28 Comments
Oct 7Liked by Joel Smalley

Yet we are told we should just "move on" from "covid" (and the subsequent "cure"), while they work on even more disturbing versions of "safe and effective"... like the Japanese and their "Replicant" mRNA that pretty much never stops generating spike protein. But don't worry, you only need one "safe and effective" "vaccine" a year with that one. No booster required. Yay! (Eye roll) Heaven help us.

Expand full comment

JJ Couey has been talking about this since 2021..... this is an excellent presentation..... scary but necessary......

https://rumble.com/v5h388t-dr-j.-jay-couey.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp

Expand full comment

Pretty lit chart really. Being a pureblood, I sort of have this sadistic grin, but knowing how many friends and family have had the juice, the grin turns to more of a grimace.

Expand full comment

excellent work Joel...a giant in my eyes

Expand full comment
Oct 7·edited Oct 7Liked by Joel Smalley

See Scottish COVID Inquiry Paul. The WORLD'S ONLY official COVID inquiry to reveal what really happened during lockdown yet no media in the world nor ANY medical freedom advocate will cover it. This is a BIG deal. How 'the pandemic' began. https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing

Expand full comment

I wonder what was special about 2014 and 219?

Expand full comment

They tried in 2015 to get FDA approval for mRNA and were told they couldn’t because it was gene therapy. That s why they had to take lab the fear and panic to create an EUA.

Expand full comment

There’s an interesting trend in males born around 1971 seen as a red diagonal line. That cohort seems to have worse outcomes. I looked up UK birth rates and this was when birth rates were at max rate of decrease. I wonder if that is coincidence? Or was there some other factor.

Expand full comment
author

It's actually apparent in 1970, 72 and 73 as well. Absolute numbers are around 200 so it doesn't take many unexpected deaths to make a few points in relative excess. Nevertheless, they are certainly there. This is the generation that would have most likely been affected by changes in dietary guidelines in the late 70s and early 80s. As a result, it's probably more likely a pandemic of poor metabolic health, not a deadly virus.

Expand full comment
author

This cohort was hit hard in 2018 too, which was considered to be a "bad flu" year. This begs the question in my mind, it it ever really the flu or simply disruption to healthcare provision which simply affects those in poorest metabolic health most adversely?

Expand full comment

A “bad flu year” may be better thought of as a “bad flu shot” year, with an emphasis on “bad shot” vs “bad flu”

The extent to which repeated seasonal shots are immunosuppresive warrants further examination (there are a number of studies that speak to it).

P.S. There are indications that the US CDC adjusted flu shot uptake statistics to make it appear that a lower % of people took the flu shot in 2017-2018 than actually did.

Expand full comment

I know you deal in evidence and science, but, and maybe tying into your comment about dietary changes, you do have to wonder about glyphosate and crop spraying, genetic modification of crops, changes to animal feed, ‘treatments’ for ‘foot & mouth’ disease etc.

Expand full comment

Was there some change to the childhood vaccination schedule? Or perhaps the availability of birth control pills?

Expand full comment
author

My main hypotheses are vaccination schedule and changes to dietary guidelines. Both result in an increase of chronic conditions. Conversely, better treatment of these conditions results in people living longer. It's a perfect mix for the food/pharma industry. They make you sick but stop you dying, making money on both occasions!

Expand full comment

This is a provocative question. Glad you asked. I'll watch for the answer, too.

Expand full comment

What's with the really ragged age distribution, esp. for females? Were they targeted according to age?

Expand full comment

Of course we were. They were not trying to protect us they were killing the s.

Expand full comment

Numbers of younger cohorts who died are very small in absolute terms, so tend to be more variable.

Expand full comment

nice work, as always!

Expand full comment

Hey Steve, Scottish COVID Inquiry. Remember? you reached out to me on X and on email and yet have said nothing about it afterwards since i replied. Why is this not a bigger deal than even the COVID jabs for the medical freedom community? How ''the pandemic'' began. https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing

Expand full comment

Scotland holds many answers. Please get stuck in sir!

Expand full comment

Many thanks Joel for your perseverance and for this post, which inspired me to write this:

https://unexpectedturns.substack.com/p/why-are-so-many-people-dying-in-their

I recently discovered that *right up until the "covid measures" were introduced* registered deaths in England and Wales were at *normal levels* (supporting data in the article at the above link)

Expand full comment

How Would You Feel If This Guy Dropped Dead After His Next Booster Shot?

https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/how-would-you-feel-if-this-guy-dropped

Expand full comment

Embarrassed to say I don’t understand the graphs. Could you explain please Joel. Is it predicting excess deaths by 2050?

Expand full comment
author
Oct 7·edited Oct 7Author

The tables show excess deaths to 2023 (since that was the limit of availability of empirical data). The underlying model of expectation goes out to 105 for all ages, i.e. the year 2089 for the 1984 birth cohort!! This is possible because the evolution of mortality distributions (when you might die depending on when you were born) is, itself, predictable.

Expand full comment