The jab: Deaths in the working age group up 40%

The statement

The CEO of the OneAmerica insurance company publicly disclosed that during the third and fourth quarters of 2021, death in people of working age (18-64) was 40% higher than it was before the pandemic. Significantly, the majority of the deaths were not attributed to COVID. Even a 10% increase in excess deaths would have been a 1-in-200-year event. But this was a 40%.

Before the #Covid vaccines, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for people disabled and not able to work, was between 29 and 30 million on an absolute basis for 4 or 5 years. Then in February of 2021 (2 months after the vaccine roll-out started) this number took off, and went to a high of 33.2 million in September of 2022.

Since February of 2021, the disability rate for the employed is up 31%, and the general US population’s disability rate is up 9% from February of 2021 through to December of 2022.

The source

Ed Dowd, industry analyst, quoted by Tucker Carlson (https://t.me/DowdEdward/2569)

My take on

Scientific method relies on testing the likelihood of something happening by chance, rather than it happening due to some specific cause.

The numbers that Dowd quotes are off the charts. There is virtually no chance that these excess deaths and injuries happened by chance.

Didn’t someone say that ‘one death is a tragedy; a thousand deaths is a statistic.’ How wrong. How cruel. How symptomatic of those driving this juggernaut.

A thousand deaths is a thousand tragedies, and the ripples spread out from there.

The jab and cancer:  larger, more aggressive, in younger patients …

The statement

“With this experience (see earlier text of article), I know approximately the distribution of average age, tumor size, and degree of malignancy that I can expect in the daily input material of breast cancer.

Already, in Autumn 2021, I had the impression that I was suddenly receiving more material

  1. From younger patients, often 30 to 50 years old.
  2. The tumors were growing more aggressively and faster.
  3. And that they were larger. More than four centimeters was not uncommon. I saw tumors up to 16 centimeters in size in the breast.
  4. I also had the impression that multifocal tumor growth and bilateral tumor growths were more frequent.

My efforts at the second pathology conference in Germany, in December 2021, to find colleagues to help me prove or disprove my hypothesis of Turbo Cancer after vaccination against COVID-19 met with little response.”

The source

Pathologist Ute Kruger MD, in DailyClout, 10 March 2023

My take on it

That’s the conventional medical model for you:  an unnecessary and unsafe treatment that generates side effects that invite further medical intervention – a compounding effect on personal health, and on provider profits.

What’s left to say?  Does the average person have any idea about all this?  How could they, when the communications channels are gagged?

Masks: No evidence in favour, says White House

The statement

“There is no study in the world that shows that masks work that well.”

The source

Dr Ashish Jha, White House Top COVID Adviser, in an interview with three others (Cheryl Bettigole, Philadelphia Health Commissioner; Letitia Stein, Health Report Health & Science Editor; Jason Laughlin, Health Reporter) on BonginoReport published 22 December 2022 

https://rumble.com/v21wmde-biden-covid-czar-finally-admits-the-truth-about-masks.html?mref=1vds3&mrefc=2

My take on it

It’s an admission from the Biden White House that has taken a long time coming.

The evidence in support was never there. So it was not about infection control. It was just about control.

This recent admission continues to ignore the significant adverse effects of these masks which are well documented, including in several of my own earlier posts.

Mask mandates and case rates: “no significant relationship” (Lancet)

The statement

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been called out for its misleading justification of school mask mandates before. Rarely has it come from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, such as “The Lancet.”

Two scientific researchers soft-peddle criticism of the CDC’s mask mandate claims in a new article entitled, “Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements—United States, July 1—October 20 2021.” But the results are devastating for the CDC’s support of school mask mandates.

Research abstract follows:

Background: There has been considerable debate around mask requirements in schools in the United States and other countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. To date, there have been no randomized controlled trials of mask requirements in children. All analyses of the effectiveness of school mask mandates have relied on observational studies. The Centers for Disease Control in the U.S. have released multiple observational studies suggesting that school mask mandates significantly reduce case rates. However, there have also been numerous additional US and international observational studies finding no significant effect of school mask mandates on pediatric cases. 

Methods: Our study replicates a highly cited CDC study showing a negative association between school mask mandates and pediatric SARS-CoV-2 cases. We then extend the study using a larger sample of districts and a longer time interval, employing almost six times as much data as the original study. We examine the relationship between mask mandates and per-capita pediatric cases, using multiple regression to control for differences across school districts. 

Findings: Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates. These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.   

The source

beckernews.com, 29 May 2022 (https://beckernews.com/new-study-at-the-lancet-debunks-widely-cited-cdc-study-justifying-school-mask-mandates-45145/)

(Original article: Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements—United States, July 1—October 20 2021, Lancet pre-print posted 25 May 2022 ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4118566 )

My take on it

Once again for the dummies: Masks don’t work.

The research approach is commendable in that it first replicates the prior observational CDC study, and then improves the methodology to a randomised controlled study – only to evince a contrary finding. From a scientific perspective the findings of the latter study should automatically prevail (unless and until proved wrong by subsequent endeavour).

Nonetheless, “The one convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

The tone in which the paper was written, has been described by Becker as ‘soft-peddle criticism of the CDC’s mask mandate claims.’ We understand why that might be so. You don’t cut off the hand that feeds you.