COVID deaths in the 12 months between 1st June 2022 and 31st May 2023, and 94% of those deaths were among either the triple or quadruple vaccinated population. But media refuses to cover this data!
"But what’s curious about the figures is that it’s not the one-dose, or double-vaccinated population who account for the majority of COVID-19 deaths throughout the 12 months, it’s instead the triple and quadruple-vaccinated population that accounted for the majority of COVID-19 death"
While there are MANY things wrong with the mRNA vactines, my understanding is that one of the worst side-effects of the 3rd and 4th does (and beyond) is that they act like allergy shots, trying to suppress the host's immune system so that it no longer treats Covid infections as serious. Even worse, that same suppression of the immune system could be what is leading to an material increase in cancer cases.
It's insane that SO MANY people are still blind, ignorant, or in complete denial about this stuff. I think there are ways to break through that conditioning (or "mass formation psychosis") but it's tough!!
What percentage of the population does each group represent? Raw numbers are one thing, but you still need to factor in the percentage of the total population of each group, too.
If the 'vaccine' was 90-95% percent effective, would you even had to ask this question? It would've been fucking obvious who was dying, isn't it?
The media would be screaming their lungs out, that the unvaccinated are dying in droves. Why they aren't doing that? Because it's the other way around, buddy. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out..
I have no problem with Carol's question. Yes, the vactine [Biden's word] is obviously a spectacular, grievous, and dangerous failure.
Nevertheless, if our goal is to simply demonstrate using official government data just how ineffective it is AND just how unsafe it is, then having all the numerators and denominators for comparing the relevant ratios is useful.
So your point being, that if 99.9 percent of the population were vaxxed and only 0.1 unvaxxed, then these groups would be lot closer together. Well, the globalists would love your questioning this outcome, after all, didn't they push for the authorities to mandate the jabs for everyone including infants? If they had succeeded in everyone being injected, there wouldn't be any control group left to compare to. They're "safe and effective" campaign would continue and all the unexpected deaths and increased illness blame on "climate change" or other such nonsense.
Here's another question: "If these needles filled with whatever their 'secret solution' is..DNA, synthetic mRNA, nano particles, SV-40 and a host of other toxic substances...then why isn't there an overall increase in life expectancy and general health?" Didn't they claim that they were able to get at least 70% of the world population to take at least one shot, then if this medical intervention is so marvelous, shouldn't there be a much better outcome than what we're seeing?
Note, however, that the UK government has been rumored to ignore some unvaccinated people who don't participate in the national health care system regularly. (This could be recent immigrants or those who go years between medical visits.)
Assuming I did the calculations correctly, the answer is that around 15-16% of the population was considered unvaccinated (note I believe this is an underestimate), and Covid deaths are in the unvaccinated are around 5%. For all-cause mortality, deaths in the unvaccinated are around 3.5%. So the only way the vaccine could be considered effective is if the vaccinators want to thin the herd instead of giving the herd immunity.
Caution, the spreadsheet appears to imply that "age-standardised" death rates are HIGHER in the unvaccinated, but I find this unbelievable, unless I did some calculations incorrectly.
Sure, and in other comments I’ve highlighted some of the main reasons why the British government data is unreliable. Nevertheless, if the official data indicates that those under 50 are being severely harmed (slaughtered), then that should be enough to end the use of such a deadly drug.
As time passes, it is important to remember the fundamental fraud perpetrated on humanity. I'll try to get most but add on what I have forgotten. 1. Planned event. 2. Gain of Function research tax payer funded. 3. Origin hidden. 4. Therapeutics were always available. 5. Doctors/patients Denied repurposed drugs. 6. Hunted doctors who spoke out. 7. Put infected in nursing homes. 8. Sent people home to get "sicker". 9. Remdesiver known toxic protocol lives up to it's nickname, "run death is near". 10. Censorship like we have never seen before. 11. Incentive pay for hospital and medical professional compliance. 12. Data hidden early and still. 13. Recommend injecting pregnant women and babies. 14. 95% effective. 15. Does not prevent transmission or infection. 16. Stays local in the arm. 17. Myocarditis is mild and goes away. 18. masks help prevent the spread. 19. The vaccines are safe and effective. What am I missing?
Has anyone of you idiots ever looked on the age-standardised mortality rate?
Anti-vaxxers are a religious cult that needs to be eradicated. Vaccinations (not just against Covid) should be mandatory, everyone who resists should loose their Internet access.
"what’s curious about the figures is that it’s not the one-dose, or double-vaccinated population who account for the majority of COVID-19 deaths throughout the 12 months,"
So I'm confused. If its not the 1 dose or 2 dose populations that are accounting for the deaths, what the hell does the "ever vaccinated" mean?
Does it mean people like me born in 1962 who've been vaccinated prior to the vaxx act of 1986 but served in the Military and been vaccinated for God knows what but refused the mRNA poison prick?
And is the "unvaccinated" group totally unvaccinated? As in, has never ever taken any vaccines of any kind?
This only means something if it tells you the percentage of the population jabbed. England had a very high compliance rate maybe we should be told that upfront. If 95% got jabbed then I'd expect these kind of numbers. If like the US 70-75% now that's bloody murder. We need the numbers if you want us to win this death cult war. Should have been the first sentence in the article.
I looked up the stats The UK has around 79% who had one dose or more. 70% double jabbed. 54% boosted. So these numbers would be bloody murder especially for the 3-4 timers. In contrast 20% is unjabbed and many have been infected and have been exposed to the deadly spike yet they only account for 5% or less of deaths. This really exposes that deaths must be excessive in the jabbed if you assume the unjabbed are dying at normal percentages then the jabbed... it's bloody murder. Hamas the second most evil group has been called to cover the excessive death count in the mid east and Israel methinks.
I ran some more calculations so that I could respond to your questions, at least in regards to age. Apparently, for those under 50, all-cause mortality increases significantly by being vaccinated, whereas the opposite may be true for those over 50 yet under 80. However, there are several caveats:
1) Who ever heard of an 'effective vaccine' that at best reduced the incidence of death by less than 2X?
2) The UK is rumored to undercount the unvaccinated, thus making any gains in the 50-80 age brackets suspect
3) The methodology of counting those recently vaccinated with their Nth dose as NOT having received that dose is statistical malpractice that makes any gains in the 50-80 age brackets suspect. Norman Fenton is the world expert on this topic
4) Who would sacrifice the lives of young adults and middle-aged adults in order to prolong the life of elderly people?
"But what’s curious about the figures is that it’s not the one-dose, or double-vaccinated population who account for the majority of COVID-19 deaths throughout the 12 months, it’s instead the triple and quadruple-vaccinated population that accounted for the majority of COVID-19 death"
While there are MANY things wrong with the mRNA vactines, my understanding is that one of the worst side-effects of the 3rd and 4th does (and beyond) is that they act like allergy shots, trying to suppress the host's immune system so that it no longer treats Covid infections as serious. Even worse, that same suppression of the immune system could be what is leading to an material increase in cancer cases.
It's insane that SO MANY people are still blind, ignorant, or in complete denial about this stuff. I think there are ways to break through that conditioning (or "mass formation psychosis") but it's tough!!
these might help - https://eccentrik.substack.com/p/5-scientific-reasons-your-vaccinated
I see dead people...
🤣🥲
What percentage of the population does each group represent? Raw numbers are one thing, but you still need to factor in the percentage of the total population of each group, too.
If the 'vaccine' was 90-95% percent effective, would you even had to ask this question? It would've been fucking obvious who was dying, isn't it?
The media would be screaming their lungs out, that the unvaccinated are dying in droves. Why they aren't doing that? Because it's the other way around, buddy. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out..
I have no problem with Carol's question. Yes, the vactine [Biden's word] is obviously a spectacular, grievous, and dangerous failure.
Nevertheless, if our goal is to simply demonstrate using official government data just how ineffective it is AND just how unsafe it is, then having all the numerators and denominators for comparing the relevant ratios is useful.
I agree, it's useful for those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.. but for the rest of us.. it's like: hello, are you blind?!
While it is obviously a steaming pile of 💩, some of us like to quantify how much the 💩 weighs and how noxious the odors emanating from it are.🤢
Good one :)))
So your point being, that if 99.9 percent of the population were vaxxed and only 0.1 unvaxxed, then these groups would be lot closer together. Well, the globalists would love your questioning this outcome, after all, didn't they push for the authorities to mandate the jabs for everyone including infants? If they had succeeded in everyone being injected, there wouldn't be any control group left to compare to. They're "safe and effective" campaign would continue and all the unexpected deaths and increased illness blame on "climate change" or other such nonsense.
Here's another question: "If these needles filled with whatever their 'secret solution' is..DNA, synthetic mRNA, nano particles, SV-40 and a host of other toxic substances...then why isn't there an overall increase in life expectancy and general health?" Didn't they claim that they were able to get at least 70% of the world population to take at least one shot, then if this medical intervention is so marvelous, shouldn't there be a much better outcome than what we're seeing?
See my response to Marius.
Great point. See https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/vaccines for some answers. Here's a snippet, "around 7 in 10 had received three or more doses by the end of August 2022".
Note, however, that the UK government has been rumored to ignore some unvaccinated people who don't participate in the national health care system regularly. (This could be recent immigrants or those who go years between medical visits.)
Assuming I did the calculations correctly, the answer is that around 15-16% of the population was considered unvaccinated (note I believe this is an underestimate), and Covid deaths are in the unvaccinated are around 5%. For all-cause mortality, deaths in the unvaccinated are around 3.5%. So the only way the vaccine could be considered effective is if the vaccinators want to thin the herd instead of giving the herd immunity.
Caution, the spreadsheet appears to imply that "age-standardised" death rates are HIGHER in the unvaccinated, but I find this unbelievable, unless I did some calculations incorrectly.
You are relying on official data, which we all know, it's not reliable at best
Sure, and in other comments I’ve highlighted some of the main reasons why the British government data is unreliable. Nevertheless, if the official data indicates that those under 50 are being severely harmed (slaughtered), then that should be enough to end the use of such a deadly drug.
Indeed!
https://open.substack.com/pub/janiform/p/men-aged-18-39-in-england-who-got?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=s05je have been going through this too making line graphs from their data. Men 18-39 in England who got 0 shots registered no death rate involving covid from apr 2022 to may 2023 but peers with shots did.
As time passes, it is important to remember the fundamental fraud perpetrated on humanity. I'll try to get most but add on what I have forgotten. 1. Planned event. 2. Gain of Function research tax payer funded. 3. Origin hidden. 4. Therapeutics were always available. 5. Doctors/patients Denied repurposed drugs. 6. Hunted doctors who spoke out. 7. Put infected in nursing homes. 8. Sent people home to get "sicker". 9. Remdesiver known toxic protocol lives up to it's nickname, "run death is near". 10. Censorship like we have never seen before. 11. Incentive pay for hospital and medical professional compliance. 12. Data hidden early and still. 13. Recommend injecting pregnant women and babies. 14. 95% effective. 15. Does not prevent transmission or infection. 16. Stays local in the arm. 17. Myocarditis is mild and goes away. 18. masks help prevent the spread. 19. The vaccines are safe and effective. What am I missing?
Madness, and they continues to vaccinate (with a bioweapon).
Has anyone of you idiots ever looked on the age-standardised mortality rate?
Anti-vaxxers are a religious cult that needs to be eradicated. Vaccinations (not just against Covid) should be mandatory, everyone who resists should loose their Internet access.
Mathematician Norman Fenton explained very well how you can have fake 'efficacy' of a 'vaccine', even if it's saline solution:
https://youtu.be/RdcOqKSv6nE?si=4wRS2ukrH1ZA5DF4
Dr. Paul, would you mind speaking to this please?
"what’s curious about the figures is that it’s not the one-dose, or double-vaccinated population who account for the majority of COVID-19 deaths throughout the 12 months,"
So I'm confused. If its not the 1 dose or 2 dose populations that are accounting for the deaths, what the hell does the "ever vaccinated" mean?
Does it mean people like me born in 1962 who've been vaccinated prior to the vaxx act of 1986 but served in the Military and been vaccinated for God knows what but refused the mRNA poison prick?
And is the "unvaccinated" group totally unvaccinated? As in, has never ever taken any vaccines of any kind?
Do we know the percentage of the population who are not jabbed? The percentage who are triple and quadruple jabbed?
This only means something if it tells you the percentage of the population jabbed. England had a very high compliance rate maybe we should be told that upfront. If 95% got jabbed then I'd expect these kind of numbers. If like the US 70-75% now that's bloody murder. We need the numbers if you want us to win this death cult war. Should have been the first sentence in the article.
I looked up the stats The UK has around 79% who had one dose or more. 70% double jabbed. 54% boosted. So these numbers would be bloody murder especially for the 3-4 timers. In contrast 20% is unjabbed and many have been infected and have been exposed to the deadly spike yet they only account for 5% or less of deaths. This really exposes that deaths must be excessive in the jabbed if you assume the unjabbed are dying at normal percentages then the jabbed... it's bloody murder. Hamas the second most evil group has been called to cover the excessive death count in the mid east and Israel methinks.
The Mandemic criminals are having a tough time selling their bullshit line to the public a second time
as people are starting to open their eyes--Agenda 30 is D.O.A.-And so is the globalist plan to euthanize 80% of the world population-
https://open.substack.com/pub/janiform/p/why-did-all-cause-age-standardized?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=s05je I calculated the weighted average for all the shots rows for each month and the all cause death rate winds up higher for the got-shots population than got 0 shots .
When I studied the source data at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland, the columns titled "Age-standardised mortality rate / 100,000 person-years" were confusing. They generally seemed to indicate that mortality rates were HIGHER among the unvaccinated, yet the percentage of deaths for the unvaccinated was around 5% and the percentage of person-years live for the unvaccinated was round 15%.
Can anyone explain how the "Age-standardised mortality rate / 100,000 person-years" is calculated.
Are the vacced up people older? Sicker to begin with? Then higher deaths would be expected right?
I ran some more calculations so that I could respond to your questions, at least in regards to age. Apparently, for those under 50, all-cause mortality increases significantly by being vaccinated, whereas the opposite may be true for those over 50 yet under 80. However, there are several caveats:
1) Who ever heard of an 'effective vaccine' that at best reduced the incidence of death by less than 2X?
2) The UK is rumored to undercount the unvaccinated, thus making any gains in the 50-80 age brackets suspect
3) The methodology of counting those recently vaccinated with their Nth dose as NOT having received that dose is statistical malpractice that makes any gains in the 50-80 age brackets suspect. Norman Fenton is the world expert on this topic
4) Who would sacrifice the lives of young adults and middle-aged adults in order to prolong the life of elderly people?