I commented about your first article about this subject. It still holds what I said. To be able to question and be analytical about any data, subject, topic, article, or discussion is important. I did not agree with some of what you stated in that first article, because I found Barry Young sincere and he did state that he first tried to get the information up the chain but was ignored. He is a hero.
We need more people like you to question information without being harassed with put-downs and name-calling.
Now, with this post you do something that we are seeing the wrongdoers will never do - you got more information and are clarifying your position.
Igor, I wish more on social media would be such a good example.
I taught school for 27 years and I always told my students that no question was a bad question.
"maybe sincere" ? Anyone hearing his talking on Infowars wouldnt doubt his sincerity. Data aside, its obvious he is totally sincere. Good that you decide to improve on your original doubting post.
Perhaps someone would like to debate Steve Kirsch on the validity of NZ whistleblower’s data on X platform. Steve’s offered a million before for ANYONE to come forward. Igor you are wary about it? So how about you come forward? It looks like the data was vetted in the UK by a world renowned data analyst before the whistleblower came forward. It’s all there. Coincidentally the 20 to 30 % findings of adverse and deaths reflect accurately Pfizer’s own date in their Cumulative Analysis Report dated February 28, 2021.
Could these controversial, incomplete data perhaps be distracting us from the official New Zealand mortality data that show 6.4% non-COVID excess mortality in 2021, 10.7% non-COVID excess mortality in 2022, and 9.8% non-COVID excess mortality (so far) in 2023?
So clueless, Greg. Try scrolling down his top posts and doing your homework before you squawk. Lots of regular substack readers on Covid/Vax Disaster topics would place his in any top 10 list of the stacks to read. And anyone who didn't put his in at least the top 25 would immediately reveal their ignorance of "the field."
Here's an older list I once made. https://pomocon.substack.com/p/what-are-your-favorite-substacks?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 Updated, it would add ones by Bill Rice Jr., Peter McCullough, Naomi Wolf, Mark Crispin Miller, Transcriber B, and perhaps also ones by Sasha Latypova, Aaron Kheriaty, Screaming into the Void, Vigilant Fox, Dee's Substack, Peter Halligan, and several others I am surely forgetting. The non-substack site Brownstone Institute, which republishes from some substacks and plenty of nowhere-else content as well, has also become increasingly important. For reasons involving fine-grained judgments about tone, about the amount of "adjacent conspiracy theory" one should go into or insist upon, and about the handling of disagreements, my list would now omit Alex Berenson and Sage Hana, although both are very smart guys who made major contributions and are likely to make more. So read them occasionally, just know that some dissident writers like myself will no longer endorse them as regular go-to's. On the core-science side of things, Jessica Rose's, McCullough's, and Chudov's stacks remain the most helpful. It is impossible to keep up with all of it, of course...
Im in NZ with some contextual info on Liz Gunn that is useful to add to the topic. I agree, the data itself could be useful. It was the way it was released and the subsequent action that is the problem.
These data are but one more nail in the coffin of this failed technology. Autopsies, insurance statistics, labor beauro statistics, government documents, Pfizers own clinical trial data, reports of product contamination and possible adulteration; the coffin of this technology is soon to be nailed shut. Those who planned and facilitated this mass murder will be hunted down and hanged while the world watches in silence.
Referring to Kirsch guest post "the last shot gets you..." of 5th dec.
He makes a synthetic baseline (straight, downsloping) to compare the actual data to it.
My point is, that if no one from the missing half dies during this observation window, the bump is still there. Half as big, or by person years maybe 25%. Still there.
Should you add the missing half with normalized mortality, the bump is still there, bigger than with the above example.
by now everyone knows that the vvvaaaxxx is a bioweapon for the targated ,,, and a behavior controler... good God help us all return to goodness and truth
In the table by Barry Young which showed the 10 batches with the highest percentage of deaths, the reason why the number of doses and deaths was so low was because he excluded people who later went on to get a subsequent vaccine dose. You can reproduce Young's table if you sort the records by vaccination date and select only the newest record for each person: https://mongol-fi.github.io/moar.html#Batch_statistics_in_the_whistleblowers_video_dont_match_the_CSV_file. His method exaggerates the percentage of deaths per batch, because a common reason why someone would only get a vaccine from batch 1 but not subsequent batches was that they died before they could get more vaccines.
This is commendable.
I commented about your first article about this subject. It still holds what I said. To be able to question and be analytical about any data, subject, topic, article, or discussion is important. I did not agree with some of what you stated in that first article, because I found Barry Young sincere and he did state that he first tried to get the information up the chain but was ignored. He is a hero.
We need more people like you to question information without being harassed with put-downs and name-calling.
Now, with this post you do something that we are seeing the wrongdoers will never do - you got more information and are clarifying your position.
Igor, I wish more on social media would be such a good example.
I taught school for 27 years and I always told my students that no question was a bad question.
Thank you.
"maybe sincere" ? Anyone hearing his talking on Infowars wouldnt doubt his sincerity. Data aside, its obvious he is totally sincere. Good that you decide to improve on your original doubting post.
Perhaps someone would like to debate Steve Kirsch on the validity of NZ whistleblower’s data on X platform. Steve’s offered a million before for ANYONE to come forward. Igor you are wary about it? So how about you come forward? It looks like the data was vetted in the UK by a world renowned data analyst before the whistleblower came forward. It’s all there. Coincidentally the 20 to 30 % findings of adverse and deaths reflect accurately Pfizer’s own date in their Cumulative Analysis Report dated February 28, 2021.
Probably these links are elsewhere in the comments
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/the-new-zealand-vaccination-records
https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/new-zealand-vaccine-data-possible?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
I like that you are cautious with all information.
Me too.
Could these controversial, incomplete data perhaps be distracting us from the official New Zealand mortality data that show 6.4% non-COVID excess mortality in 2021, 10.7% non-COVID excess mortality in 2022, and 9.8% non-COVID excess mortality (so far) in 2023?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/18bs160/a_simple_analysis_of_new_zealands_official_oecd/
So who is Igor Chudov?
And his qualifications?
At least you have a pulse and can type.
Bots don't have pulses...
So clueless, Greg. Try scrolling down his top posts and doing your homework before you squawk. Lots of regular substack readers on Covid/Vax Disaster topics would place his in any top 10 list of the stacks to read. And anyone who didn't put his in at least the top 25 would immediately reveal their ignorance of "the field."
You bring up a good point. What are the top ten substacks we should be reading?
Here's an older list I once made. https://pomocon.substack.com/p/what-are-your-favorite-substacks?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 Updated, it would add ones by Bill Rice Jr., Peter McCullough, Naomi Wolf, Mark Crispin Miller, Transcriber B, and perhaps also ones by Sasha Latypova, Aaron Kheriaty, Screaming into the Void, Vigilant Fox, Dee's Substack, Peter Halligan, and several others I am surely forgetting. The non-substack site Brownstone Institute, which republishes from some substacks and plenty of nowhere-else content as well, has also become increasingly important. For reasons involving fine-grained judgments about tone, about the amount of "adjacent conspiracy theory" one should go into or insist upon, and about the handling of disagreements, my list would now omit Alex Berenson and Sage Hana, although both are very smart guys who made major contributions and are likely to make more. So read them occasionally, just know that some dissident writers like myself will no longer endorse them as regular go-to's. On the core-science side of things, Jessica Rose's, McCullough's, and Chudov's stacks remain the most helpful. It is impossible to keep up with all of it, of course...
Thank you.
Very helpful list. I know some, but not all. Many thanks.
Im in NZ with some contextual info on Liz Gunn that is useful to add to the topic. I agree, the data itself could be useful. It was the way it was released and the subsequent action that is the problem.
https://www.voicesforfreedom.co.nz/blog/whistle-blower-data-release/
https://www.voicesforfreedom.co.nz/blog/missing-data-explained/
These data are but one more nail in the coffin of this failed technology. Autopsies, insurance statistics, labor beauro statistics, government documents, Pfizers own clinical trial data, reports of product contamination and possible adulteration; the coffin of this technology is soon to be nailed shut. Those who planned and facilitated this mass murder will be hunted down and hanged while the world watches in silence.
I find myself wanting to see Fauci, Bourla and Bancel used the way Fauci used beagles.
Igor! Please see my research on the subject, maybe a response from you if you could be so kind. Thx!
https://welcometheeagle.substack.com/p/p5-new-zealands-whistleblower-datavalidations
Hi Igor
Referring to Kirsch guest post "the last shot gets you..." of 5th dec.
He makes a synthetic baseline (straight, downsloping) to compare the actual data to it.
My point is, that if no one from the missing half dies during this observation window, the bump is still there. Half as big, or by person years maybe 25%. Still there.
Should you add the missing half with normalized mortality, the bump is still there, bigger than with the above example.
You can't make the hump disappear!
JR
by now everyone knows that the vvvaaaxxx is a bioweapon for the targated ,,, and a behavior controler... good God help us all return to goodness and truth
In the table by Barry Young which showed the 10 batches with the highest percentage of deaths, the reason why the number of doses and deaths was so low was because he excluded people who later went on to get a subsequent vaccine dose. You can reproduce Young's table if you sort the records by vaccination date and select only the newest record for each person: https://mongol-fi.github.io/moar.html#Batch_statistics_in_the_whistleblowers_video_dont_match_the_CSV_file. His method exaggerates the percentage of deaths per batch, because a common reason why someone would only get a vaccine from batch 1 but not subsequent batches was that they died before they could get more vaccines.
https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/what-should-we-believe-and-who-can