Discover more from Dead Man Talking
"The COVID Vaccines Saved Millions of Lives"
A test of the hypothesis - and a parable about falling off a ship.
It seems fitting that on July 4th, I should be doing some analysis on US mortality data.
As it happens, I have been asked to assess the claim that the COVID “vaccine” saved any lives (let alone millions).
Let’s start with the overall picture of weekly excess deaths and COVID deaths, in America, between 2015 and 2023.
It certainly looks like COVID is responsible for all the excess deaths in America, doesn’t it1? And there’s plenty of them.
But can you already spot a problem with this picture?
Regardless of state, the majority of susceptible Americans (clinically vulnerable and elderly) were “fully protected” by May 2021. That is to say that they had completed a primary course of COVID “vaccination”.
As a matter of fact, by the beginning of July 2021 (when the third wave of “COVID” mortality sweeps across the nation), well over 80% of over 65s across the entire country have completed their primary course. By the end of April 2022, over 60% have had their first booster.
In other words, 5 in every 8 over 65s in America, have had at least 3 doses of the mRNA by this endpoint. That ought to be plenty enough for a product with
claimed effectiveness of up to 100%
to have a material impact on mortality?
Nevertheless, in the ten months since July 2021, when the “vaccine” is alleged to have been *up to 100% effective*, there is pretty much the same amount of excess death (473k) as there was in the comparable ten months, just over a year before (482k), when there was no “vaccine”.
According to the claimed effectiveness, the latter period should have seen a drop of at least 360k deaths - roughly 80% (fully “vaccinated” population) * 95% (effectiveness) * 482k (prior period excess deaths).
However, since there is, in fact, no real decrease in excess mortality, it is totally implausible and irrational to claim that any lives have been saved2. Unless, of course, there is a legitimate reason why deaths might have otherwise been higher in that period?
On the contrary, the assumptions about expectations of excess death in the latter period should all result in lower excess deaths, viz:3
So many people died in the first wave (spring 2020) and again, evidently in the second wave (autumn 2020 to winter 2021) that there should be fewer people dying in summer 2021 onwards. Not only that but those who died in the prior 15 months were obviously the most frail. Not only can they not die again but those that survived should also be less likely to die.
The country should be better protected against COVID due to higher levels of immunity. Naturally immune people should not get infected because they have mucosal immunity. If they cannot be infected, they cannot be infectious. If they are not infectious, they cannot infect someone who might be susceptible to dying.
The virus should be weaker. It is a logical, natural phenomenon that infectious/transmissible viruses mutate in favour of less virulent strains since they are less likely to incapacitate their host. A less virulent virus is, by definition, less fatal.
If the “vaccine” is also alleged to reduce mortality, how is it that excess deaths remain the same, in spite of the above?4
The case that this last intervention made things worse is actually stronger than the case for it being effective.
However, this latter claim does not even have to be made in order to refute the claim that the “vaccine” is safe and effective.
The official data5 shows a very strong correlation between reported COVID deaths and excess deaths;
The COVID “vaccine” is claimed by the manufacturers to have up to 100% effectiveness in reducing “severe [COVID] disease”6;
In the 9 month period, a few weeks after more than 80% of the “at-risk” population has completed the primary course, and by the end of which, over 60% have also received a third (booster) dose, there is no decrease in excess mortality, compared to the equivalent period just over a year before, when the “vaccine” was unavailable.
There are many other logical, and scientifically proven, factors that would support the expectation that mortality in the latter period should be lower, at any rate, irrespective of the “effectiveness” of the “vaccine”.
If we include the spring 2020 wave and deaths after April 2022, comparing the periods March 2020 to June 2021 and July 2021 to Oct 2022 (both spanning 69 weeks), we see a reduction in reported COVID mortality of 23% (141k deaths) and reduction in overall excess mortality of 13% (83k deaths).
Curiously though, when we plot “vaccinations” of over 65s 25 weeks after the primary course and 13 weeks after boosters, we do not observe the negative correlation we would expect if such an intervention were responsible for the reduction in mortality.
On the contrary, we actually see declining COVID/excess mortality concomitant with declining rates of “vaccination”.
Again, if the “vaccine” were effective, as fewer people “boosted” their protection, we should see higher COVID mortality, not the opposite that we observe.
In the absence of “vaccines” providing protection against COVID mortality, what we are actually most likely seeing is evidence of my assumptions for lower mortality as noted above, i.e. fewer moribund people, weaker virus, etc...
So, if there is lower mortality coincident with decreasing rates of “vaccination”, at the same time this strongly suggests, once again, that it was the vaccine interfering with the natural, expected decline in mortality in the nine months from July 20217 - not that this point needs to be proven to simply reject the hypothesis that the vaccine was effective and saved any lives.
At a minimum or at best if you prefer, the COVID “vaccine” failed to prevent any deaths at all. The evidence is indisputable and conclusive.
It is beyond the scope of this specific piece to validate this claim but the evidential data analysis does not support the premise that COVID, per se, is responsible for any large part of the excess deaths.
Even if you accept the “waning protection” argument because this mortality pattern occurred 25 weeks after the vaccination campaign, it still refutes the claim that the vaccine saved lives!
Evidently, I do not include lockdowns or any other non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI), in this list since so much of my own work and hundreds of other papers that I have read, find conclusively that they were ineffective, including this meta-analysis by JHU - A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY.
Here’s a little analogy to illustrate the point in more simple terms:
Suppose two hundred people fall off a ship, into the cold, choppy, sea. After a few hours, for some reason, having been denied the life jackets on board, twenty of them drown (those who could not swim) but the ship rescues the other one hundred and eighty.
Fortunately, there’s a mad scientist onboard with an experimental product to prevent drowning that is given to the survivors. It’s an injection that teaches the body’s own cells to fill up with air, making the whole body a floatation device! He claims it has effectiveness against drowning of up to 100%.*
A while later, conditions improve (the sea calms down and the weather warms up) and the one hundred and eighty who were previously rescued (the hardier, stronger swimmers) fall off the ship again! This time, though, they are all protected with the experimental product, of course.
After a few hours, another twenty of them drown.
* in testing the product was not deemed to be effective unless you had been in the water for at least two hours, which also happened to be the cut-off point of the test, and those who had been administered it who drowned within two hours of being in the water were included with those who had not. There was no reliable information on how long the body would keep producing inter-cellular air bubbles and no data on long-term outcomes.
Does the evidence support the claim that the product is “safe and effective” and the ulterior claim that it saved dozens of lives?
Would you want to take this experimental product (that was reported in the mainstream media to be as safe and effective as wearing a seatbelt in a car)?
Would you siphon off public funds to pay for it and perhaps mandate it, even for those who have a record of exemplary swimming prowess, banning professional swimmers from competing in competitions, unless they had also taken it?!
All data used in this report is from the CDC:
The fact that the manufacturer never made any claims about reducing mortality should suffice to defeat any argument made about the vaccine saving lives, except by assumption.
Often overlooked, Bradford Hill criteria for causality #10 - Reversibility: If the cause is removed, then the effect should disappear as well.