In this article, I will show you why government data is not trustable. That is why I personally prefer anecdotes that are verifiable when trying to figure out what is really going on.
Now I got these links from a French speaking telegram channel that said that someone has hacked into the respective manufacture database of information.
- I noticed a little glitch in your first example: in theory, Covid patients of December could explain additional deaths in January. So I checked and it turns out that you were right anyway, but there's still the matter of interpretation. If I see it correctly, the Promedica "Residents Total COVID-19 Deaths" count stood at 84 by the end of February. But the "Residents Total Confirmed COVID-19" count stood at only 69 at that time (both from the very beginning). In early March the Confirmed Covid number increased to 70 but the Covid death count reached 93 in April, therewith marking the end of a Covid wave. I guess that they didn't confirm all residents with suspected Covid by means of a test. In conclusion, those data may be quite correct on themselves but they are obviously unfit for usual statistical calculations such as taking their ratio.
- Out of curiosity I also looked at your third example, and yes that's really weird. Apparently, Iron River Care Center went from zero weekly deaths in May 2020 to 70 weekly deaths in October, peaking to 171 in November - but still with not even 10 weekly Covid deaths and with only around 45 occupied beds. In January 2021 their weekly deaths dropped back to mostly 0. Mind boggling!
Keep it up Steve, we need to continue to show what a sham it has been for the last 3.5 years and how we've been lied to by what we thought was a rational government only to find out that we have quite the opposite and what values deception and lies vice truth and honesty. What a sham we've had for so many years and hopefully we can elect someone like RFK jr. If not I fear we'll have destruction that we've never seen before in this country.
Covid is a scam. Go to cdc.gov and search "symptoms of Covid-19". What pops up is an EXACT description of the common flu. Sickness is being spread via a dangerous spike protein CONTAINED IN THE JAB and the jabbed shed the protein onto others. The mRNA jab destroys the immune system, causing HIV, which is always fatal. With 65% of the world jabbed it is going to be a very different place in 10 years. I'm not sure how much any of this matters because if Jason Breshears of Archaix on YT is right it all ends in 2040 anyway. He takes nothing from the internet. It all comes from old books.
Data is manipulated BY BOTH SIDES. What is not being manipulated is the number of memorial services I have been asked to attend. The volume of obituaries I have seen. The number of young and healthy people dying before my very eyes.
Or not? Why would your "official numbers" be any more valid than the ones you deprecate?
Just off the top of my head (gotta go run meet one of my metalworker subs):
Florida's "population count" may be higher than insurance co's and official stats show. (LOTS of illegals and homeless likely did NOT get shots!) Certainly y'all's 'medical head of state' is agitating a LOT against the bad shots...
Did you take into account the oldsters who died in 2020 (and after) from the brutal hospital "treatments"? Do, please, go read up at Steve Kirsch's substack: https://kirschsubstack.com/ . He has been digging through a huge variety of data 'pools' (as has Ed Dowd; also worth reading.) They and their teams do a LOT of work to validate as much as possible the data they are able to get.
The U.S. worker insurance co's had ALL committed to their payouts being ~40% excess after the shots were 'rolled out' (rolled over!). Since they have to pay out actual $$$, I would trust them more than any state's "official numbers." Granted: two immediate concerns with the data -- FLA is a big retirement state; LOTS of Floridians (and ex-NYers {snort}) are NOT insured by those co's cause they're retired. And the insurance co's did not (that I have looked for or seen) split their data out by state. All those biggies were *nation-wide* worker insurance co's. (So, confounders?)
But, for my 'anchor': if several of the biggies say they have paid out at 40% excess death; I'm going with THEIR numbers! Money talks, politicians lie!!
I will argue a point that broadly should be supportive of what Steve argues today. I don’t know a good term for the technique, but in general terms it’s simply – or perhaps “complexly”? – trying to discern the motives of various factions. This is hardly a revolutionary concept. The best explanation of it I’ve seen is in Nietzsche’s writings, especially in his Beyond Good and Evil. There, he analyzes the “prejudices of philosophers.” Relevant to my comments today is this central concept. Often, a Thinker makes the claim that he has found The Truth. Perhaps he has. But, Nietzsche asks, the question should not be whether X is true or false. (As a side point, he makes several cases for why it may very well be impossible to actually determine such truths). Far more interesting, and possibly rewarding, would be to ask questions of the Thinker: “Why does he WANT X to be true?” What unconscious motives, instincts, drives are likely causing his behavior?
For today’s example, allow me to use a posting from another web site I follow. Here’s the post:
“Won’t make any difference to the vaccine safety nuts, but yet another review of data finds no indication that CV-19 vax are associated with an increase in serious myocarditis in younger athletes or with sudden cardiac death and that myocarditis is more common after CV-19 infection than vaccination. (BMJ Article)”
Now, remember, I am making no effort to assess the truth or falsity of these claims. What I WILL do, however, is some simple “psychoanalysis.” Some motives here are very easy to find. For example, on his web page, we learn that in addition to his other activities, he’s a consultant to the health care industry. Now, that and of itself doesn’t mean he’s a shill for Big Pharma. In fairness, he seems to present multiple viewpoints. Indeed in the cited example he offers plenty of skeptical observations. Just the same, a cyncic might assume that Roche would not wish to alienate potential employers. As such, that is a very diplomatic motive. But what if Roche is acutally convinced that the mRNA jabs are in fact highly dangerous? Perhaps not relevant here: I am interested in guessing what might motivate his behavior. And not burning bridges is a powerful inhibitor.
I haven’t even looked at the BMJ article, but I can do a “psychoanalysis” – or jumping to conclusions if you like – about likely motives. To reiterate, a lot of this is speculation. I’m trying to smoke out actual or likely motives that would make Mr. Roche, or the authors of the BMJ paper, act certain ways.
Now let’s consider the claim that the BMJ study found no difference in incidents in athletes. Remember, we are not concerned right now with the underlying truth or falseness of the issues, only what motivates a party to act a certain way.
What might motivate the authors of the BMJ study to lie? To tell the truth? There are plenty of them: not the least is that by reporting a “pro-vax” result, they ingratiate themselves with Pharma, grant grantors, the establishment medical system in general. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. And in the case of a researcher, he is reliable upon future grants. If he wanders too far off into the tall weeds, he'll find himself out of money and likely, out of a career.
There are just a few primal drives operating here: for continued survival (= future income), acceptance by the peer group (= toeing the party line, not rocking the boat), perhaps maintaining self-esteem (= not alienating colleagues or the boss, perhaps the researcher has faith in the medical profession, and this colors his objectivity). About the only one missing in this case, probably, is the need for sexual reproduction. And for all I know, even it might be present, say if the lead author wants to bed the sexy wench who works in the grants office. While a lot of what I've just written is conjecture, the general principle remains: there are ALWAYS instincts operative below the conscious level and they exert a profound influence on individual and thus group behaviors.
Now, we could look at it from Steve’s anecdote perspective. Given other data points, what’s “wrong” with the BMJ study’s claims? Well, here are just a few:
There are many, many anecdotal claims of young and apparently healthy athletes who have dropped dead or had severe health issues, such as heart attacks. Damar Hamlin and Bronny James are but two recent examples. Given that such events in normal times are extremely rare, bordering on non-existent, the fact that so many have been happening to relatively famous people, in the cited cases, athletes who one would expect to be the healthiest of humans, one can make the inference that far more similar examples are happening to not-famous people, those who are rarely, if ever, in the public eye.
OK, I’m going to wrap this up. My point is that nothing can be trusted. Not one damned thing. Everybody has a hidden agenda, or at least the skeptic should assume so until proven otherwise. Sadly, it seems that nearly all institutions are captured by special interests.
Two years ago the media was bombarding us about those horrid “science deniers” and “anti-vaxxers” who were promoting “vaccine hesitancy.” What was never allowed in debate was the fact that there might well have been reasons to be hesitant about a rushed “vaccine” that wasn’t even particularly effective for its stated purpose.
I take no joy in suggesting that, to paraphrase the old joke, that you will probably fare much better believing your own “lying eyes” than that bought-and-paid-for “expert” over there.
Love this! You don't have to have a degree from MIT to see the data manipulation, but too many people want to shout down anyone who says either that the claims don't make sense or there is evidence of data manipulation.
While I don’t necessarily doubt your point, all large data sets contain errors. It could be as simple as a fat finger or a missed decimal point. You will not find a data set that is error free. Anyone who works with large databases knows this to be the case, whether in private industry or government
Just a note for those who want to download the data. The data comes in zipped files, for each bloody day. If you ask for several years, that is hundreds, and hundreds of files manually processed. I think it would be easier to write a curl script to get at this awkward set of files.
Hard to believe they don't have to release the underlying data. There oughta be a law... Then, they'll be forced to forge it which should slow them down a bit.
Great work Steve.
Apparently batches and deaths by country can be found here:
https://www.howbad.info/pfizerforeigndeaths.html
You can also see other manufacturers
Now I got these links from a French speaking telegram channel that said that someone has hacked into the respective manufacture database of information.
Very interesting Steve, thanks!
- I noticed a little glitch in your first example: in theory, Covid patients of December could explain additional deaths in January. So I checked and it turns out that you were right anyway, but there's still the matter of interpretation. If I see it correctly, the Promedica "Residents Total COVID-19 Deaths" count stood at 84 by the end of February. But the "Residents Total Confirmed COVID-19" count stood at only 69 at that time (both from the very beginning). In early March the Confirmed Covid number increased to 70 but the Covid death count reached 93 in April, therewith marking the end of a Covid wave. I guess that they didn't confirm all residents with suspected Covid by means of a test. In conclusion, those data may be quite correct on themselves but they are obviously unfit for usual statistical calculations such as taking their ratio.
- Out of curiosity I also looked at your third example, and yes that's really weird. Apparently, Iron River Care Center went from zero weekly deaths in May 2020 to 70 weekly deaths in October, peaking to 171 in November - but still with not even 10 weekly Covid deaths and with only around 45 occupied beds. In January 2021 their weekly deaths dropped back to mostly 0. Mind boggling!
I trust absolutely nothing they put out
Keep it up Steve, we need to continue to show what a sham it has been for the last 3.5 years and how we've been lied to by what we thought was a rational government only to find out that we have quite the opposite and what values deception and lies vice truth and honesty. What a sham we've had for so many years and hopefully we can elect someone like RFK jr. If not I fear we'll have destruction that we've never seen before in this country.
Covid is a scam. Go to cdc.gov and search "symptoms of Covid-19". What pops up is an EXACT description of the common flu. Sickness is being spread via a dangerous spike protein CONTAINED IN THE JAB and the jabbed shed the protein onto others. The mRNA jab destroys the immune system, causing HIV, which is always fatal. With 65% of the world jabbed it is going to be a very different place in 10 years. I'm not sure how much any of this matters because if Jason Breshears of Archaix on YT is right it all ends in 2040 anyway. He takes nothing from the internet. It all comes from old books.
Data is manipulated BY BOTH SIDES. What is not being manipulated is the number of memorial services I have been asked to attend. The volume of obituaries I have seen. The number of young and healthy people dying before my very eyes.
Yeah. Something stinks.
Or not? Why would your "official numbers" be any more valid than the ones you deprecate?
Just off the top of my head (gotta go run meet one of my metalworker subs):
Florida's "population count" may be higher than insurance co's and official stats show. (LOTS of illegals and homeless likely did NOT get shots!) Certainly y'all's 'medical head of state' is agitating a LOT against the bad shots...
Did you take into account the oldsters who died in 2020 (and after) from the brutal hospital "treatments"? Do, please, go read up at Steve Kirsch's substack: https://kirschsubstack.com/ . He has been digging through a huge variety of data 'pools' (as has Ed Dowd; also worth reading.) They and their teams do a LOT of work to validate as much as possible the data they are able to get.
The U.S. worker insurance co's had ALL committed to their payouts being ~40% excess after the shots were 'rolled out' (rolled over!). Since they have to pay out actual $$$, I would trust them more than any state's "official numbers." Granted: two immediate concerns with the data -- FLA is a big retirement state; LOTS of Floridians (and ex-NYers {snort}) are NOT insured by those co's cause they're retired. And the insurance co's did not (that I have looked for or seen) split their data out by state. All those biggies were *nation-wide* worker insurance co's. (So, confounders?)
But, for my 'anchor': if several of the biggies say they have paid out at 40% excess death; I'm going with THEIR numbers! Money talks, politicians lie!!
Essential addendum: you can't trust the US government "anything."
Medicare was the biggest scam in America until 2020 when a more grand scam came along but medicare was involved big time.
I will argue a point that broadly should be supportive of what Steve argues today. I don’t know a good term for the technique, but in general terms it’s simply – or perhaps “complexly”? – trying to discern the motives of various factions. This is hardly a revolutionary concept. The best explanation of it I’ve seen is in Nietzsche’s writings, especially in his Beyond Good and Evil. There, he analyzes the “prejudices of philosophers.” Relevant to my comments today is this central concept. Often, a Thinker makes the claim that he has found The Truth. Perhaps he has. But, Nietzsche asks, the question should not be whether X is true or false. (As a side point, he makes several cases for why it may very well be impossible to actually determine such truths). Far more interesting, and possibly rewarding, would be to ask questions of the Thinker: “Why does he WANT X to be true?” What unconscious motives, instincts, drives are likely causing his behavior?
For today’s example, allow me to use a posting from another web site I follow. Here’s the post:
https://healthy-skeptic.com/2023/08/16/coronamonomania-lives-forever-part-219/
Here’s the precise claim I wish to comment upon:
“Won’t make any difference to the vaccine safety nuts, but yet another review of data finds no indication that CV-19 vax are associated with an increase in serious myocarditis in younger athletes or with sudden cardiac death and that myocarditis is more common after CV-19 infection than vaccination. (BMJ Article)”
Now, remember, I am making no effort to assess the truth or falsity of these claims. What I WILL do, however, is some simple “psychoanalysis.” Some motives here are very easy to find. For example, on his web page, we learn that in addition to his other activities, he’s a consultant to the health care industry. Now, that and of itself doesn’t mean he’s a shill for Big Pharma. In fairness, he seems to present multiple viewpoints. Indeed in the cited example he offers plenty of skeptical observations. Just the same, a cyncic might assume that Roche would not wish to alienate potential employers. As such, that is a very diplomatic motive. But what if Roche is acutally convinced that the mRNA jabs are in fact highly dangerous? Perhaps not relevant here: I am interested in guessing what might motivate his behavior. And not burning bridges is a powerful inhibitor.
I haven’t even looked at the BMJ article, but I can do a “psychoanalysis” – or jumping to conclusions if you like – about likely motives. To reiterate, a lot of this is speculation. I’m trying to smoke out actual or likely motives that would make Mr. Roche, or the authors of the BMJ paper, act certain ways.
Now let’s consider the claim that the BMJ study found no difference in incidents in athletes. Remember, we are not concerned right now with the underlying truth or falseness of the issues, only what motivates a party to act a certain way.
What might motivate the authors of the BMJ study to lie? To tell the truth? There are plenty of them: not the least is that by reporting a “pro-vax” result, they ingratiate themselves with Pharma, grant grantors, the establishment medical system in general. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. And in the case of a researcher, he is reliable upon future grants. If he wanders too far off into the tall weeds, he'll find himself out of money and likely, out of a career.
There are just a few primal drives operating here: for continued survival (= future income), acceptance by the peer group (= toeing the party line, not rocking the boat), perhaps maintaining self-esteem (= not alienating colleagues or the boss, perhaps the researcher has faith in the medical profession, and this colors his objectivity). About the only one missing in this case, probably, is the need for sexual reproduction. And for all I know, even it might be present, say if the lead author wants to bed the sexy wench who works in the grants office. While a lot of what I've just written is conjecture, the general principle remains: there are ALWAYS instincts operative below the conscious level and they exert a profound influence on individual and thus group behaviors.
Now, we could look at it from Steve’s anecdote perspective. Given other data points, what’s “wrong” with the BMJ study’s claims? Well, here are just a few:
There are many, many anecdotal claims of young and apparently healthy athletes who have dropped dead or had severe health issues, such as heart attacks. Damar Hamlin and Bronny James are but two recent examples. Given that such events in normal times are extremely rare, bordering on non-existent, the fact that so many have been happening to relatively famous people, in the cited cases, athletes who one would expect to be the healthiest of humans, one can make the inference that far more similar examples are happening to not-famous people, those who are rarely, if ever, in the public eye.
OK, I’m going to wrap this up. My point is that nothing can be trusted. Not one damned thing. Everybody has a hidden agenda, or at least the skeptic should assume so until proven otherwise. Sadly, it seems that nearly all institutions are captured by special interests.
Two years ago the media was bombarding us about those horrid “science deniers” and “anti-vaxxers” who were promoting “vaccine hesitancy.” What was never allowed in debate was the fact that there might well have been reasons to be hesitant about a rushed “vaccine” that wasn’t even particularly effective for its stated purpose.
I take no joy in suggesting that, to paraphrase the old joke, that you will probably fare much better believing your own “lying eyes” than that bought-and-paid-for “expert” over there.
Love this! You don't have to have a degree from MIT to see the data manipulation, but too many people want to shout down anyone who says either that the claims don't make sense or there is evidence of data manipulation.
While I don’t necessarily doubt your point, all large data sets contain errors. It could be as simple as a fat finger or a missed decimal point. You will not find a data set that is error free. Anyone who works with large databases knows this to be the case, whether in private industry or government
Just a note for those who want to download the data. The data comes in zipped files, for each bloody day. If you ask for several years, that is hundreds, and hundreds of files manually processed. I think it would be easier to write a curl script to get at this awkward set of files.
Looks a lot like CMS fraudulent billing. Maybe the nursing home administrators are practicing before getting a job in Ukraine with Zelensky
Hard to believe they don't have to release the underlying data. There oughta be a law... Then, they'll be forced to forge it which should slow them down a bit.