Lock-down: Ten times more deadly than the virus?

The statement

new study from the University of California and Rand found that the lockdowns didn’t save lives, and may have actually resulted in more deaths than if no lockdowns happened at all.

The scientific study concluded that following the implementation of shelter-in-place policies, excess mortality increased and that the increase in mortality is statistically significant in the immediate weeks following implementation. ….

A deadly combination of exponentially increased suicidesdrug overdose, homicide, alcohol consumption, calorie consumption, delayed cancer screenings, spousal abuse, tuberculosis, and more is occurring. Researchers conclude this combination will outweigh deaths from COVID by multiples.

Data show very clearly that lockdowns have not only been completely ineffective, but they have been potentially as much as ten times more deadly than the coronavirus itsel

The source

DailyVeracity 26 June 2021 ( https://www.dailyveracity.com/2021/06/26/massive-new-study-confirms-lockdowns-did-not-reduce-mortality-and-may-have-caused-excess-mortality/ )

My take on it

More evidence – as if we needed it – that lock-downs have a negative net benefit.. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

And this research doesn’t appear to encompass the more recent cross-impact of gene therapy injections. To understand the adverse impact of lock-downs on people emotionally, is to understand how clever is an advertising program that makes freedom a condition of injection. Coercion by any other name. The consequent deaths and other adverse events will only tilt the case further against these policy measures.

Still the question is Why?

Why these counterproductive policy measures?

And why the continuing refusal to do proper impact assessments?

 

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

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?

Vaccine Passports? Not for EU

The statement

On 27 January, the Council of Europe signed Resolution 2361, which states that vaccinations in EU Member States should not be mandatory. Furthermore, persons who have not been vaccinated may not be discriminated against in any way. This effectively stops the notion of “vaccine passports”.

The Source

www.nyatider.nu/council-of-europe-no-compulsory-vaccinations-and-no-discrimination-against-the-unvaccinated

My take on it.

‘The Council of Europe is an intergovernmental European cooperation organization with 47 Member States, which, despite its name and the same flag, is separate from the EU. Its resolutions are not legally binding, but recommendations to Member States are almost always complied with.’

Good.

‘The resolution goes so far as to order member states such as Sweden to actively inform citizens of these rights. The resolution has been ignored by mainstream politicians and the media.’

Surprise, surprise.

Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier

The statement

“Unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children, according to a new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study — “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” — by James Lyons-Weiler, PhD and Paul Thomas, MD, was conducted among 3,300 patients at Dr. Thomas’ Oregon pediatrics practice, Integrative Pediatric.                             ……

The study found that vaccinated children in the study see the doctor more often than unvaccinated children. The CDC recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines before a child reaches the age of 18. The more vaccines a child in the study received, the more likely the child presented with fever at an office visit.

The study had unique data that allowed the researchers to study healthcare-seeking behavior. Unlike increases in fever accompanied by increased vaccine uptake, which is accepted as causally related to vaccination, increases in vaccine acceptance was not accompanied by a major increase in well-child visits. In fact, regardless of how many vaccinations parents decided their children would have, the number of well-child visits was about the same.

Any concerns that the non-vaccinated or less-vaccinated children would avoid the doctor are unfounded, and puts the jaw-droppingly large difference in office visits in perspective — outside of well-child visits, children who received 90 to 95% of the CDC-recommended vaccines for their age group were about 25 times more likely than the unvaccinated group to see the pediatrician for an appointment related to fever.”

Two graphs for that paper are reproduced below.  The first relates to the incidence of fever at wellness checks:

The second shows the difference in incidence of 15 diseases between unvaccinated and vaccinated children:

The source

A November 2020 study published in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ( https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674 )

Quoted by Alix Mayer in The Defender

 

My take on it

I share the authors’ conclusion.  How could you not?

I feel for parents.  This is a toughie.  The article refers to “The Dr. Paul Approved Vaccine Plan, developed in the US and allowing for fully informed consent and parental decision-making in vaccination choices for their children. The plan was developed to reduce exposures to aluminum-containing vaccines and to allow parents to stop or delay vaccinations if some telltale signs of vaccine injury were starting to appear. Conditions like allergies, eczema, developmental delay or autoimmune conditions are typical signs that a child’s immune system is not processing vaccines normally.  These conditions serve as early indicators to help the parent and pediatrician consider slowing or stopping vaccination.” 

That’s great if you are in a context that ensures informed consent.  Many do not. 

Whatever the context, mothers watch their children.  This constant maternal observation is precisely what drew the attention of Dr Andrew Wakefield in the UK in 1995 to the apparent association between vaccination and neurological injury in children.  And obviously the sooner you notice any adverse reactions, the better, in terms of stopping or delaying any further vaccination. But by then the damage may already have been done. 

It is my understanding that vaccine injury is greatly under-reported.  This is a fundamental flaw in the system, tilting the impacts clearly in favour of the provider and against the recipient.  A tighter feedback loop would serve the public interest, by reducing the lifetime cost of healthcare.