deaths

‘The jab’: UK deaths expected to be dominated by the double-dosers

Posted on by hk80u

The Statement

“The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups, such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals.”

 

The source

UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, 5 April 2021

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975909/S1182_SPI-M-O_Summary_of_modelling_of_easing_roadmap_step_2_restrictions.pdf

 

My take on it

Sources are important.  That’s why I routinely reference them.  I note that the SPI-M-O paper is to be read in conjunction with three other sources of modelling, one of which is the University College London.  Others have had much to say about the original predictions from that source, and also about blatant conflicts of interest.

Moving on, …

it is surely staggering that an expected 70% of deaths will be of people who have had two doses of the ‘vaccine’.  Whatever this injection may claimedly have done for others will be of small comfort to those thus affected.

The expected results reported here are attributed to a high level of uptake in the most at risk demographic; and are explained as ‘vaccination failure’.  If the administration of the injection is weighted toward this group, and if the deaths are similarly weighted, then one might reasonably ask, as a ‘first effect’ whether the vaccine itself might be in some way contributory.

 If, ‘in the most at-risk age groups, immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals’, at what point should we expect this finding to be reflected in updated health advisories?

What pandemic? “No excess deaths from all causes globally in 2020”

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

Despite COVID getting the greatest media attention of any event since World War II, the latest data from a respected statistics website shows that, globally, the number of deaths from all causes for 2020 was no higher than expected, given previous years’ totals. In addition, the annual world death rate per one thousand in population has been steadily declining since 1950, from 20 per thousand in 1950, to 7.6 per thousand in 2020, the same as in 2019.  …

The data shows that total world deaths from all causes held steady at about 58.8 million per year since 2019. In 2017 the total was 58.7 million. If anything, global deaths were lower than expected last year, due to aging Baby Boomer demographics, which accounts for a slight, normal rise in deaths in most years.

In global terms, if excess deaths are the criteria, there was no pandemic.

The source

Corona Virus News, 9 June 2021

(https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/global-data-shows-no-excess-deaths-worldwide-in-2020-massive-london-march-against-forced-injections-blacked-out-by-media/)

My take on it

“Lies, damned lies and statistics” ?

In this whole episode the story-telling has certainly been confounded by the choice of metrics. Total deaths, and death rate, are very high-level measures, less vulnerable to manipulation. If something substantially out of the ordinary is happening, it should show up here.

Apparently there isn’t.

Of course this report flies in the face of the prevailing narrative. For which reason, the likely first reaction to it, is disbelief. But for some, it may be the trigger to some critical thinking. And that can’t be a bad thing.

Covid: driven by an intentionally faulty metric ?

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“Keep the above in mind as I front-load the next data point. The front-load is this – the CDC/WHO cohort was using deliberately and anomalously high cycle thresholds (35-40 v. 17-25 and as an indicator of viral load) relative to PCR testing. Now, bear in mind that the virus was never isolated relative to PCR testing and moreover, the developer of the PCR test – who is now deceased circa 2019 – how convenient? – advised that the PCR test was never intended as a diagnosis tool implying that it’s being misused and delivering unreliable data relative to COVID.

Do you know what PCR tests with faulty high cycle thresholds deliver in absolute abundance? False positive test results. FALSE POSITIVE TEST RESULTS! Remember how I framed the “pandemic” as one of propagated fraudulent data? The intentionally faulty PCR tests, as determined by the CDC/WHO cohort, became the primary data driver for the pandemic.

Remember what occurred around mid-April 2020? The CDC/WHO moved away from the historical and conventional pandemic measurement of mortality data, which was in decline at the time, to the measurement of “new case data.” That’s never been done before and it allows them to leverage the faulty high CTs in the PCR test; remembering that beginning in January 2020, the Democrats were howling about expanded testing. Now you know why.”

The source

Political Moonshine, 3 May 2021

( https://politicalmoonshine.com/2021/05/29/two-more-coffin-nails-and-100-certainty-of-covid-19-fraud-can-anyone-prove-it-isnt/?amp )

My take on it

Political Moonshine (whoever that is!) makes the point that (in the case of Covid) a historical and conventional pandemic measurement, ie Mortality, was discarded.  That single decision has allowed a tragic deception to prevail.

The author reverts to the conventional measurement and draws from public data to show that US fatalities in the year 2020 were unexceptional. (Try floating that into the conversation with a few of your friends, and see how you go. “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind’s made up.”)

This article is well worth reading in full.  It closes with a re-stated hypothesis, and with a challenge:

“We began this article by asking if you cared to understand how COVID-19 is a false flag political construct that was intentionally developed as a bio-WMD to facilitate the overthrow of the U.S.?

Let’s rewrite that question and make it rhetorical for our closing – Can anyone prove that it isn’t?”

The Covid ‘jab’: “a stunningly high ratio of deaths to vaccinations” goes unchallenged

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“Reporting a death requires a healthcare worker to enter it into the system,” he said. And if the death does not occur within the normal 15-minute monitoring period they often go unreported. Most deaths occur within 72 hours of the shot. “They pile up on day one, two and three,” he said.

As a matter of comparison: There are 20 to 30 deaths reported every year to VAERS related to the flu shot. That’s with 195 million receiving flu shots. Compare that to the COVID shot, which resulted in 2,602 reported deaths through 77 million vaccinations.

That’s a stunningly high ratio of deaths to vaccinations, the highest for any vaccine in U.S. history, and yet no major media outlet has launched an investigation. Independent journalists and researchers such as Alex Newman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Leo Hohmann have been ruthlessly censored.”

The Source

Dr Peter McCullough.  Dr McCullough holds the honour of being the most cited medical doctor on COVID-19 treatments at the National Library of Medicine, with more than 600 citations. He has testified before Congress and won numerous awards during his distinguished medical career.

( https://leohohmann.com/2021/04/30/highly-cited-covid-doctor-comes-to-stunning-conclusion-govt-scrubbing-unprecedented-numbers-of-injection-related-deaths/ )

My take on it

Yet again the evidence indicates that what is extraordinary about Covid-19 is not so much the disease itself, but the policy response of government in general, and of biocrats in particular.  In this case it is that the adverse effects threshold that would normally have interrupted the use of these vaccines much earlier, has been dramatically raised.  Perhaps even set aside.

And yet again the media are complicit in not calling out that policy response as exceptional.

Which is pretty much what many of us have come to expect.

But not to accept.