flavor of omicron in June. (I'm unjabbed and Delta-recovered.) I'm trying to talk him out of it, but he believes the main stream media, so we shall see if I can convince him to take a pass on this...
If he wants to see Christmas this year, do not jab!
And now they have the bivalent one as well that includes BA.4/BA.5 plus the long-extinct Wuhan strain. I wonder how many people will even bother with that one now?
When figuring out how many people may have been kept alive by the vaxxes, it will be necessary to take into account the many people who died of COVID in spite of being vaxxed. I believe the vast majority of vaxxed people would not have died of COVID had they not been vaxxed. They helped create the appearance that the vaxxes are effective, when in fact they benefitted a relatively few people.
Hi Joel!
Why'd you compare 'covid' deaths over time to vaers reports, not to jabs administered?
Seems like administered jabs is the more direct, less confounded, less-proxy input of interest.
...
Pulling jan-august 2021 data from https://ourworldindata.org/us-states-vaccinations
Yields a far more striking match to deaths curve.
Uploaded as .png here: https://0x0.st/of8m.png
Source data as .csv here: https://0x0.st/of8a.csv
Would your analysis with these data show even more significant results?