The People Decide - North Dakota vs Minnesota
Is there evidence that COVID "vaccines" were necessary, safe and effective?
Introduction
Steve Kirsch asked me again to reproduce my Alabama analysis using US state data to show that performance is not affected by vaccination rates.
I chose to compare North Dakota and Minnesota since they are adjacent states with similar demographics (especially wealth which I think is the most significant confounder with respect to mortality).
However, they do differ quite demonstrably in terms of “vaccination” rates with Minnesota being one of the most highly “vaccinated” states at 72% “fully” and 22% “boosted”, whereas North Dakota is only 58% and 13% respectively.
ICYMI, this is the preface from that analysis:
My first retort, as always - it isn’t for me to prove anything. Those who impose this global, medical experiment are obliged to show that it is necessary, safe and effective in every country.
If I can refute this in even one country, that’s their problem, not mine. The fact that I can demonstrate it in pretty much every country that “vaccinated” shows it’s a really big problem for them. Hence why they revert to dogma and propaganda. They can fool the majority with that but only for so long.
My goal here is to reinforce the point that those who impose such an intervention on the population must have substantial evidence on their side to support their actions. And ultimately, it should be the people who determine this, not the autocrats.
I think it's a great exercise to promote the true function of judge and jury. My role here (as “judge”) is to provide expert guidance on the data and analysis but ultimately, it's up to the reader (as “jury”) to interpret the information according to their own conscience and judge accordingly.
I’ll keep the rest of the introduction and abridged guidance so you don’t have to open the other link but note that it is much improved since my first draft due to the enormous amount of feedback I received and used to improve myself as judge guide.
The three most important questions regarding COVID “vaccines”:
Are they necessary?
Are they safe?
Are they effective?
We can answer all these questions simply by looking at all-cause mortality trends across three periods:
Five years prior to COVID (2015 to 2019).
Three years since COVID (2020 to 2022).
Two years since COVID “vaccines” (2021 to 2022).
Guidance
For the “vaccine” to be necessary, there must be a discernible increase in mortality during 2020, over and above what might be expected given the prevailing trend. Nevertheless, one must also take into account that trends do not continue forever so reservation must be made for potential reversal of trend. If nothing else, this should simply give us reason to contemplate greater uncertainty in our judgement. The red dotted lines represent a range of not unexpected values given variability in mortality. The safety and efficacy of a vaccine has no bearing on its necessity.
For the “vaccine” to be considered safe, at worst, there must be no more mortality in 2021 and 2022 than 2020 and the trend should be no steeper than 2020. This should be the case for all ages.
For the “vaccine” to be considered effective, there should be discernibly less mortality in 2021 and 2022 than 2020 and the trend should preferably be no steeper than 2014 to 2019. Inevitably, the 2021 to 2022 trend should be substantially shallower than the trend for 2020 to 2022 (or decline more steeply if both trends are already downward sloping).
Note that a downward sloping trend could be due to higher than expected deaths earlier in the period, followed by lower than expected deaths. This is to be expected since lower mortality often follows periods of excess due to the “pull forward” effect. If this is evident in this latter 3-year observation period, it would be indicative of people dying only one or two years sooner than they probably would have done in the absence of some unexpected mortality event.
It is important to look whether the COVID and vaccine trends start higher than the 5-year trend to 2019, especially if they remain above the earlier trend for any length of time in spite of sloping downwards. This is also the case for the post-“vaccine” trend relative to the the COVID trend.
Conversely, an upward sloping trend in the post-”vaccine” era might signify ongoing worsening of mortality outcomes, even if they are not yet evident in the summary data.
The average weekly deaths for each period (in the small table in each chart) will also give a clear indication as to whether mortality is elevated or not and to what extent.
Also consider that mortality data is incomplete due to delays in registration. This will be most impactful on most recent data which will result in it being lower than it really is. In other words, although the average weekly deaths for all three periods can only rise, the 2021-2022 average is more likely to rise than the other two periods.
Overall, when judging an intervention such as the mass injection of an entire population with a novel therapy, the obligation for certainty should be in favour of the intervention. This means that the evidence should be consistently beneficial to find in favour of it being safe and effective. Anything less then it would be prudent to judge against it.
Data
Note: Minnesota is one of the most highly “vaccinated” states at 72% “fully” and 22% “boosted”, whereas North Dakota is only 58% and 13% respectively.
In the summary table below, comparing the two states, the “Vaccine”:COVID column is the difference between the average weekly deaths in the two-year period 2021 to 2022 (the “vaccine” era) and the year 2020 (the COVID era). We should expect to see a negative number if the vaccine is safe and effective and that number should be more negative for Minnesota since it has higher vaccination rates.
North Dakota
Note: there are virtually no deaths in North Dakota in ages under 25 so there is no chart for this age group.
Minnesota
I truly believe the people of the world should self-determine and not be subject to any whim of government.
So, let’s see how a jury might judge if this was a case in court deciding on whether their own tax money should be spent on this intervention?
Please answer the following questions based only on the mortality evidence presented and not on any prior assumptions or third-party direction, and beyond reasonable doubt.
Note that if you are uncertain even though you understand the data, you cannot find in favour of the intervention. The evidence in favour must be clear and strong. Judging that the product is not safe is not the same as making the claim that it is unsafe. Similarly, judging that it is not effective is not the same as claiming that it is harmful.
Now, please be honest!
Having the time to read all the conflicting data it is clear the governments of this and every nation around the world has spent billions to control the population. Not just in numbers bur making the people subservient to an elite groups of rulers. As I compare data form respected sources that cover the same span of time and the virus itself and effects and causes of other ailments I find little data that actually match. I must then conclude the data has been manipulated or outright false. Both are feasible and possible . The questions I ask is Why. The answers apply to different goals from both government and pharmaceutical companies. the companies that want to make its millions off the backs of taxpayers. While government wants to expand its powers and control. The data provided by each then reflects its goals and is why the data doesn't match. The more time that passes the farther the data seems to diverge. Each basing its use of different parameters of people with varying and selected backgrounds. The facts become clear that we have data compiled only to show the results that benefit the user, justifying both the expenditure of tax funds and the recipients of those funds. Do we have a source that is trustworthy? if so I would like to find it and use it as reference to determine the direction that I must use to gain the ear of the public. It is only with the united demands of the citizens that we will be able to resolve our problems. That seems to be the problem. We are kept in the dark and divided to keep any organized efforts to a minimum and with little results against our rulers Thanks for reading my rant.---------- I, Grampa
Similar analysis has been done on multiple adjacent states in the US as relates to the "viral spread" of the supposed "highly transmissible novel virus." What was noted was that certain states had zero excess in Spring 2020 while a neighboring state had that 6 week spike.
The disparity illustrated without question that there was no viral event. The difference between these states was noted in radically different public health policies and mandates.
Further it is noted that even in these states which had the 6 week spike this excess occurred in tightly circumscribed areas- hospitals and nursing homes located in urban centers. For example there was excess in certain NYC hospitals and nursing homes BUT NOT in suburban NY or beyond. Someone want to explain that? Same story in every single "hotspot."
BEYOND THAT these excess deaths came from people who were mainly residing in instituitonalized settings- the fragile elderly and the mentally disabled. The virus did not impact middle class or wealthy people. Notihng like this in epidemiological history and counter to all official biological science.
BEYOND THAT none of this excess kicked in until the WHO officially declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. Anyone here really believe a "suddenly-super-spreading, deadlier-than-flu virus" waited for a government decree to create excess death.
As far as any pandemic there was none whatsoever- the data on this is irrefutable. Those who repeat this lie do a great disservice to everyone by reinforcing this lie. Not only does the "pandemic" narrative serve to cover up the fact that it was mass murder directly attributable to policies mandated by identifiable individuals but it serves as a smokescreen for the entire "Covid" operation that is steamrolling people's lives.
The biggest problem with promoting this lie is that the likes of RFK, Bigtree, Malone, Kirsch, etc. are not just simply wrong but their insistence on using some iteration of the “lab leak” red herring covers up the actual crimes that were committed.
The "lab leak/targeted spraying/GoF" theories do not hold water and cover up what actually happened which was straight forward mass murder in nursing homes and hospitals. This had nothing whatsoever to do with a "viral event" and all to do with administrative slaughter and hospicide. All of the “Covid deaths” are fraudulent and inventions from the Pharma/medical/media cartel. The vast majority are medical murder.
We have not been and are not facing what RFK Jr has termed “a mismanaged pandemic,” a stance supported by most “health freedom” celebrities. What we are dealing with is fraud, tyranny and mass murder.