53 Comments
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

Thank you once again, Joel.

I'll allow myself one proofreader's note:

What was formerly known as "2015" is now referred to as "5 B.C."

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

Thank you for this data/information. What exactly is it going to take? If I hear one more person utter the “covid mantra” I may start screaming and never stop. Fatigue sets in, when anyone who just had covid announces “it would have been much worse if I had not had the vaccines”. I automatically remind them the current variant is mild, this is how nature works and the jabs didn’t make any difference. They look at me like I have two heads and am nuts. Sometimes I think I am for even bothering to say anything. 😂

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

After Fig 12, point #1

"over the age of 44" under?

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

Good morning Joel, again thank you for the analysis. I truelly appreciate your work.

Expand full comment

Outstanding analysis. Conclusion is vaccines do more harm than good, correct? Insanity.

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

US 2021 excess working age deaths impacted the 35-44 y.o. group the hardest, with about a third being due to covid and most of the rest due to heart disease, cancer, and stroke, which are typically diseases of the elderly.

Expand full comment

Deaths and Ballots matter not to those tallying the score. The dark-triad of BigGov, BigMedia, and BigTech, decide the outcome, then messuage the data to fit the narrative through slight-of-hand “data science” and 24/7 propaganda messaging.

Thank you for trying to clear up the data, seek out the truth, and freely share you findings with the world.

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

"This gun is not so much smoking as still burning as bright as a supernova."

Yet another proof that something is terribly wrong with these "vaccines". So, how can we help the brainwashed see the bright light? I was thinking, for those of us on social media, that all posts should include a comment something like this: "If you want to learn what Big Tech is not allowing you to see, compare a Google search to a Presearch search."

Expand full comment

Not by an means an expert here, but in reading, wondering if this sentence contains an error -- if not, it does not make sense to me (in that case, I need to think about it more):

On a macro level, COVID does not (did not) materially affect anyone over the age of 44. No intervention whatsoever could be merited for anyone under 45 on the basis of any cost/benefit analysis.

I'm wondering if it should say ".....does not (did not) materially affect anyone UNDER the age of 44."

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

Great work. Thank you

Expand full comment
founding

Thanks for all your time and work Joel

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley

Thank you great work. Point #1 conclusion needs revision.

Expand full comment
founding

Good stuff, thanks.

Joel, what's your take on Edward Dowd's latest "500K excess deaths" in the US, in both 2020 and 2021: https://gettr.com/post/p120pa3d8e6 Am I reading him correctly?

I've been following you since 2020 and don't recall you showing even 50K excess deaths for 2020 in the US. I'm nervous that Dowd is getting bad data even though it says CDC. We know from the insurance companies that death claims for working age are up ~40% for many companies, which goes with your analysis here. We don't want the message to get sidetracked by bad data.

Expand full comment

So are you just calculating this YLL proxy by multiplying the ONS table life expectancies by the count of people of that age who died?

If I understand correctly, legit YLL calculation is Bayesian, right? Fenton made a video to this effect I believe. Say a 60 year old might be expected to live another 25 years. But, conditioned on the fact that he died today, that increases the probability he was already ill and would not have lived 25 years in the first place. Hence, true YLL would be much lower than your proxy YLL. Is this your understanding as well?

Expand full comment

This is great. Very convincing evidence that the vaccine is killing people. The change in life years lost from 19/20 to 20/21 is lowest(no change at all) in the group that did not get vaccinated(1-14 yo). The life years lost is also less increased from 19/20 to 20/21 in the older age groups that had the most deaths in 19/20 from Covid. Also, this data is consistent with the vaccine danger being far less age dependent than Covid danger. Since Covid kills few under 65, the vaccine caused deaths are actually very noticable in those age groups. But since Covid kills quite a few more in the over 65s the vaccine caused deaths are not causing a noticable increase. And, to the extent that the vaccine does have some mitigation of disease severity (which it does seem to), any death-reducing effects that is has will be the greatest in the oldest age groups that have the highest Covid risk.

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022·edited Mar 27, 2022

Maybe, I am just not seeing it but this data to me seems like it is showing in some age brackets, the mRNA vaccine isn't cause any excess deaths. Its very odd.

If you were to convert the tables broken down by age (Figure 5) into %s... for say.... August 19 to August 20 (during covid but pre-vaccination) versus August 20 to August 21 (post 1st and 2nd shots in most locales), for say the 65-74 age bracket, you'd have 1726139 / 1699723 = 1.016 or a 1.6% increase. For the 75-84 age bracket, its like a 1.6% decrease or 98.4% the expected. For 85+? 94.7% the expected deaths or a 5.3% decrease. Also, a decrease from ages 01-14.... and then a small increase for 45-64 year olds.

So it seems from this data, it is kind of a tie? Half the categories are decreases by about a 4% average and half the categories are an increase by about a 3% average. Deaths seemed to go down some places, up some other places, overall not much change. If anything, it shows the mRNA vaccine did not save lives but not necessarily it was super-dangerous/super-murderous. I expected to see many more vaccine related deaths. People keep talking about ADE or depopulation, etc as part of the don't-get-the-vaccine narrative. I don't really see it from this data.

The all cause mortality life years lost seems pretty much the same as covid-19 was pre-vaccination versus post-vaccination and its only a small margin (~6%) higher than Aug 18 to Aug 19 and 5% higher than Aug 17 to Aug 18. If their goal was mass depopulation, making the death rate in terms of years-lost increase by a mere 5-6% compared to standard seems like an awfully slow way to make any kind of significant impact.

I thought mRNA was causing "80% increase in excess deaths from all cause mortality!!" according to say Ed Dowd or some life insurance CEOs saying 40+ increase. However, even in the worst age bracket of 15 to 44, it seems like a 8% increase according to your data. If that were the case, we'd expect that 885k in say Sep-18 or 884k in Sep 17th number to grow to about 1.4 million. Instead it grew from 885k to 902k and 980k in the covid-pandemic and vaccine-demic. Higher but not the 80% claims from Ed Dowd or 40% from OneAmerica Life Insurance.

Is this data rigged/faked by the government?? or is OneAmerica and Ed Dowd way off by thinking it was the vaccine? or was Ed Dowd/OneAmerica's observed excess mortality increase not due to the vaccine but remdesivir killing patients? plus lockdown leading to suicides/drug ODs?

Could you clarify more Joel if this is somehow worse than I'm interpreting in %? Honestly, with all this talk about death-death-death-incoming-death-from-VAIDS, etc I was quite worried for my double vaccinated + boosted parents. I'm still unvaccinated and plan to remain that way, but this data honestly makes me feel far less concerned about my parents being vaccinated at ages in the mid 60s with a 1.6 increase/1.6% decrease in the amount of deaths in their age bracket respectively.

If it were like 100% increase or 80% increase, I'd be going OH CRAP! and start planning the funeral but 1.6% inc/dec respectively? Eh.... the loss of life is saddening but I am not overly concerned anymore. I know that probably makes me seem heartless.

Expand full comment