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.
If only stats were available for "died with remdesivir present" and "died with empty stomach/dehydrated" or "died with bacterial pneumonia present" for 2020 and the other years to back-out "death by healer" or "death by State neglect".
We are missing - and will never get - "number of morbid diseases and conditions caused" relative to baseline 2015-2019 - if VAERS is anything to go by, these are of the order of 50 times death rates - half will manifest in a year or so.
Probably overly complex to extract, but number needed to vaccinate (NNV) and Life Years Lost comparisons would be useful metrics - though all-cause mortality dominates.
I saw some numbers on a Dr Campbell video that showed (unweighted?) average numbers of Moderna and Pfizer of an NNV of 800 to prevent a single C19 hospitalization - around 660 for Moderna and 900+ for Pfizer. The V-Safe data for the 10 million people, showed percentages of 1.5% for ER/ED and 0.7% for hospitalizations (15,000 and 7,000).
"Bridging" V-Safe and the UK NNV numbers - 800 shots would cause around 6 vaxx hospitalizations to prevent one C19 hospitalization - without making any assumptions about ER/ED seriousness.
Maybe NNV's for C19 deaths combined with a pre-URF "raw" VAERS death number and an adjusted VAERS number for a URF (my preference for URF is 40, for ease) would help - I might get to it
In my mind, the relative lethality of the injections is becoming significant. The NNV's via Campbell depend on time period selected - I doubt that heavier mRNA Moderna is safer than Pfizer.
I want to check out reports from EUDRA that AstraZeneca shots were 4-5 times more lethal than Pfizer/Moderna - then check out India where AstraZeneca via Serum Institutes CoviShield vaccine - accounted for 80% of injections. Denis Rancourt estimated 3.7 million deaths from 380 million shots over the Spring of 2021. There have been 2.2 billion doses in India now, so the death rates could be appalling (just scaling 380 million doses to 2.2 billion doses with 3.7 million deaths gives more than 21 million deaths (and would explain why AstraZeneca was withdrawn globally - except for India).
Anyways - great work as usual.
I mentioned you to Allan MacRae of Alberta Canada who is presenting data to the State government to halt the madness. I also suggested he get in touch with these people who have developed a useful app for assessing Canadian safety data.
Presentation is everything - the data is complex. ExposeNews.co presents nice graphs but hard to comprehend data - for me, you are the mirror image - easy to understand tabulated data but hard to ingest graphs!
Anyways - keep up the great work. I think you are helping us reach the winning post of full exposure of crimes.
The clinical trials indicated death and harms, the PMMT report the same and the real world post roll-out proved that the harms indicated BEFORE roll-out have been borne out.
Thank you for including the total in your last graphs. When looking at Scotland yesterday, I thought if they were all combined, it would basically look flat…..not necessary and ineffective across the board. That is what MN and ND are showing in their totals. I am not seeing the dramatic safety signal that I expected to see…..
I struggled with these data. E.g., in the table for ND 25-44, the mortality went from 2 to 4 in 2020, which I would have thought is an increase of 100%. Then in 2021-2022, it went to 5, which seems to me to be an excess of 150%. I was anxious about the latter figure (for two years) and the problem of subtracting percentages, but if I overlooked all those, I got a final column of 50%. I could not see where the data in the table were derived, which seemed completely different from these.
In addition, the years 2020-2022 health involved different strains of the virus - differentially problematic, I thought - so I'm not sure how to take that into account, and wondered about comparing chalk and cheese.
Finally, isn't there a 'dry tinder' effect, so that the most vulnerable are likely to die in the first year, so that the disease (if it exists ...) should be less virulent in the second and third years, regardless of other effects (including vaccines)? I couldn't see how to factor that in.
So I found it very hard to reach defensible conclusions. My hunch is that vaccines were unnecessary, unsafe and ineffective, but I was trying to ignore that (as requested) to reach conclusions. Guess I'd make a poor juror, as others did not seem to have trouble reaching conclusions.
I had similar confusions. Need a bit more explanation of what the trend lines are derived from ... over time, I'd assume, beginning of period to end. Yet if the actual number of deaths goes up post jab according to the table, but the trend line is fairly sharply down -- such as with the first two age categories in ND, how are we to interpret that? And how does the small population numbers of ND come into play in the calculations of percentages, for instance? Raised some questions I'm not quite sure how to answer.
In truth I did not find this data compelling on its own. The difference in vax rates is significant, but still a large number of people in ND took it, and is it uniformly different over age groups? It looked to me like it was more similar in the working age population, which would make some sense as they were most likely to be subject to mandates. But in the end, taking into account only this data, it is too muddled to draw a conclusion. I think it is safe to say the vaccine was not necessary given the relatively small increase in ACM and the experimental nature of the product.
The data from North Dakota for all age groups appears to fall within the normal natural variability observed prior to Covid. Minnesota’s data shows that the all cause mortality is at the upper end of the range in all cause mortality for all age groups. Based upon this I would argue that the vaccines were neither effective nor safe. The narrative that they are reducing severity and hospitalization is also a lie. The only thing they do is make you more susceptible to Covid-19 by destroying your immune system.
132, 160, 144 is at least closer to what I was expecting with. baseline, baseline + x, then baseline - y after a year or two. Sadly it doesn't look like that is what is going to happen, but at least North Dakota is closer.
The average rate of deaths in the US is ~8/1000. In both states, the Covid pandemic elevated this to about 9.5/1000. The vaccine reduced the death rate from the Covid peak somewhat but still ended above 8.7/1000. This hardly seems to be an strong argument for necessity or effectiveness. With such low apparent effectiveness, the risks outweigh the benefits. Thus safety is questionable.
So the piece of information I didn't see is the population of each state, and as you just provide raw numbers of excess deaths, instead of a percentage values, I'm feeling a little lost.
However the trends are very interesting, and yes, your charts shifted my perceptions. The injections were not as bad for some age groups as I would have thought, frankly the trend lines are positive in some cases, and yet they are obviously not beneficial for exactly those that needed them the most.
It would be fascinating to compare the v vs u for the duration of life.
However the main issue for me in all of this: the vaxxes should have been "moot." Sars-cov-2 is a rapidly mutating Corona virus and as such not a good candidate for vaccine anyway, and the real catastrophe is that all successful early treatment strategies which were discovered long before the injections existed, were brutally suppressed and therefore many of the deaths were iatrogenic, not from "Covid" at all, and lockdowns themselves killed many.
So deaths? I don't think by themselves they mean much as there are many culprits out there, not just Covid or the Vaccine.
Teasing apart the various "perps" is the real mission, imho.
If everyone had recieved actual sane medical treatments then perhaps this comparison would be meaningful.
But with Remdesivir, Isolation, Ventilation, no Antibiotics after viral pneumonia, the withholding in many cases of food and water, and/or Benzodiazapines and Morphine being given inappropriately, well...
None of the deaths can be chalked up to "Covid" in those cases anyway.
Medical Nihilism followed by virtual euthanasia in hospital will kill; you don't need "Covid" at all.
So if I'm reading these graphs correctly the middle dotted line is the expected, the 2 outside dashed lines are the error range so anything above the middle dotted line is excess mortality?
So even though the slope for the "trend since vaccine" is downward slightly, it is still in the excess category? Am I getting that part correct?
Gee it sure would be nice if we could get the ACM data by injection (not vaccine "status" which is to easy to manipulate). When they hide data I have my answer.
Whatever you think of this data really doesn't matter because this is "just" the beginning of the dying. 2023 is the beginning of the largest "die off" in human history. Buy guns and ammo.
Data does not appear compelling, compared to the analysis done by Edward Dowd (see his book ‘Cause Unknown’) which uses several independent data sources to analyze the significant rise in USA all cause mortality (life insurance companies, actuarial society, CMS, and more). Dowd’s work shows that mortality went up AFTER the rollout of the vaccines. They need to be discontinued IMMEDIATELY for all age groups.
This data was not intended to be compelling. It is a simple exercise quantitative reasoning and self-determination. The instructions were explicit not to consider prior assumptions or other external information. However, I can see that there is sufficient demand for a people's court to hear all the data and judge accordingly. This is encouraging.
Scroll down to the graph. From June 2022 onwards there has been a "slow burn" of 5-10% over the running average. That's with the weakest variant so far. While 5-10% excess may not seem "compelling" it is a huge problem if it persists.
There is no point from when the vaccine was deployed that we got below the running average despite all the vulnerable dying. We'll see if we go back to or below the line from March-July shortly.
The way the data is presented leads me to the conclusion that in the 25-44 and 45-65 categories, the higher vax rate showed a steeper decline in all cause mortality when looking at the ACM after vax trend. I think this is misleading to some extent since there are confounding factors and arguable misclassified deaths, which is a prior bias that I ignored. This led me to answer two of the questions differently than had I not seen the data presented - safe, and effective for some ages (25-44 and 45-65). Am I misinterpreting the graphs?
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.
Very well said. God will have vengeance
He can wait his turn LOL
Looks like it corresponds to national mortality compared for 2020, 2021 and (early estimates for) 2022
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/preliminary-us-mortality-for-2022 indicates that around 560,000 more Americans are dying every year compared to 2018-2019
If only stats were available for "died with remdesivir present" and "died with empty stomach/dehydrated" or "died with bacterial pneumonia present" for 2020 and the other years to back-out "death by healer" or "death by State neglect".
We are missing - and will never get - "number of morbid diseases and conditions caused" relative to baseline 2015-2019 - if VAERS is anything to go by, these are of the order of 50 times death rates - half will manifest in a year or so.
Probably overly complex to extract, but number needed to vaccinate (NNV) and Life Years Lost comparisons would be useful metrics - though all-cause mortality dominates.
I saw some numbers on a Dr Campbell video that showed (unweighted?) average numbers of Moderna and Pfizer of an NNV of 800 to prevent a single C19 hospitalization - around 660 for Moderna and 900+ for Pfizer. The V-Safe data for the 10 million people, showed percentages of 1.5% for ER/ED and 0.7% for hospitalizations (15,000 and 7,000).
"Bridging" V-Safe and the UK NNV numbers - 800 shots would cause around 6 vaxx hospitalizations to prevent one C19 hospitalization - without making any assumptions about ER/ED seriousness.
Maybe NNV's for C19 deaths combined with a pre-URF "raw" VAERS death number and an adjusted VAERS number for a URF (my preference for URF is 40, for ease) would help - I might get to it
In my mind, the relative lethality of the injections is becoming significant. The NNV's via Campbell depend on time period selected - I doubt that heavier mRNA Moderna is safer than Pfizer.
I want to check out reports from EUDRA that AstraZeneca shots were 4-5 times more lethal than Pfizer/Moderna - then check out India where AstraZeneca via Serum Institutes CoviShield vaccine - accounted for 80% of injections. Denis Rancourt estimated 3.7 million deaths from 380 million shots over the Spring of 2021. There have been 2.2 billion doses in India now, so the death rates could be appalling (just scaling 380 million doses to 2.2 billion doses with 3.7 million deaths gives more than 21 million deaths (and would explain why AstraZeneca was withdrawn globally - except for India).
Anyways - great work as usual.
I mentioned you to Allan MacRae of Alberta Canada who is presenting data to the State government to halt the madness. I also suggested he get in touch with these people who have developed a useful app for assessing Canadian safety data.
http://opencanada.info/
Presentation is everything - the data is complex. ExposeNews.co presents nice graphs but hard to comprehend data - for me, you are the mirror image - easy to understand tabulated data but hard to ingest graphs!
Anyways - keep up the great work. I think you are helping us reach the winning post of full exposure of crimes.
The clinical trials indicated death and harms, the PMMT report the same and the real world post roll-out proved that the harms indicated BEFORE roll-out have been borne out.
Thank you ! This is real excellence.. clearly presented and easily comprehended... boy does this article deserve a very large audience..
Thank you for including the total in your last graphs. When looking at Scotland yesterday, I thought if they were all combined, it would basically look flat…..not necessary and ineffective across the board. That is what MN and ND are showing in their totals. I am not seeing the dramatic safety signal that I expected to see…..
I struggled with these data. E.g., in the table for ND 25-44, the mortality went from 2 to 4 in 2020, which I would have thought is an increase of 100%. Then in 2021-2022, it went to 5, which seems to me to be an excess of 150%. I was anxious about the latter figure (for two years) and the problem of subtracting percentages, but if I overlooked all those, I got a final column of 50%. I could not see where the data in the table were derived, which seemed completely different from these.
In addition, the years 2020-2022 health involved different strains of the virus - differentially problematic, I thought - so I'm not sure how to take that into account, and wondered about comparing chalk and cheese.
Finally, isn't there a 'dry tinder' effect, so that the most vulnerable are likely to die in the first year, so that the disease (if it exists ...) should be less virulent in the second and third years, regardless of other effects (including vaccines)? I couldn't see how to factor that in.
So I found it very hard to reach defensible conclusions. My hunch is that vaccines were unnecessary, unsafe and ineffective, but I was trying to ignore that (as requested) to reach conclusions. Guess I'd make a poor juror, as others did not seem to have trouble reaching conclusions.
I had similar confusions. Need a bit more explanation of what the trend lines are derived from ... over time, I'd assume, beginning of period to end. Yet if the actual number of deaths goes up post jab according to the table, but the trend line is fairly sharply down -- such as with the first two age categories in ND, how are we to interpret that? And how does the small population numbers of ND come into play in the calculations of percentages, for instance? Raised some questions I'm not quite sure how to answer.
In truth I did not find this data compelling on its own. The difference in vax rates is significant, but still a large number of people in ND took it, and is it uniformly different over age groups? It looked to me like it was more similar in the working age population, which would make some sense as they were most likely to be subject to mandates. But in the end, taking into account only this data, it is too muddled to draw a conclusion. I think it is safe to say the vaccine was not necessary given the relatively small increase in ACM and the experimental nature of the product.
The data from North Dakota for all age groups appears to fall within the normal natural variability observed prior to Covid. Minnesota’s data shows that the all cause mortality is at the upper end of the range in all cause mortality for all age groups. Based upon this I would argue that the vaccines were neither effective nor safe. The narrative that they are reducing severity and hospitalization is also a lie. The only thing they do is make you more susceptible to Covid-19 by destroying your immune system.
132, 160, 144 is at least closer to what I was expecting with. baseline, baseline + x, then baseline - y after a year or two. Sadly it doesn't look like that is what is going to happen, but at least North Dakota is closer.
The average rate of deaths in the US is ~8/1000. In both states, the Covid pandemic elevated this to about 9.5/1000. The vaccine reduced the death rate from the Covid peak somewhat but still ended above 8.7/1000. This hardly seems to be an strong argument for necessity or effectiveness. With such low apparent effectiveness, the risks outweigh the benefits. Thus safety is questionable.
So the piece of information I didn't see is the population of each state, and as you just provide raw numbers of excess deaths, instead of a percentage values, I'm feeling a little lost.
However the trends are very interesting, and yes, your charts shifted my perceptions. The injections were not as bad for some age groups as I would have thought, frankly the trend lines are positive in some cases, and yet they are obviously not beneficial for exactly those that needed them the most.
It would be fascinating to compare the v vs u for the duration of life.
However the main issue for me in all of this: the vaxxes should have been "moot." Sars-cov-2 is a rapidly mutating Corona virus and as such not a good candidate for vaccine anyway, and the real catastrophe is that all successful early treatment strategies which were discovered long before the injections existed, were brutally suppressed and therefore many of the deaths were iatrogenic, not from "Covid" at all, and lockdowns themselves killed many.
So deaths? I don't think by themselves they mean much as there are many culprits out there, not just Covid or the Vaccine.
Teasing apart the various "perps" is the real mission, imho.
If everyone had recieved actual sane medical treatments then perhaps this comparison would be meaningful.
But with Remdesivir, Isolation, Ventilation, no Antibiotics after viral pneumonia, the withholding in many cases of food and water, and/or Benzodiazapines and Morphine being given inappropriately, well...
None of the deaths can be chalked up to "Covid" in those cases anyway.
Medical Nihilism followed by virtual euthanasia in hospital will kill; you don't need "Covid" at all.
So if I'm reading these graphs correctly the middle dotted line is the expected, the 2 outside dashed lines are the error range so anything above the middle dotted line is excess mortality?
So even though the slope for the "trend since vaccine" is downward slightly, it is still in the excess category? Am I getting that part correct?
Gee it sure would be nice if we could get the ACM data by injection (not vaccine "status" which is to easy to manipulate). When they hide data I have my answer.
Whatever you think of this data really doesn't matter because this is "just" the beginning of the dying. 2023 is the beginning of the largest "die off" in human history. Buy guns and ammo.
Data does not appear compelling, compared to the analysis done by Edward Dowd (see his book ‘Cause Unknown’) which uses several independent data sources to analyze the significant rise in USA all cause mortality (life insurance companies, actuarial society, CMS, and more). Dowd’s work shows that mortality went up AFTER the rollout of the vaccines. They need to be discontinued IMMEDIATELY for all age groups.
This data was not intended to be compelling. It is a simple exercise quantitative reasoning and self-determination. The instructions were explicit not to consider prior assumptions or other external information. However, I can see that there is sufficient demand for a people's court to hear all the data and judge accordingly. This is encouraging.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Scroll down to the graph. From June 2022 onwards there has been a "slow burn" of 5-10% over the running average. That's with the weakest variant so far. While 5-10% excess may not seem "compelling" it is a huge problem if it persists.
There is no point from when the vaccine was deployed that we got below the running average despite all the vulnerable dying. We'll see if we go back to or below the line from March-July shortly.
Joel Please cAn you put links to the datasets? Or explain where the data comes from? People I am debating say you made up the data.
I know you sometimes put links to the datasets.
Thanks for your hard work!
The way the data is presented leads me to the conclusion that in the 25-44 and 45-65 categories, the higher vax rate showed a steeper decline in all cause mortality when looking at the ACM after vax trend. I think this is misleading to some extent since there are confounding factors and arguable misclassified deaths, which is a prior bias that I ignored. This led me to answer two of the questions differently than had I not seen the data presented - safe, and effective for some ages (25-44 and 45-65). Am I misinterpreting the graphs?