Government interventions caused more excess death in Western Europe and life expectancy is the only determinant factor of excess death in Eastern Europe. Vaccines made no significant impact.
The stats are beyond me Joel, but you have laid out your workings for anybody to see. Thank you. As others have pointed out, so much, for so little, and at what terrible cost to us all.
A Public Health Emergency in Canada: The Rate of Change in Excess Millennial Deaths Can’t Be Explained by a Sudden Rush of Suicides, Overdoses, Cancers
Thanks Joel .. it is unsurprising that the vaccines have so little impact when 85-95% of the population have immune systems that cope well with Covid..
the real issue is are they destroying our immune response? Apparently so with boosted people getting covid more…
Thanks for your tenacity.. every time I go to write things down I get frustrated that the flaws In The narrative are so obvious why cannot others see?
What I still don't really get about the whole "SARS-COV-2 is a small deal" or "vaccines are killing people!!!" crowd, is both statistics are always so incredibly small. 1,000 per 1 million range = 0.1% of the entire population in excess death. Meaning 99.9% of people survived both the vaccine and covid-19. Yet, and I mean no offense, but Joey Smalley, has dedicated probably upwards of 300 hours doing long, in-depth analysis, articles, graphs, paragraphs of text and so-forth over something which combined with covid-deaths, has a 99.9% survival rating.
In other words, they should have just left us the fuck alone? But they didn't. And if it wasn't for people like me, they would get away with the damage they have caused and come back next year to do even more.
Oh, and it's a damn sight more than 300 hours, thanks!! I've been publishing counter-narrative facts since March 2020 but you wouldn't know because I've been deplatformed that many times, first LinkedIn and then Twitter. Why would they do that if there was no issue here?
I’ve been particularly brutally censored. Why do that, if I’m so wide of the mark?
And guess why I’m still at it, over two years in?
Because this is a means to a totalitarian end. They’ll take everything that makes life worth living, unless we stop them with the truth & our outrage at what they’ve done.
What you fail to address is the damage, ie lives lost, severe impediment from adverse reactions have been transferred from the old to the young, then there are the economic and social issues ..debt per head of population has doubled and small business decimated, and medical freedoms sacrificed to please an increasingly totalitarian government.. the flow on effects are enormous.. read the Gulags Archipelago to see where this is heading..
what Joel is doing is exposing the lies that this charade is built on.. it’s incredibly valuable to have someone so honest with good skills in stats to do so..
I feel exactly the same, almost everyone survived the virus just fine. They needed something to distract people and to tyrannize them. It´s not the virus but the measures and restrictions what killed so many people.
When you say "In 2021, the year of the vaccine, with a p-value of 26.8%, the vaccine had no significant impact on all-cause mortality", you mean *because of the high p-value* it had no significant impact? Because the chart shows a clear positive correlation, i.e., more vaccination gives more excess mortality.
Correlation is meaningless without a significant p-value. The line has to slope one way or another, even marginally. You rarely get a horizontal one. That's why we have p-values... And the r-square of 7% is paltry too. The vaccine with a claim of being up to 100% effective in stopping death is, as a matter of statistical fact, doing absolutely fuck all.
But how to square this with the number of people we know anecdotally who died immediately following the shots? Because while I know it's anecdotal, I think a huge problem is that people have trusted fake science instead of what they saw with their own eyes. When the data we are given is fake, paying attention to what we SEE matters. And I've seen a lot of death and damage happening to people who got the shots.
I know someone who works for an insurance company doing studies that are the last phase of drug approval for drug companies where they are looking to see if there are excess problems after drugs are approved (a major conflict of interest to have insurance and drug companies tied together like this if you think about the ramifications) and this person said that when it comes to Covid, they're all but told what they are allowed to find. So they can try to rule out adverse effects reported by vaccinated patients in the anonymized patient data, but for unvaccinated, they accept any problems reported. Then they can say there weren't excess problems among those vaccinated. This person spoke to their boss about the flaws in the way they were doing the study and was told tactfully that there's too much pressure to find good results about the vaccine, that they can't take the risk of finding otherwise. So the study must be done in this biased way.
With this kind of widespread corruption of data everywhere, how can we know a lot isn't being hidden from us? Is there no way the death data could be corrupted, too, or do you think it is untamperable?
And since many people have been injured, won't we likely see continuing higher deaths for a long time to come and greater health costs?
Great work, as always Joel. Any chance you could analyse all cause mortality in Sweden (minimal govt intervention) vs Australia (heavy government intervention)? It would be interesting to see if there was an effect, a timing change, or no effect.
I don't trust the data from most European countries. Exceptions are: Iceland and Sweden, why? Because they have inflated the covid metrics and deflated the vaccine injuries for egregious political purposes.
Is there any way to age-standardise this analysis? Seems like a potentially big confounder. All else equal, a country with a younger population will have lower excess mortality rates and lower vaccination rates - but not necessarily to the same extents
There are lots of insightful studies we could do if they released the data. But they don't. So we just work with what we've got. And that is considerably better than the tripe that comes out of the official sources like the ONS, UKHSA and SAGE.
The stats are beyond me Joel, but you have laid out your workings for anybody to see. Thank you. As others have pointed out, so much, for so little, and at what terrible cost to us all.
A Public Health Emergency in Canada: The Rate of Change in Excess Millennial Deaths Can’t Be Explained by a Sudden Rush of Suicides, Overdoses, Cancers
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/a-public-health-emergency-in-canada
Thanks Joel .. it is unsurprising that the vaccines have so little impact when 85-95% of the population have immune systems that cope well with Covid..
the real issue is are they destroying our immune response? Apparently so with boosted people getting covid more…
Thanks for your tenacity.. every time I go to write things down I get frustrated that the flaws In The narrative are so obvious why cannot others see?
What I still don't really get about the whole "SARS-COV-2 is a small deal" or "vaccines are killing people!!!" crowd, is both statistics are always so incredibly small. 1,000 per 1 million range = 0.1% of the entire population in excess death. Meaning 99.9% of people survived both the vaccine and covid-19. Yet, and I mean no offense, but Joey Smalley, has dedicated probably upwards of 300 hours doing long, in-depth analysis, articles, graphs, paragraphs of text and so-forth over something which combined with covid-deaths, has a 99.9% survival rating.
In other words, they should have just left us the fuck alone? But they didn't. And if it wasn't for people like me, they would get away with the damage they have caused and come back next year to do even more.
Oh, and it's a damn sight more than 300 hours, thanks!! I've been publishing counter-narrative facts since March 2020 but you wouldn't know because I've been deplatformed that many times, first LinkedIn and then Twitter. Why would they do that if there was no issue here?
Quite. I believe everything they’ve told us about the virus is lies, as is everything they’ve claimed for the vaccines.
https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Covid-Lies-updated.pdf
I’ve been particularly brutally censored. Why do that, if I’m so wide of the mark?
And guess why I’m still at it, over two years in?
Because this is a means to a totalitarian end. They’ll take everything that makes life worth living, unless we stop them with the truth & our outrage at what they’ve done.
What you fail to address is the damage, ie lives lost, severe impediment from adverse reactions have been transferred from the old to the young, then there are the economic and social issues ..debt per head of population has doubled and small business decimated, and medical freedoms sacrificed to please an increasingly totalitarian government.. the flow on effects are enormous.. read the Gulags Archipelago to see where this is heading..
what Joel is doing is exposing the lies that this charade is built on.. it’s incredibly valuable to have someone so honest with good skills in stats to do so..
I don't think this would be done if the vaccines weren't being pushed on us by force. It's a reaction to something. Not an action for something.
I feel exactly the same, almost everyone survived the virus just fine. They needed something to distract people and to tyrannize them. It´s not the virus but the measures and restrictions what killed so many people.
True, both have an impact which can be ignored if one is not looking hard enough. Which is why there are two stubborn sides to both viewpoints.
When you say "In 2021, the year of the vaccine, with a p-value of 26.8%, the vaccine had no significant impact on all-cause mortality", you mean *because of the high p-value* it had no significant impact? Because the chart shows a clear positive correlation, i.e., more vaccination gives more excess mortality.
Correlation is meaningless without a significant p-value. The line has to slope one way or another, even marginally. You rarely get a horizontal one. That's why we have p-values... And the r-square of 7% is paltry too. The vaccine with a claim of being up to 100% effective in stopping death is, as a matter of statistical fact, doing absolutely fuck all.
Excuse my language.
Totally justified. But I'm more used to people saying "'Scuse my French".
But how to square this with the number of people we know anecdotally who died immediately following the shots? Because while I know it's anecdotal, I think a huge problem is that people have trusted fake science instead of what they saw with their own eyes. When the data we are given is fake, paying attention to what we SEE matters. And I've seen a lot of death and damage happening to people who got the shots.
I know someone who works for an insurance company doing studies that are the last phase of drug approval for drug companies where they are looking to see if there are excess problems after drugs are approved (a major conflict of interest to have insurance and drug companies tied together like this if you think about the ramifications) and this person said that when it comes to Covid, they're all but told what they are allowed to find. So they can try to rule out adverse effects reported by vaccinated patients in the anonymized patient data, but for unvaccinated, they accept any problems reported. Then they can say there weren't excess problems among those vaccinated. This person spoke to their boss about the flaws in the way they were doing the study and was told tactfully that there's too much pressure to find good results about the vaccine, that they can't take the risk of finding otherwise. So the study must be done in this biased way.
With this kind of widespread corruption of data everywhere, how can we know a lot isn't being hidden from us? Is there no way the death data could be corrupted, too, or do you think it is untamperable?
And since many people have been injured, won't we likely see continuing higher deaths for a long time to come and greater health costs?
Thanks so much for your work!
Indeed. It's only anecdotal because they won't share the data. We had it briefly from Alberta. I'm waiting 2 months already for the ONS to release the same data. They are desperately trying to come up with yet another excuse - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/days_between_covid_vaccination_a#outgoing-1271177
Great work, as always Joel. Any chance you could analyse all cause mortality in Sweden (minimal govt intervention) vs Australia (heavy government intervention)? It would be interesting to see if there was an effect, a timing change, or no effect.
I don't trust the data from most European countries. Exceptions are: Iceland and Sweden, why? Because they have inflated the covid metrics and deflated the vaccine injuries for egregious political purposes.
Thank you, Joel. I would like to share this with certain colleagues. What datasets did you use?
Data - https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer
Worksheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J9HknibFtGUmbuJYOTIcIYBIKKstHS0R/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=108444380134617054259&rtpof=true&sd=true
Is there any way to age-standardise this analysis? Seems like a potentially big confounder. All else equal, a country with a younger population will have lower excess mortality rates and lower vaccination rates - but not necessarily to the same extents
There are lots of insightful studies we could do if they released the data. But they don't. So we just work with what we've got. And that is considerably better than the tripe that comes out of the official sources like the ONS, UKHSA and SAGE.
The data should be weighed with population of the country.
It is...