Multiply 18 and 12. My calculator says 216. Which is more than twice 105. So the baseline death rate from cardiac events in young people is, perhaps, higher than one might have thought. It's certainly a common enough event to have featured as a case story in the Royal College of Physicians (UK) Membership exam
Yum yum - no surprises there! By coincidence an hour ago I published some work that is strongly suggestive of the ONS missing a fat wedge of all cause deaths for the younger age bracket. Here's the link to part 1 of what will be a 4 part series. At some point I'll flip to modelling mode and start to estimate how many young bodies they are hiding in the closet.
- They explain this away by using a 12-week cutoff to reduce bias from delayed death registration. But for the life of me I can't see any reason to select this week. As they admit in the paper, if you extend follow up periods, associations become significant sooner or later. Seems to me the onus is on them to prove they selected the "right" risk and control periods, rather than assume it.
- They also ought to have thrown out the first 3 weeks which showed negative associations presumably due to healthy vaccinee effect. Doing so would have showed a positive association even using their 12-week cutoff. It's funny they have a "Sensitivity tests" section that fails to find such things that any casual observer could.
- Supplementary Figure 4 is not color coded. The cynic in me wonders if this was intentional, as all the associations would have stuck out as being positive. They even flatly ignore a significantly positive association by calling it "unstable". If they say so. Who are these authors anyway?
It was the birthday of an ex colleague on the 5th so I text her best wishes, during the text chat she said. “… Speaking of, this will make you smile - I was in hospital in Feb with a suspected heart attack, so they treated me for angina! Me! I train 8 times a week and bloody angina. Made me chuckle. I’m still undergoing investigation so that’s entertaining.”
She’s 27, as she said she trains everyday, competes in cross country races and wins more than she loses. She is obviously downplaying the underlying anxiety with whimsical disbelief in the diagnosis and doesn’t address the true narrative. Who can blame her, I would be terrified.
I posted on twitter about a woman I have known for years, in reality she was a very close friend of a friend but we came in contact at social events and she usually ended up sitting with us for a couple of hours chatting and catching up. She was found dead at home, mid 50’s funeral on the 10th June. I asked my friend about the PM results, she danced around heart attack, problems with her pancreas, she may have had cancer, but no mention of the safe and effective medical procedure (she’s a big believer in it and shuts down any mention of the reset).
I didn’t ask my ex colleague if she had reported her symptoms on the yellow card system, it seemed insensitive to do so.
We see that ages 10-24 have heart disease causing 2.9% of deaths. This is the USA. In the next age bracket it is like 11%. Even giving those older folk their due weight does not explain the discrepancy. This is more good evidence vaccines cause CVD deaths.
Self-controlled case series are pretty much the ONLY observational study design that can have a chance at detecting vaccine harms due to no selection biases relating to vax versus unvaxxed. They were INVENTED for vaccines. Yet they didn't use them for covid vaccines. And once they did, they messed it up. And even so, they still found a serious signal.
May 7, 2022·edited May 7, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley
1 in 5 deaths bring cardiac related is so much higher than the usual for that age bracket and it is so very obvious. It's usually like 1 in 1000. The left and right hand sides look noticeably different in the under and over 6 week graph. Who do they think they are fooling? It is kind of hilarious. The only good news is it is dropping off a lot so at last in theory, it implies most deaths or injuries will be early on so if you child survived six weeks his or her odds she'll live a normal life are better.
In the grand scheme of things, since excess death including covid deaths is 1000 per 1,000,000... One fifth of that is less than 200 per million or 0.02 percent of the people who either got a shot or caught covid depending on what caused the cardiac event and also not accounting for any other increases in all cause mortality like suicides, drug overdose, etc.
It is one of the few remaining countries showing infection rates in age groups AND vacciantion satus AND in week 14 even split in categories with previous infection or withhout.
Scroll down on the website. There is a bar graph.
Remark: "ikke tidligere positive" means "without prior positive test". uge =week , Ingen vaccination = unvaccinated; fuld effekt = 2 x vaccinated; Fuld effekt = boostered (translated with deepl.com)
In all age groups except one the double vaxed are more often infected. In all age groups the bostrered are more often than the unvaccinated and double vaxed. Sometimes factor 2 and more.
Keep in mind. The group sizes are now stable. That means no dynamic changes in group size give uncertainity to the calculation. Stable group size also means that the defintion of a 7 day time lag after a unvaccinated is counted as a vaccinated or double or triple vaxed is also meaningless.
And keep in mind that all NPI are lifted a long time ago. That means different behaviour forced by law for different vaccination status can not explain any difference.
And keep in mind, since a while the testing regime is making no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated. So any differnce can not be explained like the corona believers did before.
These vaccinations lead to herd immunity like petrol extinguishes fire.
Table 2 (males) and Table 3 (females) from 2015 data.. Nothing 'circulatory' recorded in top 5 causes in M+F under 35. "deaths among young people under age 35 years were due mostly to external causes, such as suicide and transport accidents".. And despite not showing the percentages, even if the 6th case were circulatory, it would have to be <16%
'Not a scintilla of truth as to the benefit of vaccination is in existence, except in statistics. And statistics are lies. Two kinds of lies. Deliberate lies and stupid lies. I have spent too much time behind the scenes where medical statistics are made to have a particle of faith in them'
I long ago decided that any official statement by any government concerning Wuhan virus was either twisted to support a predetermined narrative, hide fraud and/incompetence, acquire power & wealth, or camouflage an unknown nefarious intent. Because the one thing they've proven never to be is the truth.
Thanks for a great article. I thought the ONS was a bit cleverer than this in its obfuscatory activities. Looking forward to seeing the mystery professor’s analysis.
I am not convinced. There was an article in the "New Statesman" in November 2018 headlined "Every week 12 young people die from sudden cardiac death. Is it time to start screening runners?". This, of course, is pre-Covid. See https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/11/every-week-12-young-people-die-sudden-cardiac-death-it-time-start-screening
Multiply 18 and 12. My calculator says 216. Which is more than twice 105. So the baseline death rate from cardiac events in young people is, perhaps, higher than one might have thought. It's certainly a common enough event to have featured as a case story in the Royal College of Physicians (UK) Membership exam
Yum yum - no surprises there! By coincidence an hour ago I published some work that is strongly suggestive of the ONS missing a fat wedge of all cause deaths for the younger age bracket. Here's the link to part 1 of what will be a 4 part series. At some point I'll flip to modelling mode and start to estimate how many young bodies they are hiding in the closet.
https://jdee.substack.com/p/age-and-gender-factored-mortality
- They explain this away by using a 12-week cutoff to reduce bias from delayed death registration. But for the life of me I can't see any reason to select this week. As they admit in the paper, if you extend follow up periods, associations become significant sooner or later. Seems to me the onus is on them to prove they selected the "right" risk and control periods, rather than assume it.
- They also ought to have thrown out the first 3 weeks which showed negative associations presumably due to healthy vaccinee effect. Doing so would have showed a positive association even using their 12-week cutoff. It's funny they have a "Sensitivity tests" section that fails to find such things that any casual observer could.
- Supplementary Figure 4 is not color coded. The cynic in me wonders if this was intentional, as all the associations would have stuck out as being positive. They even flatly ignore a significantly positive association by calling it "unstable". If they say so. Who are these authors anyway?
It was the birthday of an ex colleague on the 5th so I text her best wishes, during the text chat she said. “… Speaking of, this will make you smile - I was in hospital in Feb with a suspected heart attack, so they treated me for angina! Me! I train 8 times a week and bloody angina. Made me chuckle. I’m still undergoing investigation so that’s entertaining.”
She’s 27, as she said she trains everyday, competes in cross country races and wins more than she loses. She is obviously downplaying the underlying anxiety with whimsical disbelief in the diagnosis and doesn’t address the true narrative. Who can blame her, I would be terrified.
I posted on twitter about a woman I have known for years, in reality she was a very close friend of a friend but we came in contact at social events and she usually ended up sitting with us for a couple of hours chatting and catching up. She was found dead at home, mid 50’s funeral on the 10th June. I asked my friend about the PM results, she danced around heart attack, problems with her pancreas, she may have had cancer, but no mention of the safe and effective medical procedure (she’s a big believer in it and shuts down any mention of the reset).
I didn’t ask my ex colleague if she had reported her symptoms on the yellow card system, it seemed insensitive to do so.
On page 11 of this report:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32501203/
We see that ages 10-24 have heart disease causing 2.9% of deaths. This is the USA. In the next age bracket it is like 11%. Even giving those older folk their due weight does not explain the discrepancy. This is more good evidence vaccines cause CVD deaths.
Good job. Keep digging on this Joel (and Prof. F I assume). This is a smoking gun.
Self-controlled case series are pretty much the ONLY observational study design that can have a chance at detecting vaccine harms due to no selection biases relating to vax versus unvaxxed. They were INVENTED for vaccines. Yet they didn't use them for covid vaccines. And once they did, they messed it up. And even so, they still found a serious signal.
1 in 5 deaths bring cardiac related is so much higher than the usual for that age bracket and it is so very obvious. It's usually like 1 in 1000. The left and right hand sides look noticeably different in the under and over 6 week graph. Who do they think they are fooling? It is kind of hilarious. The only good news is it is dropping off a lot so at last in theory, it implies most deaths or injuries will be early on so if you child survived six weeks his or her odds she'll live a normal life are better.
In the grand scheme of things, since excess death including covid deaths is 1000 per 1,000,000... One fifth of that is less than 200 per million or 0.02 percent of the people who either got a shot or caught covid depending on what caused the cardiac event and also not accounting for any other increases in all cause mortality like suicides, drug overdose, etc.
Hi Joel. Please check the Dansich data here:
https://covid19danmark.dk/
It is one of the few remaining countries showing infection rates in age groups AND vacciantion satus AND in week 14 even split in categories with previous infection or withhout.
Scroll down on the website. There is a bar graph.
Remark: "ikke tidligere positive" means "without prior positive test". uge =week , Ingen vaccination = unvaccinated; fuld effekt = 2 x vaccinated; Fuld effekt = boostered (translated with deepl.com)
In all age groups except one the double vaxed are more often infected. In all age groups the bostrered are more often than the unvaccinated and double vaxed. Sometimes factor 2 and more.
Keep in mind. The group sizes are now stable. That means no dynamic changes in group size give uncertainity to the calculation. Stable group size also means that the defintion of a 7 day time lag after a unvaccinated is counted as a vaccinated or double or triple vaxed is also meaningless.
And keep in mind that all NPI are lifted a long time ago. That means different behaviour forced by law for different vaccination status can not explain any difference.
And keep in mind, since a while the testing regime is making no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated. So any differnce can not be explained like the corona believers did before.
These vaccinations lead to herd immunity like petrol extinguishes fire.
Regards
Jens
'Try re-vaccination-It will never hurt you
For re-vaccination has this one great virtue:
Should it injure or kill you whenever you receive it,
We all stand prepared to refuse to believe it.
From a pamphlet signed "The Doctors," 1876
Table 2 (males) and Table 3 (females) from 2015 data.. Nothing 'circulatory' recorded in top 5 causes in M+F under 35. "deaths among young people under age 35 years were due mostly to external causes, such as suicide and transport accidents".. And despite not showing the percentages, even if the 6th case were circulatory, it would have to be <16%
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england/chapter-2-major-causes-of-death-and-how-they-have-changed
'Not a scintilla of truth as to the benefit of vaccination is in existence, except in statistics. And statistics are lies. Two kinds of lies. Deliberate lies and stupid lies. I have spent too much time behind the scenes where medical statistics are made to have a particle of faith in them'
F.N. Seitz, 1908
I long ago decided that any official statement by any government concerning Wuhan virus was either twisted to support a predetermined narrative, hide fraud and/incompetence, acquire power & wealth, or camouflage an unknown nefarious intent. Because the one thing they've proven never to be is the truth.
archive these pubs so the authors can be prosecuted like Andrew hill will be.
We are so selfish to desire full healthy lives according to the ministry of ghates' orifice.
Thanks for a great article. I thought the ONS was a bit cleverer than this in its obfuscatory activities. Looking forward to seeing the mystery professor’s analysis.