Could someone show death rates by vaxed and unvaxed. I vigorously read studies but have not seen the study. What I can say from experience by of course not scientific, but all the deaths that I have attended including a son, 39 of a work colleague had many vax. That is why I would like to see the vax and unvaxed data by death rate.
Your confidence levels are of the chart so you p value is pretty meaningless. And of course like usual you refuse to look at excess deaths separated in vaxed vs unvaxed. That's probably because we all know who took more than their fair share of deaths don't we. (hint it start with u and ends in nvaxed)
If even half of these tight, fit-like-a glove correlations between vaccination rates and excess mortality are true, it is game over for the pharma industry and the Deep State. This is published at Dr. Naomi Wolf's Daily Clout. The curves are statistically mirror images. This does not mean they are like this for every country that is irrelevant. We know different batches had different lethalities according to Dr. Mike Yeadon https://dailyclout.io/to-the-editor-shutting-down-the-correlation-does-not-equal-causation-gaslighting-tactic/
Though so many pass in 2 days to 3 weeks, many more suffer a slow demise with one or several new health problems one after another and/or are constantly sick with URIs or wasting away weaker all the time. Epidemic worldwide I suspect of ppl with low WBCs and leukopenia, so much so they lowered the low end of the norm scale but many still lower than the new parameter. I’ve had a few dozen. Also epidemic of high Ca and K— K was in pfizer jabs- umm inject K when not needed = cardiac dysrhythmias and sometimes death. Eventually the brain, gut, liver, lungs, and/or heart are damaged. Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions with slow but sure onset of high output heart failure- the medical establishment calling it ‘demand ischemia’ or simply ‘elevated troponin’ and not explaining why the demand nor doing cardiac mri to find the myocarditis. Of course there are a very few cardiologists doing them. They have also adjusted the troponin scales, follow up protocols, and told their staff that it’s expected that a good part of the population just has elevated troponins. Tachy and HTN in almost all of them- quickly or eventually. EFs rising up and some abn high- high output failure ensues over time. But um not one doc has diagnosed that on medical records I read. Duh. They are so blinded by evil, bribed, and ‘baffled’, or simply total cowards in love with cash more than truth or ppl. The healthcare system admins even more than the docs. Cash is their king, may they repent. Pray more would awake from the deadly slumber. They already see their colleagues dying, disabled or leaving to care for loved ones on the regular. Now add the crazy cancers and escalation in autoimmune dz. The excess will persist IMHO. We are truly living out Animal Farm. But the Son shines brighter, forever.
Why keep digging in the weeds when there’s ample public information to demonstrate this was an intentional depopulation effort? Focus on stopping that please.
Big Picture -- we MUST grow -- if the economy does not grow - it will collapse. The problem we have faced since the turn of the century is the depletion of cheap energy ... high energy costs kill growth.
The men who run the world had to do something to keep growth happening ... the US was first -- liar loans etc to drive the housing market --- that hit a wall in 2008 and the baton was then handed to China... and as we can see their crisis is far bigger ... and ready to explode...
The Global Economy is going to collapse. They intend to kill us before that happens to ensure that 8 billion humans do not rip each other's faces off.
This is still in development but it already allows you to visualise the extent of excess deaths across the countries actively involved in "managing pandemic" one way or another.
I used the same data sources, but besides OECD I could not find any source that would have 2022 mortality stats. So the courtiers with 2022 mortality are limited to the same as Igor's. 2023 is incomplete and questionable and I did not pay much attention to it - it makes things quite messy).
What’s the latest on fertility? It appeared from Hungary that the vaccine immediately caused an approximately 25% drop in fertility of couples who took it. Has it rebounded anywhere? Excess deaths mostly effects the old, in my opinion fertility is more important.
It is a pretty thorough breakdown of vaccination rates and excess mortality in Europe (as far as the limited datasets would allow me to go; I was forced to use statistica at one point due to the lack of data transparency).
It was aimed at debunking the popular myth spread by vaccine proponents trying to suggest Sweden had the 'lowest mortality rate despite the highest vaccination rate' (both claims disproven), but you will find it offers a deep insight on European mortality overall, and identifies a relevant co-founding variable that affects mortality rates. The spreadsheet used for the datasets is publicly available (link in article) and should also include citations for sources.
"I pulled total Covid vaccination rates from Our World in Data. "
Can I strongly advise *against* using 'Our World in Data', and instead strongly recommend you pull direct from official sources?
OWiD has been previously shown to publish flawed statistical datasets (usually with a pro-vaccine slant). Their mashed, ungovernable datasets were so bad The Daily Beagle's coverage of it forced Elizabeth Bik (yes, the same one who does so-called 'fraud research') into hiding, as she had used their data (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/fudgegate-cdc-caught-fudging-vaccine).
OWiD's flaws include, but are not limited to:
1) Cherry picking fallacies [for example, over-citing one source of data and ignoring additional or relevant datasets from other sources that contradict a given narrative]
2) Bad data laundering [hiding fraudulent, flawed, or incomplete datasets by giving them the shallow appearance of being complete; classics include citing the CDC and ONS datasets which have been proven many times to be flawed by numerous folks now]
3) Authority laundering [hiding agencies, organisations that have an extremely bad reputation of data fudge]
4) Oversimplification of complex datasets [OWiD will often present graph form data and oversimplify variables to the point of absurdity; this might include hiding the fact unvaccinated are inappropriately miscounted due to <7 day or <21 day exclusion criterion]
5) Whitewashed datasets [OWiD never correct any errors in data reporting, even after the source E.G. ONS has admitted to fraudulent datasets]
6) No retraction or error correction notices
7) Poor dataset selection [OWiD will cite places like 'Statistica' rather than direct sources, such as government statistics. Statistica are basically a paywalled version of government statistics making the dataset hard, if not impossible, to verify.]
8) No accountability/transparency [It isn't clear who runs OWiD or what their agendas are. Usually their datasets are bias to pro-vaccine skewering]
9) Out-of-date referencing [OWiD will often reference older datasets, making it less than ideal for real time reference].
OWiD "at best" are Wikipedia; a poorly cobbled together source with bad citations. OWiD at worst are a data laundering front company designed to hide the innumerable flaws with government datasets by generalising them, hoping to capitalise on people's laziness not to check any further.
At a minium you ought to try to pull the references for each graph OWiD reference. I guarantee you will find at least one, if not more, of the above problems.
Yeah i think you might have a major endogeniety problem here, both in terms of ommited variables and reverse causality (badly hit countries might have higher vaccine update, not the other way around). There is also pretty good evidence from more easily comparable entities (like US states and countries) in terms of outcome (namely vaccinations reducion ICU admissions and deaths in the elderly). Statistical significance isn't everything.
A confounding variable here is an association with stringency of COVID policies. Sweden comes out well regarding excess mortality, even though their vaccine uptake is similar to the other Nordic countries, or Europe as a whole. Also, excess mortality only during 2023 doesn't tell us much about a connection to the vaccines, due to the fact that many countries simply displaced COVID deaths from early on in the pandemic until 2022-2023. Stringent COVID policies "worked" only as far as they were in effect, but now that they've scrapped the policies everywhere, the COVID deaths are marching in. Also, lockdown-related deaths are also marching in.
If one is to separate an excess death signal connected to the vaccines from the displacement of COVID deaths and the consequences of lockdown policies, it has to be done in a more robust manner than this.
I generally admire your work but this seems a little simplistic. Not necessarily arguing with your conclusion (I've read Turtles all the Way Down and agree with the authors that vaccines typically have bad to horrible safety profiles; I would not expect C-19 "vaccines" to be any different), but you do realize that there is no "the Covid vaccine"?
That has been a pet peeve of mine about this since the beginning. There are at least four different technologies, with different modes of action and probably wildly different safety profiles. Also, people in different countries received different shots at various times (in Ecuador, where I was living during the pandemic, we were offered a number of choices (e.g. Comirnaty, Sinovac, Astro-Zeneca) depending on a variety of factors; mainly availability, but also the whims of politicians and health officials).
My question would be, when you are comparing “vaccine uptake” between different countries, are you really comparing the same data? If Country A went with 30% mRNA and 70% adenovirus-vector and Country B did the opposite, would the excess mortality data between countries be truly comparable? Please note that I am not posturing as a statistics maven here (my worst subject in math), merely asking about the study design (The Turtles authors would have called what you did here a retrospective observational cross-sectional study. Has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?).
Could someone show death rates by vaxed and unvaxed. I vigorously read studies but have not seen the study. What I can say from experience by of course not scientific, but all the deaths that I have attended including a son, 39 of a work colleague had many vax. That is why I would like to see the vax and unvaxed data by death rate.
Your confidence levels are of the chart so you p value is pretty meaningless. And of course like usual you refuse to look at excess deaths separated in vaxed vs unvaxed. That's probably because we all know who took more than their fair share of deaths don't we. (hint it start with u and ends in nvaxed)
If even half of these tight, fit-like-a glove correlations between vaccination rates and excess mortality are true, it is game over for the pharma industry and the Deep State. This is published at Dr. Naomi Wolf's Daily Clout. The curves are statistically mirror images. This does not mean they are like this for every country that is irrelevant. We know different batches had different lethalities according to Dr. Mike Yeadon https://dailyclout.io/to-the-editor-shutting-down-the-correlation-does-not-equal-causation-gaslighting-tactic/
Though so many pass in 2 days to 3 weeks, many more suffer a slow demise with one or several new health problems one after another and/or are constantly sick with URIs or wasting away weaker all the time. Epidemic worldwide I suspect of ppl with low WBCs and leukopenia, so much so they lowered the low end of the norm scale but many still lower than the new parameter. I’ve had a few dozen. Also epidemic of high Ca and K— K was in pfizer jabs- umm inject K when not needed = cardiac dysrhythmias and sometimes death. Eventually the brain, gut, liver, lungs, and/or heart are damaged. Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions with slow but sure onset of high output heart failure- the medical establishment calling it ‘demand ischemia’ or simply ‘elevated troponin’ and not explaining why the demand nor doing cardiac mri to find the myocarditis. Of course there are a very few cardiologists doing them. They have also adjusted the troponin scales, follow up protocols, and told their staff that it’s expected that a good part of the population just has elevated troponins. Tachy and HTN in almost all of them- quickly or eventually. EFs rising up and some abn high- high output failure ensues over time. But um not one doc has diagnosed that on medical records I read. Duh. They are so blinded by evil, bribed, and ‘baffled’, or simply total cowards in love with cash more than truth or ppl. The healthcare system admins even more than the docs. Cash is their king, may they repent. Pray more would awake from the deadly slumber. They already see their colleagues dying, disabled or leaving to care for loved ones on the regular. Now add the crazy cancers and escalation in autoimmune dz. The excess will persist IMHO. We are truly living out Animal Farm. But the Son shines brighter, forever.
OMG! Freaky! My last post
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/2023-excess-mortality-positively/comment/48775832
brought the total comments here to 333...
Why keep digging in the weeds when there’s ample public information to demonstrate this was an intentional depopulation effort? Focus on stopping that please.
China is imploding ... if you want to truly understand why they are exterminating us... you need to read this http://www.williamengdahl.com/gr16May2023.php
Big Picture -- we MUST grow -- if the economy does not grow - it will collapse. The problem we have faced since the turn of the century is the depletion of cheap energy ... high energy costs kill growth.
The men who run the world had to do something to keep growth happening ... the US was first -- liar loans etc to drive the housing market --- that hit a wall in 2008 and the baton was then handed to China... and as we can see their crisis is far bigger ... and ready to explode...
The Global Economy is going to collapse. They intend to kill us before that happens to ensure that 8 billion humans do not rip each other's faces off.
Igor et al, have a look at the excess mortality z-scores across the world in a HISTORICAL context (down to 1950). Look at "z-score history" tab.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/klimchugunkin/viz/WorldExcessMortality/Z-score
This is still in development but it already allows you to visualise the extent of excess deaths across the countries actively involved in "managing pandemic" one way or another.
I used the same data sources, but besides OECD I could not find any source that would have 2022 mortality stats. So the courtiers with 2022 mortality are limited to the same as Igor's. 2023 is incomplete and questionable and I did not pay much attention to it - it makes things quite messy).
What’s the latest on fertility? It appeared from Hungary that the vaccine immediately caused an approximately 25% drop in fertility of couples who took it. Has it rebounded anywhere? Excess deaths mostly effects the old, in my opinion fertility is more important.
Forgot to mention Igor, you may find this also complements your mortality research:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/solving-the-swedish-mystery
It is a pretty thorough breakdown of vaccination rates and excess mortality in Europe (as far as the limited datasets would allow me to go; I was forced to use statistica at one point due to the lack of data transparency).
It was aimed at debunking the popular myth spread by vaccine proponents trying to suggest Sweden had the 'lowest mortality rate despite the highest vaccination rate' (both claims disproven), but you will find it offers a deep insight on European mortality overall, and identifies a relevant co-founding variable that affects mortality rates. The spreadsheet used for the datasets is publicly available (link in article) and should also include citations for sources.
"I pulled total Covid vaccination rates from Our World in Data. "
Can I strongly advise *against* using 'Our World in Data', and instead strongly recommend you pull direct from official sources?
OWiD has been previously shown to publish flawed statistical datasets (usually with a pro-vaccine slant). Their mashed, ungovernable datasets were so bad The Daily Beagle's coverage of it forced Elizabeth Bik (yes, the same one who does so-called 'fraud research') into hiding, as she had used their data (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/fudgegate-cdc-caught-fudging-vaccine).
OWiD's flaws include, but are not limited to:
1) Cherry picking fallacies [for example, over-citing one source of data and ignoring additional or relevant datasets from other sources that contradict a given narrative]
2) Bad data laundering [hiding fraudulent, flawed, or incomplete datasets by giving them the shallow appearance of being complete; classics include citing the CDC and ONS datasets which have been proven many times to be flawed by numerous folks now]
3) Authority laundering [hiding agencies, organisations that have an extremely bad reputation of data fudge]
4) Oversimplification of complex datasets [OWiD will often present graph form data and oversimplify variables to the point of absurdity; this might include hiding the fact unvaccinated are inappropriately miscounted due to <7 day or <21 day exclusion criterion]
5) Whitewashed datasets [OWiD never correct any errors in data reporting, even after the source E.G. ONS has admitted to fraudulent datasets]
6) No retraction or error correction notices
7) Poor dataset selection [OWiD will cite places like 'Statistica' rather than direct sources, such as government statistics. Statistica are basically a paywalled version of government statistics making the dataset hard, if not impossible, to verify.]
8) No accountability/transparency [It isn't clear who runs OWiD or what their agendas are. Usually their datasets are bias to pro-vaccine skewering]
9) Out-of-date referencing [OWiD will often reference older datasets, making it less than ideal for real time reference].
OWiD "at best" are Wikipedia; a poorly cobbled together source with bad citations. OWiD at worst are a data laundering front company designed to hide the innumerable flaws with government datasets by generalising them, hoping to capitalise on people's laziness not to check any further.
At a minium you ought to try to pull the references for each graph OWiD reference. I guarantee you will find at least one, if not more, of the above problems.
Yeah i think you might have a major endogeniety problem here, both in terms of ommited variables and reverse causality (badly hit countries might have higher vaccine update, not the other way around). There is also pretty good evidence from more easily comparable entities (like US states and countries) in terms of outcome (namely vaccinations reducion ICU admissions and deaths in the elderly). Statistical significance isn't everything.
.
I’ve Had Eight Shots
And I Want More !
The More Bizarre The Chemicals
The Better.
.
A confounding variable here is an association with stringency of COVID policies. Sweden comes out well regarding excess mortality, even though their vaccine uptake is similar to the other Nordic countries, or Europe as a whole. Also, excess mortality only during 2023 doesn't tell us much about a connection to the vaccines, due to the fact that many countries simply displaced COVID deaths from early on in the pandemic until 2022-2023. Stringent COVID policies "worked" only as far as they were in effect, but now that they've scrapped the policies everywhere, the COVID deaths are marching in. Also, lockdown-related deaths are also marching in.
If one is to separate an excess death signal connected to the vaccines from the displacement of COVID deaths and the consequences of lockdown policies, it has to be done in a more robust manner than this.
I generally admire your work but this seems a little simplistic. Not necessarily arguing with your conclusion (I've read Turtles all the Way Down and agree with the authors that vaccines typically have bad to horrible safety profiles; I would not expect C-19 "vaccines" to be any different), but you do realize that there is no "the Covid vaccine"?
That has been a pet peeve of mine about this since the beginning. There are at least four different technologies, with different modes of action and probably wildly different safety profiles. Also, people in different countries received different shots at various times (in Ecuador, where I was living during the pandemic, we were offered a number of choices (e.g. Comirnaty, Sinovac, Astro-Zeneca) depending on a variety of factors; mainly availability, but also the whims of politicians and health officials).
My question would be, when you are comparing “vaccine uptake” between different countries, are you really comparing the same data? If Country A went with 30% mRNA and 70% adenovirus-vector and Country B did the opposite, would the excess mortality data between countries be truly comparable? Please note that I am not posturing as a statistics maven here (my worst subject in math), merely asking about the study design (The Turtles authors would have called what you did here a retrospective observational cross-sectional study. Has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?).
Igor I appreciate your work. It reflects the real situation of this covid-19 farce and imposed vaccinations that resulted in a lot of casualties.