I still think that my guesstimate from June 2021 of 120k deaths (fewer since, but some) is likely correct. It fit the German health insurer PKK's data *perfectly*, and we know the story from there: the CEO was immediately terminated and the info was taken offline. The 120k number is one that can blend into a lot of stats, and may include deaths there were about to happen anyway.
Mathew, I am a bit sceptical regarding the mortality graphs that Ron Unz has used in his analysis. There are a few different options to choose from to calculate the reference level at https://mpidr.shinyapps.io/stmortality/, and Unz has used the week-specific average. He says "The website showed excess deaths relative to a selected baseline, and I chose to use the average of the years 2015-2019 since those were available for all the countries listed."
However, I believe the week-specific trends would be more suitable for the calculations we are making for the simple reason that mortality has mostly been in decline which means that, most likely, it should continue to decline or atleast not increase. A week-specific trend satisfies this, but the average, however, does not as the projection for the following year based on the average of declining numbers will be higher than the last years mortality figure. Am I missing something here? If not, the same graphs, but with week-specific trends instead of averages, show an excess mortality for the same periods the week-specific averages shows mortality deficit. I have not bothered to look up the trends by myself, but in theory I should be correct or else we should not get that kind of difference in excess/deficit mortality.
I really wish we had good data on the general health of unvaxxed vs vaxxed (prior to the vax, I mean). To see "healthy user effect" for confounding variables. I found:
Unvaxxed were more likely to be poor, uneducated, disabled, and unemployed. All of these correlate with lower health outcomes. However the unvaxxed are also younger on average. Age always has to be taken into account. They are more likely to think the virus is not a big deal (caring about hte virus can possibly be a marker for thinks like taking vitamins, which can actually help). They are also more likely to live alone, which could suggest negative outcomes beyond merely age differences.
Thanks - doesn't seem to show anything too weird or surprising. Still the case that breakthrough infections in elderly are the most likely thing to actually get reported, so for everything other kind of death the true rate remains a mystery.
Plaxovid working is very questionable, just see all the vaxxed and boosted top government officials including the president suffering from rebound. Also have an unvaxxed couple at church who were prescibed it and claimed they started to feel better quickly but then I asked if they felt worse a few days later and she agreed.
Right, rebound is real. But outcomes still turn out better. Here is a non-randomized study where there was probably lots of vaccinated rebound-havers but not a lot of severe outcomes "During the study period, 12 541 (28.1%) patients were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, and 32 010 (71.9%) were not. Patients prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir were more likely to be older, have more comorbidities, and be vaccinated. The composite outcome of hospitalization or death occurred in 69 (0.55%) patients who were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and 310 (0.97%) who were not " https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2141
Knowing this drug costs taxpayers like $530 and other early treatments are cheaper, safer and more effective gives me a bad taste in my mouth. This was an "Approved" repurposed drug by Big Pharma.
I don't have an opinion on whether other treatments are more effective, though I think they should be OTC (as they are in many places) so you get around the problem in that study where a lot of people don't reach the system until they're already being hospitalized (these ones weren't included in the study). Paxlovid couldn't help those 2000 hospitalizations so you still need ivermectin OTC.
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Thanks for bringing the Unz, article up. I’d only read your commentary on it and not read his article till this afternoon. His analysis seems fair, but he himself says is not conclusive.
Looks excellent, I’ve been slicing and dicing the Australian data with it for about an hours and learnt some surprising things about the pattern of deaths here in Oz that are counter to strongly held beliefs on both sides of the argument.
Australia might be a case where the previous year's mean vs. trend makes a big difference -- ie, even without the virus or injections, there would have been a big increase in deaths and healthcare usage. I haven't looked into it. This is a paper that uses trend instead of mean for EU countries, and the expected deaths against which "excess" deaths are measured end up very different in some cases https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.22.22283850v1
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Not exactly, that’s what I find surprising, basically there was an all cause mortality benefit 2020 and 2021 and excess deaths only really started increasing in a major way in 2022 depending on how you slice it between age groups. I’ve only been playing around with the data visualization tool for about an hour so I’m not sure if what I’m seeing is what I think it is. I’ve got all the ABS data in spreadsheets so can verify if needed, but the visualization tool is, much faster for “what if” comparison. I was planning on producing some similar charts to your latest post, the with lots of charts, if my hunch is correct.
In a nutshell, if my hunch from playing with the visualization tool is correct;
covid and vax injuries are not even noticable in Australian data unless you’re old. Need to look into it a LOT more.
Edit: From the paper you linked “However, the debate on Covid-19 has exposed that calculations of excess mortalities vary considerably depending on the method and its specification.”
That’s exactly what’s happening when I change baseline. Our ABS use a convoluted baseline for their analysis.
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Wow! I just had a look at US, now I can tell why there is so much difference of opinion. It’s like we’re on two different planets. I can now see why some of you guys think there’s a cull going on.
My thoughts about the question "what if the stats never show the excess deaths from the very expensive injectable products that no one needed?"
Here is the problem. Smart people look at numbers and at reality. Reality is confusing and unsophisticated, monotonous and truly a bore. Unlike numbers, spreadsheets, graphics and animations.
Smart people are like children in that they prefer fantasy. So much fun with fantasy. My blood is composed of RBCs, plasma and imagination (and some debris of that insane garbage thrown from the definitely non-existent helioengineering planes.)
Now, back in the unreliable and boring reality. If people die from things that used to be weird and now are not weird (that classic heart attack all kids have around age 7 or 8) AND the official data says "everything is normal, nothing to see here" then I, as a member of the intuitive midwittery, must say that they are lying. A collection of numbers cannot change reality. Only the perception of reality of the people who have more faith in their wit than they ought to have.
Do the 125+ IQ champions believe they are immune from the attack of very seasoned Infowarriors who know all the tricks of Bernays' and Alinsky' books by heart?
Come on!
O number wizards! Picture yourself for a minute in the shoes of a 90-115 IQ tax-receptor. How could the members of the enemy class attack these people using your overdeveloped frontal lobes as a weapon?
Part of the answer is the trick that always works: flattery.
By the way, Brian, I love your substack. Seriously, it's surprisingly good for a Californian. I'm impressed at so much examples of sophisticated yet not totally useless thinking.
(End of the tangential and mostly sincere observation.)
Isn't Ron Unz one of the smartest among the smarterer class? Is he smart enough to know when he is being used without getting paid? A clue is that there is something like a valid contract when one is not being abused in the foresaid manner.
If I was an agent of chaos, with the mission to protect the criminals and being paid in some way to make sure the data is all scrambled and adulterated, and if part of my duties involved conflatabbergaslighting researchers of the truthering team, then I would take better care of me grammar and lexyc, and I would definitely insist in repeating ad nauseam that OFFICIAL DATA ALWAYS EQUALS REALITY OR ELSE YOUR AN ANTIVAXXXXER AND A SOVIET AND GAY!!!
(That's what several years of wikipedic radiation did to my poor brain.
Don't laugh at me, for I am sequi-innumerate and a special needs commenter.)
The problem with fantasy is it can't kill you. Borrrring. I think there always use to be a contingent of smart people that would rather throw their lot in with the rioting rabble, but something changed after the electric era. TV, processed foods, who knows.
I have no interest in changing your mind Brian. Either you will act in good faith and explore sites that my have a different interpretation of the "the data" or you won't. It really is of no interest to me what you do. What I find sad is that your ego, pride or narcissism appears to be more involved in this exchange at this point than your intellect. So I'll bid you farewell. You have a nice long list of sites to explore should you wish things further.
That deaths may have increased in 2020 because of a virus is not proven in view as the means to determine this was and maybe still is not available - at least not reliably.
Something was causing illness in 2020 but in a period of enforced isolation, separation, mass indiscriminate masking, job losses, business failures, restricted medical care and the highly promoted Plague threat, an increase in deaths should be expected - so maybe not viral at all. And then the C-Shots started and excess deaths have shot up it seems with a worldwide injection of materials into healthy people campaign of unprecedented scope and effectiveness. Vrial mutations? I do not see that as past evidence suggests follow-on mutated strains, if they exist, are more INFECTIVE and less AFFECTIVE. Why should the claimed Cov viral process be so different?
This is just applying a double standard. If you think that excess deaths demand blaming the vaccine (as opposed to my view, which is, ok I can see people dying with my own eyes and don't care as much about statistics), then you can't just wave away a big rise in excess deaths in 2020 as "not proven."
Not surprising I do not agree with you as I think you misread my points. Excess deaths are excess deaths over and above what is mostly a relatively stable figure with not a lot of variation year on year allowing for population changes. Yes it is statistics and we know what can be done with statistics.
BUT. A big change needs explanation and I am the first to say be wary of easy answers, they are usually wrong. With 43 years at the front end of aviation. I know how wrong first choice seemingly obvious conclusions can be AND how complex actual causal explanations with multi-factor aspects can be once they are dug out of the mess of data. I have a highly developed Bullshit aversion coupled with a high level skepticism born from a necessary survival instinct.
What is telling to me is the clearly deliberate obscuring of illness and deaths numbers and causal factors. Why is this necessary unless it is covering something? Why the almost desperate pressure to jab as many as possible as much as possible with an untried mix and tech that was admitted before the roll-out would not immunise to protect either the recipient nor any one else? To what purpose with almost no reliable predictive data in the public or the medical domain re outcomes? In pretrials did ALL the animals jabbed die when exposed to the pathogen after injection? If so why? This might explain why so many hospitals may be struggling (out local regional one is) with so many previously jabbed suffering a bunch of serious illnesses and the jabbed medical staff now also in trouble with health (local cancer cluster etc.).
I think a good detective tries to eliminate the obvious first to clear the view to the not so obvious - unless the obvious first cannot be eliminated because all the evidence is there for it.
I think the batch numbers were noted to places well outside the US-VAERS reporting area. There seems reasonable evidence that shot number three is a real lottery and for some a much higher likelihood of a serious event. Then there is the issue of possible lowered 'immune response' ( Have a different view of so called immunity than mainstream ).
The supposedly LOW numbers of Un-V'd in hospital may be partly by choice (stay away) but cannot be ruled out entirely as 'not sick'.
Vaccination by design is meant to inject the healthy, which appears to have occurred in large numbers so the excess deaths amongst seeming ly healthy is a link that must be explained - truthfully. Claims need evidence to support them or they fail as null and void.
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck - it might be ("vaccine-induced excess deaths"). Or geez, maybe instead it's really an overweight unicorn?
But it doesn't look, talk, walk like that. That's the whole point. Vaccinated people are dropping dead in plain sight, but the excess mortality literally doesn't show it. It's just the way it is.
If all the highly vaccinated countries are show 17%+ excess mortality in working age populations that begin with spikes in conjunction with both vaccine rollout and booster rollout what exactly is it you are looking for? The serious adverse event health signals were there from the beginning but officially ignored and suppressed. More people died in Pfizer's vaccine group than the control group. We knew that early on. When life insurance companies are reporting a 40% increase in death of working aged people, and a 10% increase would be a once in 200 year event by chance - the only way I can see to avoid seeing the smoking gun in the room is to close one's eyes. The CDC and FDA certainly aren't going do an honest evaluation of any of this. And since research that could explore this issue is funded by the same entities promoting the narrative, those same entities attacking any doctors or researchers who dare even question the "safe & effective" mantra - I don't know who is going to choose to destroy their career by daring to dive deeply into challenging a narrative promoted not just by the CDC and FDA, but all the way to the bowels of Langley and the Pentagon.
I don't think you have read my post. Everything here is addressed.
*edit: And, as advice for reading my post, bear in mind that almost everything you have just stated is not in the data. It's just stuff you've been "these are not the droids" hand-waved into thinking you saw.
I did read your post Brian, but I've been reading on the topic 4-6 hours a day for three years now, including every study and analysis of this issue that I come across. I simply don't find your data convincing compared to the many analyses I've read based on government data bases from around the world discussed at the following sites:
Igor Chudov
Mercola
Children’s Health Defense
Rav Avora
Tessa Lena
Robert Malone
Ian Miller
John H Abeles
Mark Crispin Miller
Celia Farber
Metatron from Covid Facts
Margaret Menge
Naked Emperor substack
Dr. Toby Rogers
Steve Kirsch
Super Sally’s Newsletter
Jessica Rose
A Midwester Doctor
Aaron Siri
Etana Hecht
Canadian Covid Care Alliance
Brownstone Institute
Geert Vinden Bossche
I guess we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree at this point Brian.
I don't agree with everything I read at those or other sites Brian. Just as I don't find your analysis compelling. I'm sure if you need to you can find things written by ALL of those writers or sites I listed that I would not agree with. But that really isn't the point Brian.
First the study on different batch/lot numbers suggested a range of effects, most less than a seasonal Flu shot but some corresponded with significant negative effects. So not all C-Shots may be the same so expect differing numbers. Cumulative effects? Probably though not impossible.
Second there IS an apparent significant rise in Excess Deaths and it is happening worldwide to varying but similar degrees, ie same direction upwards ALL apparently co-incidental with the rollout of C-shots. Does not prove anything except.......
SOMETHING IS HAPPENING HERE - NOT NORMAL - SO WHYEE? Its a signal and not proof of any cause but people will defend what they believe while none can deny the reality..
SOMETHING IS HAPPENING HERE WITH EXCESS DEATHS - WHAT CHANGED WORLDWIDE?
The batch lot study doesn't account for how some sites may have been more likely to report to VAERS. VAERS is a warning light, not a floodlight. But I do believe there was a lot of variety in "payload," mostly because there were no manufacturing practices in place to prevent product from being totally uneven, as Gutschi has detailed https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/maria-gutschi-pharmd-on-lack-of-manufacturing So you probably had a lot of people spared the "real" poison just by poor quality control.
It shows the All Cause Mortality Relative Risk for males aged 18-39 (and also for 40-49) by vaccination status, with unvaccinated as 1.0.
It shows a huge jump for 1 shot (3.5 times the risk of unvaccinated) followed by a decline to about 1.25 for the second shot and then an increase to about 1.8 for the third shot.
Now, this seems interesting to me. It seems like the first shot is killing off those susceptible to the #ClotShot pretty heavily, so by the time of the second and third shot there are no longer so many susceptibles available.
Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation?
OK, here's a substack posting on it with more age ranges. Some weird things happening but it does look like the more #ClotShots you get the more likely you are to die:
This is just the buckets artifact razzle-dazzle that, in the previous post, I mention is the mistake people fishing for stuff in the ONS *usually* make. Everyone who has a 2nd and 3rd dose is also >21 days post first dose. So the real >21 days post first dose rate would need to add those other buckets in. The >21 days group excludes those other buckets, because people can only be in one bucket at a time. So who are still in that bucket (that didn't get extra doses)? Probably people with health downturns that led them to stop getting additional injections. Again, old old old mistake, has been made a million times https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-panera-kingdom-problem
He throws in a few other mistakes in the new post. Using <21 days values for May without showing that they are opposite of trend, which is right there in table 6 in the whole period values. So these few 1000 people who just now getting more shots in May, who are they? They are not like most of the people who got shots, those ones are all in the other months that make up the whole period and have lower death rates. So these are just different people.
Does ANYONE seriously think that injecting something into a living body will have NO effect, NO immediate effects. What has 21 days, or 6 weeks or any other arbitrary period have to do with what 'might' occur? The C-shot is unlike any injected material ever used before so NOTHING in the history of Vaccination is automatically relevant, NOTHING in the history of ALL injected materials is applicable. There is NO precedent, zip, nada, none, nix.
SOMETHING IS KILING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT BE DYING. What has changed in that time period where deaths have increased - worldwide? DOH as Professor Homer would say.
I believe people are dying from the Covid vaccine. My believing that doesn't change what the excess mortality says. "What has changed" is the virus - the excess starts in 2020, not 2021.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying "yes there's a huge rise in excess mortality but it is likely COVID related..for now"
If that is what you are saying ..then holy shit are you saying that the potential excess mortality to come from the vaccines will dwarf what we are seeing now?
Fuck. Everytime I feel like I have to finally come to a place of peace with what has happened to humanity regarding this giant guinea pig clusterfuck of Big Pharma and Government corruption, I read something that just makes my stomach drop.
OK, I found your Panera Kingdom explanation too confusing. Too many levels of indirection and no version of GDB to help me figure it out.
I think what might be a confounder in the youngest age groups is the unhealthy person effect. That is, those in the youngest group who are the least healthy (with co-modbidities) know they are at risk so they get vaccinated, but the Spike-protein doesn't know whether it was delivered via the virus or the vaccine so it just kills them indiscriminately.
They are not "levels of indirection," they are the actual artifacts that exist in the ONS set all the time, leading to crazy-seeming person-year death rates in columns where really there is just a handful of deaths anyway.
There are myriad ways to explain it. I'll probably use a house or theatre example in another post. So if you have a bunch of people in the hallway at the beginning, and then they are all *supposed* to go to the showing room next. You have this stat that says ">21 minutes since entering hallway." But it doesn't actually reflect that because it is excluding people who went to the showing room. The real ">21 minutes since entering hallway" can be easily calculated by adding both groups back together and you find out they are dying less then the people outside the theatre (unvaccinated). It's that simple.
Except it isn't because there's loads of other ways to find crazy results in the data, for example because different people come from outside into the theatre at different times, so the "<21 minutes since entering hallway" is old people in early 2021 and young later, etc. It's not indirection. It's just what actually happened.
Young athletes and bodybuilders are dying sometimes in the middle of strenuous activity and sometimes while sleeping or walking. This doesn't fit with "obesity". It also suggests there there could be two different mechanisms for triggering the final fatal event sequence.
Right - but what that means is essentially that the dying suddenly events and the excess mortality are two separate animals. And, the latter is related to what is happening with the virus in countries with comorbidities and lack of effective treatments. But when you go to where there's more vaccine in the US, there's less excess mortality. When you go to where there's more excess mortality (and less vaccine), in the working age group (25-64) it's still mostly 45-64 in absolute numbers that are driving the trend, which doesn't match with the young dying suddenly that is happening everywhere. So the young dying suddenly isn't in the excess death stats.
This was indirectly linked in my link to Igor's post, and like I said it's the most promising current sign that the trends are starting to show up.
But, there are caveats that I would raise, ie. signs that the virus is driving this trend and the reason it's correlated to vaccine/booster rates is because now all the unvaccinated have natural immunity and the boostered are in immunity debt, ie still just meeting the virus for the first time.
Sign 1, the Aggregated Excess Mortality graph. Aggregated excess shouldn't go down when cases go down, it should level off (in other words it should match a paired total cases plot, not a case-per-day plot) *edit: I messed this one up again. It will go down a bit in all-age groups, not younger groups. But still shouldn't plummet like that.* Except, if you lump enough countries in together then you get a coincidental drop at the end of winter because most countries are still putting a lot of deaths into the "expected" column from normal winter respiratory surges (which is the only way aggregated excess deaths *can* "go down"). If you were to go to the individual countries that actually added excess deaths the graph would probably look like /-/- not /\/-.
Immediately after, the "Covid temporal analysis" is very strong after week 12. So that suggests confounding between vaccine rates and 2022 Covid deaths, which I have argued since the summer is due to catchup. Or, that could totally be wrong; it could just be that more vaccinated countries are the only ones still tracking cases.
Unz’s site is for perspectives that are almost completely excluded from the mainstream media not just “fringe-y, white-supremacist-adjacent content.” E.g. he publishes various leftists, various alternative-economic perspectives, various writers who have a different take on Russia, Ron Paul-ish libertarian content, etc.
And the “fringe-y, white-supremacist-adjacent content” is generally more like “European people(s) soon won’t exist as distinct, self-governing ethnies and that’s bad” and “the self-evident idea that all populations are entirely empirically equal isn’t self-evident at all.”
Oh – and Unz himself (he’s ethnically though not religiously Jewish) has written some incredibly controversial things about the Jewish people. E.g. look up his take on the classic anti-semitic blood libel against the Jews. I was quite shocked at what he wrote. So he’s not just an OUTLET for fringe-y ideas, he’s also a source.
Yeah I think you’re right about the shot and the data will eventually show it.
Yeah, I initially was going to put in a "doesn't often transgress" modifier. I decided I wasn't familiar enough with his work to be less than generous there. Mostly I just wanted to avoid readers being caught off-guard by the race stuff in the sidebar.
Much of the work of Ron Unz and his writers is essential to understanding the big picture of virus research. Let me suggest one example, an essay he commissioned over ten years ago for his magazine:
American Pravda 1 has made its way to my tab bar many times, but now I finally read it. Thanks for the prompt. I also got sucked into the Chinese evolutionary gauntlet post, a great read
This effort by el gato malo suggests the vaccines are killing people, but mainly ages 10-39 and 80+. He combined to data sets from UK ONS to compute vaxxed and unvaxxed death rates by age bracket. I downloaded the data and computed May myself. It largely agrees with his results. The only think I can't figure out, suggesting there is more to this, is that deaths were slightly lower in the vaccinated in Jan 2022, but increased linearly until they were much higher by May.
This is addressed in my previous post https://unglossed.substack.com/p/struggling-to-make-sense-of-the-egm - I've worked with the ONS data before and can't make sense of what egm did to make the math come out this way. He seems to have brought in his own denominators from outside, which is inappropriate because the ONS dataset doesn't purport to represent the country at large. It would be like if you looked at death rates of Medicare patients vs. population-wide vaccine rates. Wrong denominators make imaginary rates.
I read that post after I wrote my reply in this one. I wrote a reply there in which I accounted for the new information and ask a few questions there. I've slept on it and am going to add a more concise and hopefully well organized reply in the next hour.
I still think that my guesstimate from June 2021 of 120k deaths (fewer since, but some) is likely correct. It fit the German health insurer PKK's data *perfectly*, and we know the story from there: the CEO was immediately terminated and the info was taken offline. The 120k number is one that can blend into a lot of stats, and may include deaths there were about to happen anyway.
Mathew, I am a bit sceptical regarding the mortality graphs that Ron Unz has used in his analysis. There are a few different options to choose from to calculate the reference level at https://mpidr.shinyapps.io/stmortality/, and Unz has used the week-specific average. He says "The website showed excess deaths relative to a selected baseline, and I chose to use the average of the years 2015-2019 since those were available for all the countries listed."
However, I believe the week-specific trends would be more suitable for the calculations we are making for the simple reason that mortality has mostly been in decline which means that, most likely, it should continue to decline or atleast not increase. A week-specific trend satisfies this, but the average, however, does not as the projection for the following year based on the average of declining numbers will be higher than the last years mortality figure. Am I missing something here? If not, the same graphs, but with week-specific trends instead of averages, show an excess mortality for the same periods the week-specific averages shows mortality deficit. I have not bothered to look up the trends by myself, but in theory I should be correct or else we should not get that kind of difference in excess/deficit mortality.
I really wish we had good data on the general health of unvaxxed vs vaxxed (prior to the vax, I mean). To see "healthy user effect" for confounding variables. I found:
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/who-are-the-adults-not-vaccinated-against-covid.html
Unvaxxed were more likely to be poor, uneducated, disabled, and unemployed. All of these correlate with lower health outcomes. However the unvaxxed are also younger on average. Age always has to be taken into account. They are more likely to think the virus is not a big deal (caring about hte virus can possibly be a marker for thinks like taking vitamins, which can actually help). They are also more likely to live alone, which could suggest negative outcomes beyond merely age differences.
This is not a random sample (hospital patients) but shows unvaxxed more likely to be obese: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35978558/
An article updating the first look at VAERS data:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367030584_Extended_Analysis_of_COVID-19_Vaccine_Death_Reports_from_the_Vaccine_Adverse_Events_Reporting_System_VAERS_Database
Thanks - doesn't seem to show anything too weird or surprising. Still the case that breakthrough infections in elderly are the most likely thing to actually get reported, so for everything other kind of death the true rate remains a mystery.
Plaxovid working is very questionable, just see all the vaxxed and boosted top government officials including the president suffering from rebound. Also have an unvaxxed couple at church who were prescibed it and claimed they started to feel better quickly but then I asked if they felt worse a few days later and she agreed.
Right, rebound is real. But outcomes still turn out better. Here is a non-randomized study where there was probably lots of vaccinated rebound-havers but not a lot of severe outcomes "During the study period, 12 541 (28.1%) patients were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, and 32 010 (71.9%) were not. Patients prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir were more likely to be older, have more comorbidities, and be vaccinated. The composite outcome of hospitalization or death occurred in 69 (0.55%) patients who were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and 310 (0.97%) who were not " https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2141
Knowing this drug costs taxpayers like $530 and other early treatments are cheaper, safer and more effective gives me a bad taste in my mouth. This was an "Approved" repurposed drug by Big Pharma.
I don't have an opinion on whether other treatments are more effective, though I think they should be OTC (as they are in many places) so you get around the problem in that study where a lot of people don't reach the system until they're already being hospitalized (these ones weren't included in the study). Paxlovid couldn't help those 2000 hospitalizations so you still need ivermectin OTC.
Thanks for bringing the Unz, article up. I’d only read your commentary on it and not read his article till this afternoon. His analysis seems fair, but he himself says is not conclusive.
The tool he used (good find):
https://mpidr.shinyapps.io/stmortality/
Looks excellent, I’ve been slicing and dicing the Australian data with it for about an hours and learnt some surprising things about the pattern of deaths here in Oz that are counter to strongly held beliefs on both sides of the argument.
I tend to agree with you the more I look into it.
Australia might be a case where the previous year's mean vs. trend makes a big difference -- ie, even without the virus or injections, there would have been a big increase in deaths and healthcare usage. I haven't looked into it. This is a paper that uses trend instead of mean for EU countries, and the expected deaths against which "excess" deaths are measured end up very different in some cases https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.22.22283850v1
Not exactly, that’s what I find surprising, basically there was an all cause mortality benefit 2020 and 2021 and excess deaths only really started increasing in a major way in 2022 depending on how you slice it between age groups. I’ve only been playing around with the data visualization tool for about an hour so I’m not sure if what I’m seeing is what I think it is. I’ve got all the ABS data in spreadsheets so can verify if needed, but the visualization tool is, much faster for “what if” comparison. I was planning on producing some similar charts to your latest post, the with lots of charts, if my hunch is correct.
In a nutshell, if my hunch from playing with the visualization tool is correct;
covid and vax injuries are not even noticable in Australian data unless you’re old. Need to look into it a LOT more.
Edit: From the paper you linked “However, the debate on Covid-19 has exposed that calculations of excess mortalities vary considerably depending on the method and its specification.”
That’s exactly what’s happening when I change baseline. Our ABS use a convoluted baseline for their analysis.
Wow! I just had a look at US, now I can tell why there is so much difference of opinion. It’s like we’re on two different planets. I can now see why some of you guys think there’s a cull going on.
My thoughts about the question "what if the stats never show the excess deaths from the very expensive injectable products that no one needed?"
Here is the problem. Smart people look at numbers and at reality. Reality is confusing and unsophisticated, monotonous and truly a bore. Unlike numbers, spreadsheets, graphics and animations.
Smart people are like children in that they prefer fantasy. So much fun with fantasy. My blood is composed of RBCs, plasma and imagination (and some debris of that insane garbage thrown from the definitely non-existent helioengineering planes.)
Now, back in the unreliable and boring reality. If people die from things that used to be weird and now are not weird (that classic heart attack all kids have around age 7 or 8) AND the official data says "everything is normal, nothing to see here" then I, as a member of the intuitive midwittery, must say that they are lying. A collection of numbers cannot change reality. Only the perception of reality of the people who have more faith in their wit than they ought to have.
Do the 125+ IQ champions believe they are immune from the attack of very seasoned Infowarriors who know all the tricks of Bernays' and Alinsky' books by heart?
Come on!
O number wizards! Picture yourself for a minute in the shoes of a 90-115 IQ tax-receptor. How could the members of the enemy class attack these people using your overdeveloped frontal lobes as a weapon?
Part of the answer is the trick that always works: flattery.
By the way, Brian, I love your substack. Seriously, it's surprisingly good for a Californian. I'm impressed at so much examples of sophisticated yet not totally useless thinking.
(End of the tangential and mostly sincere observation.)
Isn't Ron Unz one of the smartest among the smarterer class? Is he smart enough to know when he is being used without getting paid? A clue is that there is something like a valid contract when one is not being abused in the foresaid manner.
If I was an agent of chaos, with the mission to protect the criminals and being paid in some way to make sure the data is all scrambled and adulterated, and if part of my duties involved conflatabbergaslighting researchers of the truthering team, then I would take better care of me grammar and lexyc, and I would definitely insist in repeating ad nauseam that OFFICIAL DATA ALWAYS EQUALS REALITY OR ELSE YOUR AN ANTIVAXXXXER AND A SOVIET AND GAY!!!
(That's what several years of wikipedic radiation did to my poor brain.
Don't laugh at me, for I am sequi-innumerate and a special needs commenter.)
Over.
I hope you lolled a little.
The problem with fantasy is it can't kill you. Borrrring. I think there always use to be a contingent of smart people that would rather throw their lot in with the rioting rabble, but something changed after the electric era. TV, processed foods, who knows.
I have no interest in changing your mind Brian. Either you will act in good faith and explore sites that my have a different interpretation of the "the data" or you won't. It really is of no interest to me what you do. What I find sad is that your ego, pride or narcissism appears to be more involved in this exchange at this point than your intellect. So I'll bid you farewell. You have a nice long list of sites to explore should you wish things further.
You haven't engaged my intellect because you haven't even read the post. Apologies for being able to tell.
That deaths may have increased in 2020 because of a virus is not proven in view as the means to determine this was and maybe still is not available - at least not reliably.
Something was causing illness in 2020 but in a period of enforced isolation, separation, mass indiscriminate masking, job losses, business failures, restricted medical care and the highly promoted Plague threat, an increase in deaths should be expected - so maybe not viral at all. And then the C-Shots started and excess deaths have shot up it seems with a worldwide injection of materials into healthy people campaign of unprecedented scope and effectiveness. Vrial mutations? I do not see that as past evidence suggests follow-on mutated strains, if they exist, are more INFECTIVE and less AFFECTIVE. Why should the claimed Cov viral process be so different?
This is just applying a double standard. If you think that excess deaths demand blaming the vaccine (as opposed to my view, which is, ok I can see people dying with my own eyes and don't care as much about statistics), then you can't just wave away a big rise in excess deaths in 2020 as "not proven."
Not surprising I do not agree with you as I think you misread my points. Excess deaths are excess deaths over and above what is mostly a relatively stable figure with not a lot of variation year on year allowing for population changes. Yes it is statistics and we know what can be done with statistics.
BUT. A big change needs explanation and I am the first to say be wary of easy answers, they are usually wrong. With 43 years at the front end of aviation. I know how wrong first choice seemingly obvious conclusions can be AND how complex actual causal explanations with multi-factor aspects can be once they are dug out of the mess of data. I have a highly developed Bullshit aversion coupled with a high level skepticism born from a necessary survival instinct.
What is telling to me is the clearly deliberate obscuring of illness and deaths numbers and causal factors. Why is this necessary unless it is covering something? Why the almost desperate pressure to jab as many as possible as much as possible with an untried mix and tech that was admitted before the roll-out would not immunise to protect either the recipient nor any one else? To what purpose with almost no reliable predictive data in the public or the medical domain re outcomes? In pretrials did ALL the animals jabbed die when exposed to the pathogen after injection? If so why? This might explain why so many hospitals may be struggling (out local regional one is) with so many previously jabbed suffering a bunch of serious illnesses and the jabbed medical staff now also in trouble with health (local cancer cluster etc.).
I think a good detective tries to eliminate the obvious first to clear the view to the not so obvious - unless the obvious first cannot be eliminated because all the evidence is there for it.
I think the batch numbers were noted to places well outside the US-VAERS reporting area. There seems reasonable evidence that shot number three is a real lottery and for some a much higher likelihood of a serious event. Then there is the issue of possible lowered 'immune response' ( Have a different view of so called immunity than mainstream ).
The supposedly LOW numbers of Un-V'd in hospital may be partly by choice (stay away) but cannot be ruled out entirely as 'not sick'.
Vaccination by design is meant to inject the healthy, which appears to have occurred in large numbers so the excess deaths amongst seeming ly healthy is a link that must be explained - truthfully. Claims need evidence to support them or they fail as null and void.
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck - it might be ("vaccine-induced excess deaths"). Or geez, maybe instead it's really an overweight unicorn?
But it doesn't look, talk, walk like that. That's the whole point. Vaccinated people are dropping dead in plain sight, but the excess mortality literally doesn't show it. It's just the way it is.
If all the highly vaccinated countries are show 17%+ excess mortality in working age populations that begin with spikes in conjunction with both vaccine rollout and booster rollout what exactly is it you are looking for? The serious adverse event health signals were there from the beginning but officially ignored and suppressed. More people died in Pfizer's vaccine group than the control group. We knew that early on. When life insurance companies are reporting a 40% increase in death of working aged people, and a 10% increase would be a once in 200 year event by chance - the only way I can see to avoid seeing the smoking gun in the room is to close one's eyes. The CDC and FDA certainly aren't going do an honest evaluation of any of this. And since research that could explore this issue is funded by the same entities promoting the narrative, those same entities attacking any doctors or researchers who dare even question the "safe & effective" mantra - I don't know who is going to choose to destroy their career by daring to dive deeply into challenging a narrative promoted not just by the CDC and FDA, but all the way to the bowels of Langley and the Pentagon.
I don't think you have read my post. Everything here is addressed.
*edit: And, as advice for reading my post, bear in mind that almost everything you have just stated is not in the data. It's just stuff you've been "these are not the droids" hand-waved into thinking you saw.
I did read your post Brian, but I've been reading on the topic 4-6 hours a day for three years now, including every study and analysis of this issue that I come across. I simply don't find your data convincing compared to the many analyses I've read based on government data bases from around the world discussed at the following sites:
Igor Chudov
Mercola
Children’s Health Defense
Rav Avora
Tessa Lena
Robert Malone
Ian Miller
John H Abeles
Mark Crispin Miller
Celia Farber
Metatron from Covid Facts
Margaret Menge
Naked Emperor substack
Dr. Toby Rogers
Steve Kirsch
Super Sally’s Newsletter
Jessica Rose
A Midwester Doctor
Aaron Siri
Etana Hecht
Canadian Covid Care Alliance
Brownstone Institute
Geert Vinden Bossche
I guess we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree at this point Brian.
Naked Emperor lol. He can't even parse, let alone reply to feedback.
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/vaccines-made-no-difference-to-covid/comment/6482973
I don't agree with everything I read at those or other sites Brian. Just as I don't find your analysis compelling. I'm sure if you need to you can find things written by ALL of those writers or sites I listed that I would not agree with. But that really isn't the point Brian.
2 Points.
First the study on different batch/lot numbers suggested a range of effects, most less than a seasonal Flu shot but some corresponded with significant negative effects. So not all C-Shots may be the same so expect differing numbers. Cumulative effects? Probably though not impossible.
Second there IS an apparent significant rise in Excess Deaths and it is happening worldwide to varying but similar degrees, ie same direction upwards ALL apparently co-incidental with the rollout of C-shots. Does not prove anything except.......
SOMETHING IS HAPPENING HERE - NOT NORMAL - SO WHYEE? Its a signal and not proof of any cause but people will defend what they believe while none can deny the reality..
SOMETHING IS HAPPENING HERE WITH EXCESS DEATHS - WHAT CHANGED WORLDWIDE?
The batch lot study doesn't account for how some sites may have been more likely to report to VAERS. VAERS is a warning light, not a floodlight. But I do believe there was a lot of variety in "payload," mostly because there were no manufacturing practices in place to prevent product from being totally uneven, as Gutschi has detailed https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/maria-gutschi-pharmd-on-lack-of-manufacturing So you probably had a lot of people spared the "real" poison just by poor quality control.
Denis Rancourt has showed the "bad lots" were disproportionately given to elderly, who are far more likely to be killed by the shots
There is a graphic from El Gato Malo on twitter at this post: https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1613135281187700737
It shows the All Cause Mortality Relative Risk for males aged 18-39 (and also for 40-49) by vaccination status, with unvaccinated as 1.0.
It shows a huge jump for 1 shot (3.5 times the risk of unvaccinated) followed by a decline to about 1.25 for the second shot and then an increase to about 1.8 for the third shot.
Now, this seems interesting to me. It seems like the first shot is killing off those susceptible to the #ClotShot pretty heavily, so by the time of the second and third shot there are no longer so many susceptibles available.
Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation?
OK, here's a substack posting on it with more age ranges. Some weird things happening but it does look like the more #ClotShots you get the more likely you are to die:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/another-look-at-uk-all-cause-mortality
This is just the buckets artifact razzle-dazzle that, in the previous post, I mention is the mistake people fishing for stuff in the ONS *usually* make. Everyone who has a 2nd and 3rd dose is also >21 days post first dose. So the real >21 days post first dose rate would need to add those other buckets in. The >21 days group excludes those other buckets, because people can only be in one bucket at a time. So who are still in that bucket (that didn't get extra doses)? Probably people with health downturns that led them to stop getting additional injections. Again, old old old mistake, has been made a million times https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-panera-kingdom-problem
He throws in a few other mistakes in the new post. Using <21 days values for May without showing that they are opposite of trend, which is right there in table 6 in the whole period values. So these few 1000 people who just now getting more shots in May, who are they? They are not like most of the people who got shots, those ones are all in the other months that make up the whole period and have lower death rates. So these are just different people.
Does ANYONE seriously think that injecting something into a living body will have NO effect, NO immediate effects. What has 21 days, or 6 weeks or any other arbitrary period have to do with what 'might' occur? The C-shot is unlike any injected material ever used before so NOTHING in the history of Vaccination is automatically relevant, NOTHING in the history of ALL injected materials is applicable. There is NO precedent, zip, nada, none, nix.
SOMETHING IS KILING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT BE DYING. What has changed in that time period where deaths have increased - worldwide? DOH as Professor Homer would say.
I believe people are dying from the Covid vaccine. My believing that doesn't change what the excess mortality says. "What has changed" is the virus - the excess starts in 2020, not 2021.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying "yes there's a huge rise in excess mortality but it is likely COVID related..for now"
If that is what you are saying ..then holy shit are you saying that the potential excess mortality to come from the vaccines will dwarf what we are seeing now?
Fuck. Everytime I feel like I have to finally come to a place of peace with what has happened to humanity regarding this giant guinea pig clusterfuck of Big Pharma and Government corruption, I read something that just makes my stomach drop.
OK, I found your Panera Kingdom explanation too confusing. Too many levels of indirection and no version of GDB to help me figure it out.
I think what might be a confounder in the youngest age groups is the unhealthy person effect. That is, those in the youngest group who are the least healthy (with co-modbidities) know they are at risk so they get vaccinated, but the Spike-protein doesn't know whether it was delivered via the virus or the vaccine so it just kills them indiscriminately.
More thought needed on my part.
They are not "levels of indirection," they are the actual artifacts that exist in the ONS set all the time, leading to crazy-seeming person-year death rates in columns where really there is just a handful of deaths anyway.
There are myriad ways to explain it. I'll probably use a house or theatre example in another post. So if you have a bunch of people in the hallway at the beginning, and then they are all *supposed* to go to the showing room next. You have this stat that says ">21 minutes since entering hallway." But it doesn't actually reflect that because it is excluding people who went to the showing room. The real ">21 minutes since entering hallway" can be easily calculated by adding both groups back together and you find out they are dying less then the people outside the theatre (unvaccinated). It's that simple.
Except it isn't because there's loads of other ways to find crazy results in the data, for example because different people come from outside into the theatre at different times, so the "<21 minutes since entering hallway" is old people in early 2021 and young later, etc. It's not indirection. It's just what actually happened.
Young athletes and bodybuilders are dying sometimes in the middle of strenuous activity and sometimes while sleeping or walking. This doesn't fit with "obesity". It also suggests there there could be two different mechanisms for triggering the final fatal event sequence.
Right - but what that means is essentially that the dying suddenly events and the excess mortality are two separate animals. And, the latter is related to what is happening with the virus in countries with comorbidities and lack of effective treatments. But when you go to where there's more vaccine in the US, there's less excess mortality. When you go to where there's more excess mortality (and less vaccine), in the working age group (25-64) it's still mostly 45-64 in absolute numbers that are driving the trend, which doesn't match with the young dying suddenly that is happening everywhere. So the young dying suddenly isn't in the excess death stats.
So why are we not following Fenton on this? I don’t see obvious errors in his analysis. There is a temporal pattern in deaths which doesn’t just track Covid and there is no temporal pattern in obesity. https://open.substack.com/pub/wherearethenumbers/p/the-devils-advocate-an-exploratory?r=15nw2j&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
This was indirectly linked in my link to Igor's post, and like I said it's the most promising current sign that the trends are starting to show up.
But, there are caveats that I would raise, ie. signs that the virus is driving this trend and the reason it's correlated to vaccine/booster rates is because now all the unvaccinated have natural immunity and the boostered are in immunity debt, ie still just meeting the virus for the first time.
Sign 1, the Aggregated Excess Mortality graph. Aggregated excess shouldn't go down when cases go down, it should level off (in other words it should match a paired total cases plot, not a case-per-day plot) *edit: I messed this one up again. It will go down a bit in all-age groups, not younger groups. But still shouldn't plummet like that.* Except, if you lump enough countries in together then you get a coincidental drop at the end of winter because most countries are still putting a lot of deaths into the "expected" column from normal winter respiratory surges (which is the only way aggregated excess deaths *can* "go down"). If you were to go to the individual countries that actually added excess deaths the graph would probably look like /-/- not /\/-.
Immediately after, the "Covid temporal analysis" is very strong after week 12. So that suggests confounding between vaccine rates and 2022 Covid deaths, which I have argued since the summer is due to catchup. Or, that could totally be wrong; it could just be that more vaccinated countries are the only ones still tracking cases.
So it's promising but I think not conclusive.
Unz’s site is for perspectives that are almost completely excluded from the mainstream media not just “fringe-y, white-supremacist-adjacent content.” E.g. he publishes various leftists, various alternative-economic perspectives, various writers who have a different take on Russia, Ron Paul-ish libertarian content, etc.
And the “fringe-y, white-supremacist-adjacent content” is generally more like “European people(s) soon won’t exist as distinct, self-governing ethnies and that’s bad” and “the self-evident idea that all populations are entirely empirically equal isn’t self-evident at all.”
Oh – and Unz himself (he’s ethnically though not religiously Jewish) has written some incredibly controversial things about the Jewish people. E.g. look up his take on the classic anti-semitic blood libel against the Jews. I was quite shocked at what he wrote. So he’s not just an OUTLET for fringe-y ideas, he’s also a source.
Yeah I think you’re right about the shot and the data will eventually show it.
Yeah, I initially was going to put in a "doesn't often transgress" modifier. I decided I wasn't familiar enough with his work to be less than generous there. Mostly I just wanted to avoid readers being caught off-guard by the race stuff in the sidebar.
Much of the work of Ron Unz and his writers is essential to understanding the big picture of virus research. Let me suggest one example, an essay he commissioned over ten years ago for his magazine:
https://www.unz.com/article/the-anthrax-files/
TL/DR: the anthrax mailed after 9/11/2001 came from inside the American biowar establishment, whose members all know who did it.
If you want a quick introduction to important stories covered by Unz that the regular media refuses to touch, you could start here:
https://www.unz.com/runz/our-american-pravda/
American Pravda 1 has made its way to my tab bar many times, but now I finally read it. Thanks for the prompt. I also got sucked into the Chinese evolutionary gauntlet post, a great read
This effort by el gato malo suggests the vaccines are killing people, but mainly ages 10-39 and 80+. He combined to data sets from UK ONS to compute vaxxed and unvaxxed death rates by age bracket. I downloaded the data and computed May myself. It largely agrees with his results. The only think I can't figure out, suggesting there is more to this, is that deaths were slightly lower in the vaccinated in Jan 2022, but increased linearly until they were much higher by May.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/uk-age-stratified-all-cause-death
This is addressed in my previous post https://unglossed.substack.com/p/struggling-to-make-sense-of-the-egm - I've worked with the ONS data before and can't make sense of what egm did to make the math come out this way. He seems to have brought in his own denominators from outside, which is inappropriate because the ONS dataset doesn't purport to represent the country at large. It would be like if you looked at death rates of Medicare patients vs. population-wide vaccine rates. Wrong denominators make imaginary rates.
I read that post after I wrote my reply in this one. I wrote a reply there in which I accounted for the new information and ask a few questions there. I've slept on it and am going to add a more concise and hopefully well organized reply in the next hour.
Yes - and I saw your comment there after I replied to the one here!