There is no such country (not that produces useful mortality data at any rate). Even the countries with low vax uptake at least jabbed their oldest and most vulnerable so they still achieved some half decent killings.
Nov 4, 2022·edited Nov 4, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley
Very few of those excess deaths are caused by a virus. Both the Covid era and Covid 'vaccine' era excess deaths are iatrogenic, due almost entirely to negligent medical 'care' and the administration of a uniquely dangerous pharmaceutical product, respectively. It looks to me like we are not going to see excess deaths return to their base level pre Covid for quite some time, maybe many years. They did this and they are still doing this, aware of the catastrophic consequences, right from the word go. Classic FM are STILL running adverts for Covid-19 'vaccines' even now, taking the government's filthy money in order to promote the killing of yet more people. All those middle class normies who tune in to listen to soothing classical music in the morning are blissfully unaware that the owners of the station they're listening to are complicit in an ongoing iatrogenocide - targeting THEM!. It's just mind blowing.
These three items expose the pandemic fraud for what it was and destroy the entirety of the Covid narrative.
1) What the hospital protocols were and what they did;
2) What happened in the nursing homes in March/April 2020;
3) How the CDC/NHS etc. manufactured Covid deaths through fraudulent coding.
They also highlight the fact that there was mass murder that was intentionally orchestrated and intentionally utilized to create the illusion that there was a 'deadly' pandemic.
Why were 14,369 injury deaths listed in the Covid-19 death count? Why were 1,265 deaths due to falls listed in the Covid death toll? Why were drowning deaths included in the Covid death toll? Why were suicides included in the Covid death toll?
Etc.
99% of people falsely certified as having ‘died from covid’ actually died from their preexisting conditions being exacerbated by mass medical malpractice and ‘public health’ despotism, the other 1% simply died of old age.
From the CDC itself 7/16/21: “Of the 540,667 hospitalized coronavirus patients included in the study, 80,174 died during the observation period (March 2020 to March 2021). A whopping 99.1% of the patients who died had at least one pre-existing condition, with just 740 having no prior condition on record.
Most patients who "died from COVID" had multiple pre-existing conditions, with just 2.6% suffering from only one condition, compared to 32.3% who had two to five preexisting conditions, 39.1% who had six to ten, and 25.1% who have more than ten pre-existing conditions.”
Translation: No one has ‘died from covid’ as “covid” is nothing more than a fraudulent PCR result plus a nebulous clinical re-branding of cold, “flu” and many other disease conditions.
Yes....using the Classic FM medium with the adverts in Alexander Armstrong's programme to, no doubt, inspire confidence among the listeners. It could be termed TVI...Trusted Voice Initiative.
They started on John Humphrys' morning show. Humphrys is an icon of British trustworthiness. In between his dulcet, soothing tones and relaxing classical music, on comes a young woman with a thick northern accent spewing vile government propaganda on Covid-19 vaccines. How jarring is that?
Well said. My favourite word learned over the past few years is "iatrogenic". It perfectly defines the harms and the deaths we've seen, which have by and large been caused by the NPIs and novel medical treatments ostensibly designed to mitigate the impact of the virus.
I wholeheartedly believe that if there had been no NPIs whatsoever and no novel treatments (or treatment protocols) this virus would have killed no more vulnerable people than would be expected to die during a bad flu season.
In some places we would have seen a hump in excess deaths in spring 2020 surpassing the usual winter hump seen in Dec/Jan. We would have accepted that a particularly nasty virus was doing the rounds but we would have been stoic about it the way we were with swine flu in 2009-10. Everybody knows these waves of illness are self-limiting. You don't disrupt society; you don't try to play catch-up with leaky vaccines; and you sure as hell don't ban doctors from treating patients with known antivirals and tell people who are sick and frail to stay home until they can't breathe. And you don't lock down the care homes, isolating and neglecting elderly residents!
Our entire response seems to have been designed to maximise death, ill health, mental problems, stress, impoverishment and despair.
From what I’m reading and seeing the excess non-covid deaths are only getting started, first with cardiovascular issues and then increasingly cancer deaths. I’ve lost count of how many friends have older relatives now developing stage 4 cancers after years in remission or never having been ill before!
Apparently the UK Telegraph posted a study... referenced here...https://youtu.be/bGZJfVR9-wo.....i am surprised they haven't pulled Campbell yet. He has changed his mind. I appreciate his reporting like I appreciate your data analysis. Keep it up.
One complication is that during the very steep initial curve you have a combination of very few people vaccinated and a huge wave.
This is further complicated by countries like Australia that vaccinated heavily in the absence of a wave with no similar spike.
I happen to suspect that vaccinating in the midst of a Covid wave is a disaster, a pattern that we've seen many times, but since they overlap here you can either blame Covid or the transfection injection.
Nov 4, 2022·edited Nov 4, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley
To put this in perspective.... the UK/England has 60M people roughly, and I'll use this figure for convenience sake. 60,000,000 / 60,000,00 = 1,000. Or 1 in 1,000 people died due to "excess mortality". This represents 0.1% of the population. Assuming an EXTRA 0.1% of the population died every year, it would take 1000 years, 100 decades or 10 centuries for the population to get extinct. HOLD YOUR HORSES BOYS. England might be a graveyard by 3022!
People keep talking about this like it is the 'end of the world' and 'everyone will be dead in 2 years' (2 years passed, 0.1% dead...), now 'everyone will be dead in 5 years!' I wonder if in 5 years if it'll be 80% of the population who took two or more shots or 0.5%....
I still think 1 in 1000 chance is quite high and there should be no mandates or forced vaccination or firing the unvaccinated policies. Those are quite ridiculous. However, I am just not entirely convinced by the doomsday predictors saying this is the tip of the iceberg of a tsunami of death. If the excess deaths begin to climb and continue to climb, sure.
I love Dr. Yadeon's expertise and Dr. Geet Vander Bosche but I don't know if an ultra-deadly covid-19 infection is going to emerge that this point that nearly perfectly escapes both the bivalent and original boosters, which wipes them all out. Assuming this data is accurate, this seems like a doomsday prediction.
However, I have a quick ask/question for Joey Smalley, if he could perform this statistical calculation. On the "Died Suddenly News" and various "Died Suddenly" groups, many commenters report to have personally know 5 people who died from the vaccine. Generally, going as far as two-levels or three-levels out from general acquaintances. Ex "My Hairdresser's brother". "My Hairdresser's client's sister". Or "my daughter's sister in law..."
Statistically speaking, what size of pool is that? Does the average person have 5 extended family members and 25+ acquaintenances and 5+ good friends and 10+ coworkers (in the same department), so its .....~40 who also know 40.... giving you 40^2 or 40^3 depending on if you are going one or two levels out?
If so, what is the likelihood with that sample size and a 1 in 1000 rate of death, someone knows 5, 10, or 15 people who have died suddenly?
I think your denominator should be the expected annual mortality rate which is roughly 750K deaths/year (60 million / 80 years' lifespan). The graph suggests that the excess mortality after the start of the vaxx is about 50K per year. So the mortality rate is increased by 50K/750K or around 7%.
That just means a reduction in expected (mean) lifespan to 75 but no one to my knowledge has argued that it's the end of the world (unless they're approaching 75). Also, if the vaxx stops then hopefully we'll get the 5 years back again.
Nov 4, 2022·edited Nov 4, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley
Actually, a lot of people think it will be the end of Western civilization, ironically. Human birth rates have been plummeting for years and now there are many anecdotal stories and even some leaked hospital documents (See Steve Kirsch's substack) saying miscarriages in first trimester, second and third and death shortly after birth are quite elevated Especially second and third trimester which is usually when pregnancies become more "stable". If you combine reduced-population increases with unexpected, sudden, population decreases (even in the 18s to 49 age bracket)....you are burning the candle of humanity's longevity at both ends of the stick, so to speak.
The most ardent mRNA is-evil-depopulation theorists believe the rare/severe cancer rates are skyrocketing too. So that mRNA might be a 'cancer in a shot' that will result in 80% of the population getting moderate to severe cancers that threaten their live over the next 5 years. Thus, a 5-years-till 80% die period. This being a combination of mRNA turning off genes responsible for your immune system fighting cancer, reduction of T-cells for reduced apodosis/atrophy, less ability to fight off future viruses that cause cancer like HPV, etc. Originally, many said 2-years....
Personally, I don't buy into the depopulation agenda at all. Simply nowhere near enough people have died / will die. For me, it's all about the money, control and incompetence.
Nov 4, 2022·edited Nov 4, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley
I would replace the word 'incompetence' with malign buffoonery.
Have you seen this- it's worth listening to as it gives insight into the benign evil of these hyenas who "plan" these things. As you can hear in the various presentations pretty much all these people talk about is business and markets. Even as they speak about some "potential pandemic" and use couched langauge, the ideas of how to monetize and control is the basis for every thing they say.
And they're doing all of this amidst clinking dishes and a pleasant lunch/dinner.
It's 50 minutes- the audio improves after about the first 20 minutes:
"The Dossier has obtained the audio from the first announcement for Event 201, the Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum sponsored war-game simulation that took place in October 2019, in which a fictional coronavirus passed from an animal reservoir to humans, where organizers warned of a “similar pandemic in the future.”
These are unconvincing arguments. You can’t possibly assert knowledge of how few people will die in the future. If we accept the premise, then clearly it would be designed to inflict direct damage, or reduction of birth rates over a long time period to dissuade any causal links being made. Any early deaths are therefore very undesirable so we could consider them to be unintentional and expect any suggestion of links to be highly suppressed. Sounds familiar? Only last week in the petition ‘debate’, we saw a government minister dismiss huge number of Yellow Card reports as no evidence of causal harm. She also casually dismissed concerns about excess deaths. The battles that the injured and bereaved are going through is another data point. The government and health authorities are simply not interested. Fingers in their ears going “la-la-la”…
The “incompetence” theory has always been nonsense. There was no incompetence. The desired result was achieved with ruthless efficiency.
For a quick comparison though. The way I figure it is..... if you know 40 people well enough to talk about the death of family members with or they would tell you if there was a death. So probably moderately-close coworkers, service providers you interact with or extended family, and they all know 40 people each (which we'll assuming are mutually exclusive so none of their 40 people is the same as in your 40 group of people), you'd know 1,600 people. If 1 in 1000 are dying, the average person, by just looking at friend of a friend, should know 1.6 people who died-suddenly or unexpectedly according to the graph.
So people posting in Died Suddenly News, they know '3' people is probably not-rare and I suspect, they'd be telling the truth. Because its only double the expected figure and its easy when dealing with 1,600 to find 1.5 extra-unfortunate individuals. But when you say '12', I think the likelihood dramatically decreases because you're going from double the norm of 1.6 to .... some ten-times.
On the other hand, with 3-levels out, you have 40^3 or 64,000. So going three levels out with 1 in 1000 odds, the average person should know 64 people who have died-suddenly or died-unexpectedly, if we are talking 'sister of a friend of my hairdresser'. That might create the illusion of EVERYONE IS DYING because you'd have heard PEOPLE DIED SUDDENLY 64 times in your life. Even though, the odds would really be 1 in 1000 or 0.1%, the 64 people you've heard of might make it FEEL or make one GUESTIMATE the odds are far higher like 1 in 20...
However, it wouldnt' actually be 64,000 because chances are, your 40 people you know are not exclusive from all other 64,000 people. So maybe 4,000 or 5,000 is more accurate. As my coworker, would share 10 coworkers and my friends probably know my friends and that hairdresser/car mechanic/guy you know from 7-11, can't be counted as a connection to all 40 people who visit them as they don't each exist 40 times, etc.
Hence, to figure out any kind of probability of network size three-times out, etc... you'd need some kind of Statistician or Data Scientist. Someone like Joey Smalley....
For clarification, I am actually not trying to calculate the change in life expectancy or death rate. I'm more curious about the odds of one of three scenarios:
1. The statistics are way off/under reported.
2. How likely a person is fibbing or stretching the truth
3. The product is so poorly manufactured or there is a large variation in dose that some places get hit extremely harder than others.
If I say.... "I live in England and I know 12 people who have died suddenly!" and the odds are 1 in 1000..... Based upon 60,000 out of 60M....
Obviously, if I say "12 people in my extended family" it is highly likely to be false. Its pretty simple why. If you'll allow me to explain... Let's say you have '5' people in your family who all had '5' kids, and your parents had '5' siblings who each had '5 children. That's a pretty big family. You'd have 5(your family)+5(the spouses of the anuts/uncles) + 5 (aunts and uncles themselves) + (6x5) people in your extended family and the grandparents. Basically 45 people would be in your extended family and that's a big-family, imo. Even if we multiply that family size by 5.... which would be a HUGE family, we'd have 250 people.
So with 1 in 1000 odds, you should have... under 0.25 person who died suddenly in your immediate family or you could say 3 times the odds, nobody has died than 1 person has died. So the odds, 2 people have died....or 4...or 6...or 12 is progressively multiplicatively lower. The probability that person had 12 direct family members die or ~5% of the 250 people is statistically impossible unless:
1. The statistics are way off/under reported. Where its 1 in 20 dying suddenly and not 1 in 1000.
2. How likely a person is fibbing or stretching the truth. The person actually knew 3 who died but exaggerated and said 12.
3. The product is so poorly manufactured or there is a large variation in dose that some places get hit extremely harder than others. IE some batches are 50x more toxic than other batches explaining the 1 in 20 versus 1 in 1000 difference.
I read the news and they told me that this is because people avoided going to the doctor during the lockdowns. So I guess now they are going to the doctors and the doctors are killing them off. This is just delayed iatrogenocide being cleared out of the system. Once we get caught back up on it and other things that were delayed by not visiting the doctor like SIDS, the mortality will go back to normal.
Yes, bum steer with the original post. I was just going to use the chart for simplicity but for the data nerds, the table is more compelling. Again. with age stratification, this is a complexity I reserve for more detailed, single country analyses. Really tried to keep this one as simple as possible.
There are only two horses in that race – lockdowns and their effect on health and healthcare access, and mRNA therapies. A reasonable hypothesis would be that the former has laid open vulnerability that the latter has capitalised on.
Recently found out that a friends very fit and healthy 41 year old cousin died - sudden aggressive cancer and now his healthy 46 year old sister has had a stroke.
Another friend has a female friend in her 50's just diagnosed with myocarditis.
My boss who has never been sick in the 6 years I have known her (not a single sniffle), had Convid quite bad a couple of months ago and the other day I could hear she had a chesty cough.
covid wasn't deadly, not treating it was. ppl died largely due to underlying illness, the NPC's using a faulty PCR replication process to determine everyone who died of any cause, multiple comorbidities, a car accident, or whatever, but also "tested" positive for covid & recording the death to be FROM covid was a lie to begin with. A very lucrative lie that the power hungry couldn't resist to use to manipulate.
Do you think you could add the dates the jabs were introduced to chart? Adults and kids. Also would be good to see when the mandates were added as well. The chart as it is shows we were trending down then 'something' happens in Dec-January 2021 and deaths start spiking again to never really decline or get back to baseline.
The BHF are attributing around 30k "extra heart disease deaths" since March 2020, owing to ambulance delays, difficulties accessing care, rising waiting lists. Do heart disease deaths include sudden cardiac arrests ( courtesy, say, post jab) or are these people with chronic cardiac disease who have succumbed because of aforementioned delays? How can they be separated to pinpoint the actual cause of what the BHF describes as " needless deaths"?
The deaths start when the jabbing starts. It's not a coincidence. Talk of it being collateral harm of measures is gaslighting, not that it's any better. The government is responsible for the deaths in both scenarios. It's Democide, plain and simple.
Very clear graph! Clearly the vaccinations did not help, to say the least!
This is just the starters! Wait until you get to the main course and then dessert!!
will you be including countries with low vax uptake to compare and contrast with?
There is no such country (not that produces useful mortality data at any rate). Even the countries with low vax uptake at least jabbed their oldest and most vulnerable so they still achieved some half decent killings.
It depends how you define "help"...
ironically!
Very few of those excess deaths are caused by a virus. Both the Covid era and Covid 'vaccine' era excess deaths are iatrogenic, due almost entirely to negligent medical 'care' and the administration of a uniquely dangerous pharmaceutical product, respectively. It looks to me like we are not going to see excess deaths return to their base level pre Covid for quite some time, maybe many years. They did this and they are still doing this, aware of the catastrophic consequences, right from the word go. Classic FM are STILL running adverts for Covid-19 'vaccines' even now, taking the government's filthy money in order to promote the killing of yet more people. All those middle class normies who tune in to listen to soothing classical music in the morning are blissfully unaware that the owners of the station they're listening to are complicit in an ongoing iatrogenocide - targeting THEM!. It's just mind blowing.
These three items expose the pandemic fraud for what it was and destroy the entirety of the Covid narrative.
1) What the hospital protocols were and what they did;
2) What happened in the nursing homes in March/April 2020;
3) How the CDC/NHS etc. manufactured Covid deaths through fraudulent coding.
They also highlight the fact that there was mass murder that was intentionally orchestrated and intentionally utilized to create the illusion that there was a 'deadly' pandemic.
Why were 14,369 injury deaths listed in the Covid-19 death count? Why were 1,265 deaths due to falls listed in the Covid death toll? Why were drowning deaths included in the Covid death toll? Why were suicides included in the Covid death toll?
Etc.
99% of people falsely certified as having ‘died from covid’ actually died from their preexisting conditions being exacerbated by mass medical malpractice and ‘public health’ despotism, the other 1% simply died of old age.
From the CDC itself 7/16/21: “Of the 540,667 hospitalized coronavirus patients included in the study, 80,174 died during the observation period (March 2020 to March 2021). A whopping 99.1% of the patients who died had at least one pre-existing condition, with just 740 having no prior condition on record.
Most patients who "died from COVID" had multiple pre-existing conditions, with just 2.6% suffering from only one condition, compared to 32.3% who had two to five preexisting conditions, 39.1% who had six to ten, and 25.1% who have more than ten pre-existing conditions.”
Translation: No one has ‘died from covid’ as “covid” is nothing more than a fraudulent PCR result plus a nebulous clinical re-branding of cold, “flu” and many other disease conditions.
Yes....using the Classic FM medium with the adverts in Alexander Armstrong's programme to, no doubt, inspire confidence among the listeners. It could be termed TVI...Trusted Voice Initiative.
They started on John Humphrys' morning show. Humphrys is an icon of British trustworthiness. In between his dulcet, soothing tones and relaxing classical music, on comes a young woman with a thick northern accent spewing vile government propaganda on Covid-19 vaccines. How jarring is that?
Well said. My favourite word learned over the past few years is "iatrogenic". It perfectly defines the harms and the deaths we've seen, which have by and large been caused by the NPIs and novel medical treatments ostensibly designed to mitigate the impact of the virus.
I wholeheartedly believe that if there had been no NPIs whatsoever and no novel treatments (or treatment protocols) this virus would have killed no more vulnerable people than would be expected to die during a bad flu season.
In some places we would have seen a hump in excess deaths in spring 2020 surpassing the usual winter hump seen in Dec/Jan. We would have accepted that a particularly nasty virus was doing the rounds but we would have been stoic about it the way we were with swine flu in 2009-10. Everybody knows these waves of illness are self-limiting. You don't disrupt society; you don't try to play catch-up with leaky vaccines; and you sure as hell don't ban doctors from treating patients with known antivirals and tell people who are sick and frail to stay home until they can't breathe. And you don't lock down the care homes, isolating and neglecting elderly residents!
Our entire response seems to have been designed to maximise death, ill health, mental problems, stress, impoverishment and despair.
From what I’m reading and seeing the excess non-covid deaths are only getting started, first with cardiovascular issues and then increasingly cancer deaths. I’ve lost count of how many friends have older relatives now developing stage 4 cancers after years in remission or never having been ill before!
Excellent work - yet again. Not a surprise to know that BookFace have blocked me from posting this misinformation.....
Apparently the UK Telegraph posted a study... referenced here...https://youtu.be/bGZJfVR9-wo.....i am surprised they haven't pulled Campbell yet. He has changed his mind. I appreciate his reporting like I appreciate your data analysis. Keep it up.
YouTube is censoring my comments on his channel. Trying to suggest Zelenko like protocol for scared jabbed
One complication is that during the very steep initial curve you have a combination of very few people vaccinated and a huge wave.
This is further complicated by countries like Australia that vaccinated heavily in the absence of a wave with no similar spike.
I happen to suspect that vaccinating in the midst of a Covid wave is a disaster, a pattern that we've seen many times, but since they overlap here you can either blame Covid or the transfection injection.
I remain suspicious about the potential impact of the trials that occurred around the world before the mass experiment began.
To put this in perspective.... the UK/England has 60M people roughly, and I'll use this figure for convenience sake. 60,000,000 / 60,000,00 = 1,000. Or 1 in 1,000 people died due to "excess mortality". This represents 0.1% of the population. Assuming an EXTRA 0.1% of the population died every year, it would take 1000 years, 100 decades or 10 centuries for the population to get extinct. HOLD YOUR HORSES BOYS. England might be a graveyard by 3022!
People keep talking about this like it is the 'end of the world' and 'everyone will be dead in 2 years' (2 years passed, 0.1% dead...), now 'everyone will be dead in 5 years!' I wonder if in 5 years if it'll be 80% of the population who took two or more shots or 0.5%....
I still think 1 in 1000 chance is quite high and there should be no mandates or forced vaccination or firing the unvaccinated policies. Those are quite ridiculous. However, I am just not entirely convinced by the doomsday predictors saying this is the tip of the iceberg of a tsunami of death. If the excess deaths begin to climb and continue to climb, sure.
I love Dr. Yadeon's expertise and Dr. Geet Vander Bosche but I don't know if an ultra-deadly covid-19 infection is going to emerge that this point that nearly perfectly escapes both the bivalent and original boosters, which wipes them all out. Assuming this data is accurate, this seems like a doomsday prediction.
However, I have a quick ask/question for Joey Smalley, if he could perform this statistical calculation. On the "Died Suddenly News" and various "Died Suddenly" groups, many commenters report to have personally know 5 people who died from the vaccine. Generally, going as far as two-levels or three-levels out from general acquaintances. Ex "My Hairdresser's brother". "My Hairdresser's client's sister". Or "my daughter's sister in law..."
Statistically speaking, what size of pool is that? Does the average person have 5 extended family members and 25+ acquaintenances and 5+ good friends and 10+ coworkers (in the same department), so its .....~40 who also know 40.... giving you 40^2 or 40^3 depending on if you are going one or two levels out?
If so, what is the likelihood with that sample size and a 1 in 1000 rate of death, someone knows 5, 10, or 15 people who have died suddenly?
Arrggghhh! Not my domain, I'm afraid. I specialise in time series analysis (econometrics)!
I think your denominator should be the expected annual mortality rate which is roughly 750K deaths/year (60 million / 80 years' lifespan). The graph suggests that the excess mortality after the start of the vaxx is about 50K per year. So the mortality rate is increased by 50K/750K or around 7%.
That just means a reduction in expected (mean) lifespan to 75 but no one to my knowledge has argued that it's the end of the world (unless they're approaching 75). Also, if the vaxx stops then hopefully we'll get the 5 years back again.
Actually, a lot of people think it will be the end of Western civilization, ironically. Human birth rates have been plummeting for years and now there are many anecdotal stories and even some leaked hospital documents (See Steve Kirsch's substack) saying miscarriages in first trimester, second and third and death shortly after birth are quite elevated Especially second and third trimester which is usually when pregnancies become more "stable". If you combine reduced-population increases with unexpected, sudden, population decreases (even in the 18s to 49 age bracket)....you are burning the candle of humanity's longevity at both ends of the stick, so to speak.
The most ardent mRNA is-evil-depopulation theorists believe the rare/severe cancer rates are skyrocketing too. So that mRNA might be a 'cancer in a shot' that will result in 80% of the population getting moderate to severe cancers that threaten their live over the next 5 years. Thus, a 5-years-till 80% die period. This being a combination of mRNA turning off genes responsible for your immune system fighting cancer, reduction of T-cells for reduced apodosis/atrophy, less ability to fight off future viruses that cause cancer like HPV, etc. Originally, many said 2-years....
Personally, I don't buy into the depopulation agenda at all. Simply nowhere near enough people have died / will die. For me, it's all about the money, control and incompetence.
I would replace the word 'incompetence' with malign buffoonery.
Have you seen this- it's worth listening to as it gives insight into the benign evil of these hyenas who "plan" these things. As you can hear in the various presentations pretty much all these people talk about is business and markets. Even as they speak about some "potential pandemic" and use couched langauge, the ideas of how to monetize and control is the basis for every thing they say.
And they're doing all of this amidst clinking dishes and a pleasant lunch/dinner.
It's 50 minutes- the audio improves after about the first 20 minutes:
"The Dossier has obtained the audio from the first announcement for Event 201, the Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum sponsored war-game simulation that took place in October 2019, in which a fictional coronavirus passed from an animal reservoir to humans, where organizers warned of a “similar pandemic in the future.”
https://dossier.substack.com/p/exclusive-the-dossier-uncovers-wef
These are unconvincing arguments. You can’t possibly assert knowledge of how few people will die in the future. If we accept the premise, then clearly it would be designed to inflict direct damage, or reduction of birth rates over a long time period to dissuade any causal links being made. Any early deaths are therefore very undesirable so we could consider them to be unintentional and expect any suggestion of links to be highly suppressed. Sounds familiar? Only last week in the petition ‘debate’, we saw a government minister dismiss huge number of Yellow Card reports as no evidence of causal harm. She also casually dismissed concerns about excess deaths. The battles that the injured and bereaved are going through is another data point. The government and health authorities are simply not interested. Fingers in their ears going “la-la-la”…
The “incompetence” theory has always been nonsense. There was no incompetence. The desired result was achieved with ruthless efficiency.
For a quick comparison though. The way I figure it is..... if you know 40 people well enough to talk about the death of family members with or they would tell you if there was a death. So probably moderately-close coworkers, service providers you interact with or extended family, and they all know 40 people each (which we'll assuming are mutually exclusive so none of their 40 people is the same as in your 40 group of people), you'd know 1,600 people. If 1 in 1000 are dying, the average person, by just looking at friend of a friend, should know 1.6 people who died-suddenly or unexpectedly according to the graph.
So people posting in Died Suddenly News, they know '3' people is probably not-rare and I suspect, they'd be telling the truth. Because its only double the expected figure and its easy when dealing with 1,600 to find 1.5 extra-unfortunate individuals. But when you say '12', I think the likelihood dramatically decreases because you're going from double the norm of 1.6 to .... some ten-times.
On the other hand, with 3-levels out, you have 40^3 or 64,000. So going three levels out with 1 in 1000 odds, the average person should know 64 people who have died-suddenly or died-unexpectedly, if we are talking 'sister of a friend of my hairdresser'. That might create the illusion of EVERYONE IS DYING because you'd have heard PEOPLE DIED SUDDENLY 64 times in your life. Even though, the odds would really be 1 in 1000 or 0.1%, the 64 people you've heard of might make it FEEL or make one GUESTIMATE the odds are far higher like 1 in 20...
However, it wouldnt' actually be 64,000 because chances are, your 40 people you know are not exclusive from all other 64,000 people. So maybe 4,000 or 5,000 is more accurate. As my coworker, would share 10 coworkers and my friends probably know my friends and that hairdresser/car mechanic/guy you know from 7-11, can't be counted as a connection to all 40 people who visit them as they don't each exist 40 times, etc.
Hence, to figure out any kind of probability of network size three-times out, etc... you'd need some kind of Statistician or Data Scientist. Someone like Joey Smalley....
For clarification, I am actually not trying to calculate the change in life expectancy or death rate. I'm more curious about the odds of one of three scenarios:
1. The statistics are way off/under reported.
2. How likely a person is fibbing or stretching the truth
3. The product is so poorly manufactured or there is a large variation in dose that some places get hit extremely harder than others.
If I say.... "I live in England and I know 12 people who have died suddenly!" and the odds are 1 in 1000..... Based upon 60,000 out of 60M....
Obviously, if I say "12 people in my extended family" it is highly likely to be false. Its pretty simple why. If you'll allow me to explain... Let's say you have '5' people in your family who all had '5' kids, and your parents had '5' siblings who each had '5 children. That's a pretty big family. You'd have 5(your family)+5(the spouses of the anuts/uncles) + 5 (aunts and uncles themselves) + (6x5) people in your extended family and the grandparents. Basically 45 people would be in your extended family and that's a big-family, imo. Even if we multiply that family size by 5.... which would be a HUGE family, we'd have 250 people.
So with 1 in 1000 odds, you should have... under 0.25 person who died suddenly in your immediate family or you could say 3 times the odds, nobody has died than 1 person has died. So the odds, 2 people have died....or 4...or 6...or 12 is progressively multiplicatively lower. The probability that person had 12 direct family members die or ~5% of the 250 people is statistically impossible unless:
1. The statistics are way off/under reported. Where its 1 in 20 dying suddenly and not 1 in 1000.
2. How likely a person is fibbing or stretching the truth. The person actually knew 3 who died but exaggerated and said 12.
3. The product is so poorly manufactured or there is a large variation in dose that some places get hit extremely harder than others. IE some batches are 50x more toxic than other batches explaining the 1 in 20 versus 1 in 1000 difference.
4. A combination of 1-3.
I read the news and they told me that this is because people avoided going to the doctor during the lockdowns. So I guess now they are going to the doctors and the doctors are killing them off. This is just delayed iatrogenocide being cleared out of the system. Once we get caught back up on it and other things that were delayed by not visiting the doctor like SIDS, the mortality will go back to normal.
The graph is very clear, but the table is confusing.
Also it would be interesting to look at the same graph for different age groups if you have the data.
Yes, bum steer with the original post. I was just going to use the chart for simplicity but for the data nerds, the table is more compelling. Again. with age stratification, this is a complexity I reserve for more detailed, single country analyses. Really tried to keep this one as simple as possible.
There are only two horses in that race – lockdowns and their effect on health and healthcare access, and mRNA therapies. A reasonable hypothesis would be that the former has laid open vulnerability that the latter has capitalised on.
I’m puzzled by the use of “cumulative” on a graph that rises and falls.
The deaths and health issues are just starting.
Recently found out that a friends very fit and healthy 41 year old cousin died - sudden aggressive cancer and now his healthy 46 year old sister has had a stroke.
Another friend has a female friend in her 50's just diagnosed with myocarditis.
My boss who has never been sick in the 6 years I have known her (not a single sniffle), had Convid quite bad a couple of months ago and the other day I could hear she had a chesty cough.
Thanks for reporting facts and not just feelings :) Death reporting has become highly politicised. Just look how high excess mortality in 2022 is largely ignored or downplayed in mainstream media: https://open.substack.com/pub/davidthunder/p/we-are-experiencing-a-wave-of-excess?utm_source=direct&r=wlowt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
covid wasn't deadly, not treating it was. ppl died largely due to underlying illness, the NPC's using a faulty PCR replication process to determine everyone who died of any cause, multiple comorbidities, a car accident, or whatever, but also "tested" positive for covid & recording the death to be FROM covid was a lie to begin with. A very lucrative lie that the power hungry couldn't resist to use to manipulate.
Do you think you could add the dates the jabs were introduced to chart? Adults and kids. Also would be good to see when the mandates were added as well. The chart as it is shows we were trending down then 'something' happens in Dec-January 2021 and deaths start spiking again to never really decline or get back to baseline.
The BHF are attributing around 30k "extra heart disease deaths" since March 2020, owing to ambulance delays, difficulties accessing care, rising waiting lists. Do heart disease deaths include sudden cardiac arrests ( courtesy, say, post jab) or are these people with chronic cardiac disease who have succumbed because of aforementioned delays? How can they be separated to pinpoint the actual cause of what the BHF describes as " needless deaths"?
The deaths start when the jabbing starts. It's not a coincidence. Talk of it being collateral harm of measures is gaslighting, not that it's any better. The government is responsible for the deaths in both scenarios. It's Democide, plain and simple.