Population Change Summary - South Korea, 2020 to 2023

Deaths are up substantially but births are not down like the rest of the world.

Introduction

I recently read this excellent summary on recent changes to global birth rates:

EuroStat & Countries Data - 2022 Births Data

The writer asked for information on countries that they had not covered, so I mentioned the work I had previously done on Korea:

Rather than compel them to redo my analysis, I thought I would update the data and review it myself.

• The good news is that the reduction in the decline of the Korean birth rate during the “COVD era” continues.

• The bad news is that the extraordinary increase in the mortality rate since the inception of the COVID “vaccine” continues to outpace it considerably.

---

Deaths

All-cause mortality has been rising linearly in Korea since at least 2014. However, although there is actually the lowest period of mortality in their 2020/21 “season”, when COVID first emerged on the world scene, in the aftermath of pretty much the entire “eligible” country, i.e. those deemed to benefit from the “jab”, complying with the program, deaths have spiked considerably.

The period is obviously marked by substantially higher peaks, but those with good acuity will also notice wider distributions with higher nadirs, resulting in considerably more death than predicted by the historic trend.

According to the plot of cumulative excess mortality, over the last 18 months or so, as at May 2023, Korea has tallied over 81,000 excess deaths. That’s just over 3 months of extra deaths based on the 2019 average.

These excess deaths started in October 2021, a few months after Korea’s aggressive vaccination campaign. Prior to that, Korea had experienced very little “COVID” death. Incidentally, “COVID” mortality also increases substantially, but still only represents 43% of the total excess deaths by the end of the observation period.

Notably, the same pattern repeats itself a couple of months after the “booster” campaign, whereby priorly both “COVID” and excess deaths had flattened, before resuming their upward course.

What is more peculiar is that, of course, we would already expect cumulative excess deaths to naturally recede, due to the “pull-forward” effect, if nothing else.

---

Births

Both absolute births and the birth rate (births divided by female population aged 20 to 39) were in substantial decline throughout the study period up to the start of the “COVID era” in March 2020.

The female population aged 20 to 39 has also been in decline during that period but evidently by not as much as the number of live births, since the rate has also declined.

However, this decline is abruptly checked, starting around March 2021. This would obviously be for babies conceived in June 2020, in the midst of the deadly pandemic.

The increased birth rate is maintained throughout the entire COVID period, including when pregnant women around the world were being “vaccinated” and birth rates elsewhere were dropping significantly.

So, how come the rate increased in Korea and stayed there?

One obvious hypothesis might be that lockdowns encouraged more procreative activity. This would contradict some arguments put forth for early 2021 declines in birth rates elsewhere in the world.

But the absence of a decline in birth rate subsequent to the “vaccination” campaign remains a mystery to me due to lack of data. I would speculate that Korea did not “vaccinate” many pregnant women but they did certainly promote it from October 2021 onwards.

In researching, I did find this interesting paper published in Obstetrics & Gynecology Science:

COVID-19 and vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic analysis using Korea National Health Insurance claims data

Unfortunately, the data only goes up to July 2021, obviously before the campaign was aggressively marketed to pregnant women, so only 2.14% of women of childbearing age were “vaccinated” by that time. It would be interesting to see if they follow up to get the final number.

Moreover, for some reason, they failed to include the “unvaccinated” in their comparison of adverse events per different brand of toxin. Maybe, the preliminary results did not compel them to follow up further?¹

Nevertheless, there were some other really interesting insights in the paper relating to pregnancy outcomes with and without COVID. I will only highlight the statistically significant differences:

• COVID pregnant women were 44% more likely to experience “other abnormal products of conception”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 70% more likely to experience “gestational edema and proteinuria without hypertension”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 48% more likely to experience “venous complications”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 44% more likely to experience “infection of the genitourinary tract”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 35% more likely to experience “diabetes mellitus”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 46% more likely to experience “maternal care for known or suspected malpresentation of fetus”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 173% more likely to experience “Maternal care for known or suspected disproportion”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 47% more likely to experience “Maternal care for known or suspected disproportion”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 47% more likely to experience “Maternal care for other known or suspected fetal problems”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 63% more likely to experience “Premature rupture of membranes”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 22% more likely to experience “Preterm delivery”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 212% more likely to experience “Long labor”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 164% more likely to experience “Obstructed labor due to maternal pelvic abnormality”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 240% more likely to experience “Other obstructed labor”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were infinitely more likely to experience “Labor and delivery complicated by intrapartum hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 202% more likely to experience “Perineal laceration during delivery”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 192% more likely to experience “Postpartum hemorrhage”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were infinitely more likely to experience “Other complications of labor and delivery, necrotizing enterocolitis”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 118% more likely to experience “Single spontaneous delivery”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 191% more likely to experience “Single delivery by forceps and vacuum extractor”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 52% more likely to experience “Single delivery by cesarean section”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 95% more likely to experience “Other assisted single delivery”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 271% more likely to experience “Other puerperal infections”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 83% more likely to experience “Venous complications during puerperium”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 213% more likely to experience “Complications of the puerperium, necrotizing enterocolitis”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 265% more likely to experience “Infections of the breast associated with childbirth”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 17% more likely to experience “Sequelae of complication of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 38% more likely to experience “Preterm birth”;

• Non-COVID pregnant women were 88% more likely to experience “Cesarean section”;

There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes for the newborns that could be related to COVID.

Not being medically qualified, far be it that I should speculate why maternal outcomes were consistently better for women who got COVID!

Suffice to say that the evidence to support the narrative that COVID posed an elevated risk for pregnant women is conspicuously and abjectly absent².

---

Conclusion

Irrespective of the potential impact on live births:

1. it is pretty obvious that the COVID “vaccine” was not necessary to protect pregnant women from adverse pregnancy outcomes;

2. in much the same way as it was not necessary for the majority of people who were not at risk of serious illness or death from COVID;

3. nor indeed, for those that were, for whom outcomes appear to be demonstrably worse, not better, as a result.

1. In the meantime, I guess we can always rely on the investigations made by the drug sponsors themselves, right?

Pfizer drip feeds data from its pregnancy trial of covid-19 vaccine

2. In other words, “they lied”.