I've been asking everyone: Show me the all-cause mortality data proving the vaccines are safe. I finally got some data. It's from the UK government and it's devastating. REALLY devastating.
New Report: Bill Gates Bought Off Health Regulator Who Approved His Vaccine
BY STAFF EDITOR AUGUST 15, 2023
What about this point of view?
God bless you, Kirsch.
Does anyone know if the ACM data from UK is normalized to 100000 people for vaxed vs non or is it just raw number of deaths per 100,000
FYI article in medscape retracting ivermectin paper: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/973792?sso=true&impID=4250913&uac=415250CK&src=WNL_trdalrt_pos1_220516
A question about "Interpreting the Data".
In your risk/benefit calculation, for the numerator (risk) you subtract the unvaccinated non-COVID death rate from the non-COVID death rate of the 'Second dose, at least 6 months ago' group to estimate incremental non-COVID deaths due to being vaccinated. If you apply that same logic to the other vaccine cohorts, you would very frequently see a negative risk calculation. For those vaccinated cohorts, the non-COVID death rate is lower than the unvaccinated group's non-COVID death rate.
Wouldn't a logical implication be that the vaccine had a benefit of reduced non-COVID deaths?
Also, I don't follow the explanation of why only one cohort of the vaccinated were analyzed. To get a view of the risk/benefit of all levels of vaccination I added all the groups together and calculated a risk benefit for "Any level of vaccination" versus "unvaccinated". With that method only the 15-19, and 20-24 age groups had bad risk/benefit ratings. All the other age groups look like they would have benefitted from the vaccine. Of course with more time, the death rate among the vaccinated may increase faster than that of the unvaccinated.
I am no fan of the jabs. And I may have made some errors in my analysis. I would be glad to share my calculations. I'd like to know what am I missing here.
Impressive data as always but a huge problem with the basic premise! I've put some of the evidence we've been given on the virus so far here https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/spikes-and-knobs?s=w- there was not 'enough' virus to form a density gradient and take EM pictures- so how do they know it's there? No detection through indirect methods not also seen in uninfected cultures. No purification of the sample that was first sequenced, how do they know where all the RNA fragments came from in the first place?
And what is cvd anyway- we don't need a virus in a world of pollution, toxins, pesticides, poverty and obesity- causing all sorts of symptoms they like to lump together. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/were-so-far-down-the-rabbit-hole?s=w
If we don't get this sorted in ours heads - there will be viruses and vaccines ad infinitum for ever
Well... They just worked as expected.
Not unique for UK!
But never forget that all of this is just a SIMPLE...
You quoted from the study by Vahé Nafilyan and Charlotte Bermingham
"There was a decrease in the risk of all-cause death in the first week after vaccination and no change in each of weeks 2 to 6 after vaccination or whole six-week period after vaccination. Subgroup analyses by sex, age, vaccine type, and last dose also showed no change in the risk of death in the first six weeks after vaccination"
and then said 'there is no way this can be correct' nor is the comment 'favourable to vaccines', just the opposite in fact.
The authors claim that there was a (assumed statistically significant) reduction in ACM in the first week, but NO reduction in ACM in weeks 2-6 nor in weeks 1-6 when taken as a whole. Further when looking at (much smaller) demographic groups they also state no reduction in ACM.
I interpret this paragraph to say that they did not find vaccination reduced ACM in the first 6 weeks, ie. the vaccine is ineffective in the first 6 weeks. Which isn't too different than what the medical establishment has been saying - that the vaccines don't give you full protection for 6 weeks.
Don’t worry, Geert says this Summer the virus will unleash incredible death. What will happen to our health care system???
Let's not forget the previously published FOI (Freedom of Information) request on actual autopsie verified COVID deaths in the UK vs the public death figure of 150,000.... the verified cases were a mere 8,000.
One compounding factor in all this is the defenition of the cause of death. Over here in NZ we currently have about 900 publically announced Covid deaths, defined as any death within 28 days of a positive Covid test. 700 of these deaths were people over 70, yet only 24 ever went into ICU, to be put on a mechanical ventilator, or in other words only 3.5% were disressed enough to need breathing assistance. Also, the current NZ government website states that only 84 of the 900 deaths are considered to be caused by Covid19 as the u derlying cause, or around 9%. Also, the regional manager of the most populous hospitals in NZ, said 2/3 of the "Covid" patients were not admitted to hospital for reasons associated with Covid. So obviously many people are not dying of Covid, but it looks scary to people who don't anaylise the data. It looks less scary for folk like myself who have known for months that Covid, particularly Omicron, is a mild disease and does not warrant mandated vaccination .
Note also that all cause mortality in NZ is skyrocketing, with 2021, almost 7% higher than 2020, mainly after the vaccine rollout and 2022 is currently 8% higher than 2021, despite a soft January. These are facts that cannot be disputed, as I get them from the Stats NZ website: https://www.stats.govt.nz/experimental/covid-19-data-portal
Under the Health Category, selecting for All Cause Deaths
I dont know if Steve is interested in contacting Mark Stern at GB News as the presenter appears to have had enough, there are at least a dozen news articles now showing, including vax injurys, WHO grab, vaccinated death figures. He may very well be a good outlet for your UK all cause figures. An example of content below
I have a question about the concept of a fiduciary relationship. Do pharmaceutical companies have a fiduciary relationship, say with stockholders? Would injecting people with an NIH patented "stabilized spike protein" mRNA jab which is, in essence, a bioweapon count as upholding a fiduciary relationship? If you kill your stockholders or render the stock worthless through malfeasance is that also contrary to a fiduciary relationship?
Yes the vaccines makers have got us right down the rabbit hole and at a mad hatters tea party of poisons please read my post https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/were-so-far-down-the-rabbit-hole?s=w