Lots of questions. If the excess death calculations are accepted, it is still a stretch to conclude they are due to the vaccine. Respiratory infection and its effects were noted to be primary early in the pandemic. However systemic clotting was also noted in many, hence the utilization of anticoagulants. Additionally it was recognized …
Lots of questions. If the excess death calculations are accepted, it is still a stretch to conclude they are due to the vaccine. Respiratory infection and its effects were noted to be primary early in the pandemic. However systemic clotting was also noted in many, hence the utilization of anticoagulants. Additionally it was recognized that Covid was a disease that effected the endothelial cells ie; the entire vasculature. The lungs, due to the rich capillary bed were an obvious point of vulnerability. The pulmonary component may have resolved sufficiently to allow one to survive the acute phase, yet the systemic effects could continue, ie; “long covid” with resultant effects due to diffuse ongoing systemic vascular injury. This would also be occurring with a ramp up of the vaccination program. Additionally there was no “standard” therapeutic regimen utilized across the country. This creates additional problems with interpretive data analysis. Also, we do not yet know the long term impact on the body of the infected but asymptomatic cohort. Lots of questions yet to be answered. The vaccine may not be what we hoped, but i am not ready to conclude that it is responsible for the excess deaths you site. We need lots more data.
if your hypothesis above is true that it is the virus that created the increase.. then we would have seen a ramp up starting with the initial wave of infections. It would be fairly obvious. We do not see this pattern, the ramp up doesnt start until the vax was introduced and ramps up as number of vaccinations in arms goes up (especially in the young)
No that is not what we see.. If we saw that we would see an uptick 6/5 to 12/8. We do not see a steady increase. Also in the the excess deaths in 7/13-12/16 do not follow the disease curve like excess deaths did in previous waves. There would be no LULL in excess deaths if Long covid was causing pulminary deaths
> "If we saw that we would see an uptick 6/5 to 12/8"
Yes, and active infections increased 10-fold in that period, from 5k to 50k.
See the figures below.
Are you looking at the *generated* (and therefore irrelevant) curve the author used or the *actual* case counts? (See my link above which replaces the imaginary curve with the actual case numbers curve. They correlate very well.) Then ask why they would use a graph made with "equations used to get the desired shapes" instead of actual infection counts. (Spoiler: Because that reality quickly invalidates their thesis of an anomaly.)
Since I can't embed the image here and for anyone else having trouble seeing that the "anomaly" (above average excess deaths late July-Dec 2021) is mirrored by C19 cases counts, here are the figures…
you again missed the entire point. Your claim was that it was LONG covid, that means we would see it high EVEN WHEN THERE WERE NO HIGH ACTIVE INFECTIONS and RISING since more people would have been infected over time. we in fact did not see a steady increase until much much much later
I never mentioned long covid at all, nor implied anywhere that it's involved.
My argument is solely this: the excess deaths are very well correlated with and readily explained by acute C19 infections.
If it were the vaccine causing the above-average excess deaths, then we would see such deaths occurring independent of acute C19 infection numbers. But we do not.
To expand on that: if it were the vaccine causing them, we would expect to see excess deaths exceed the historical average by more than they had due to the virus alone, before the vaccines. And, in particular, we would expect that effect to be most pronounced April-July '21, when the majority of vaccinations occurred. Instead, we see excess deaths were actually entirely consistent at the historical average during that period, and only rose above the average again in late July, precisely when infections also rose at the start of the Delta wave.
sflr, I missed this before. From what I've seen there is sufficient reason to suspect there is non-trivial incidence of negative outcomes from the mRNA vaccines. What I've seen hasn't been sufficient to convince me that they're worse than the no-vaccines counterfactual. (Versus vector vaccines might be different story, though.)
There are absolutely intense forces trying to snuff any questioning of the safety. Sadly, the anti-scientific Believe Science! partisans and the extreme, hyperbolic theories on the opposite extreme (e.g., this post with "the C19 gene modification injection") are making nearly impossible for the more measured, reasoned inquiry to get traction.
I completely concur that it would be worthwhile and possibly very revealing to see this analysis repeated with the data from Dec 21-April 22. Likewise, I wish the OP had published their data sets & code. That would have gone a long way to boost credibility and facilitate further investigation.
Kotbeutel, the person who started this sub-thread of comment was the one that suggested it's long term effects of COVID that is killing people by circulatory diseases.
Your statement that the excess deaths correlate exactly with COVID infection trend, ignored the fact that this article mentioned several times, namely, that during the first half of 2021, the anomalous rise in all cause deaths already began, "but was obscured by lower than normal deaths of 85+yo’s due to culling from C19 in spring 2020". That fact is much more consistent with the vaccine being responsible.
Plus your hypothesis would then need to answer why COVID in 2021 causes, in the acute phase, mainly circulatory deaths rather than respiratory deaths.
The fact that these death statistic is provided by the govt WITHOUT VACCINATION STATUS INFO is enough to suggest there's definitely something to hide!
Remember, officially we're in the last phase of clinical trial of the "vaccines", with the whole population being test subjects. So why is the crucial information about vax status not recorded or published along with mortality and morbidity data? It's criminal.
It’s fallacious for you to base conclusions on raw data without adjusting for variations in testing cycles and other factors which incorrectly skew results aimed at confirming official narratives.
Let me see if I have this straight… We have two independent data sets that correlate closely. They fit the most straightforward explanation of events, namely that the number of infections is directly related to the number deaths. Then, despite this strong support for the infection incidence data from an independent data set, you want to claim that it should be ignored because it was intentionally manipulated with "testing cycles".
Implicit in this claim is that someone had the prescient knowledge necessary to use "testing cycles" to skew infection counts to ensure they continued to correlate closely with all deaths attributed to C19, i.e. both vaccine-caused and true disease deaths, thus covering up evidence of the vaccine's harms. Specifically, the claimed manipulation would require prescient knowledge of the true, *future* numbers of infections and deaths.
This extraordinary claim is made without any evidence to support it, let alone the extraordinary evidence it requires. Nevermind that the claimed manipulation would have to have also been done concurrently in every other state's DPH *and* in every other nation using the mRNA vaccines.
And finally, let's not lose sight of what you're choosing to believe instead of the supposedly manipulated infection counts: an entirely artificial curve, trivially generated with "equations used to get the desired shapes". You can choose to believe *admittedly fabricated data* if you want; just don't ask the rest of us to.
You go through tortuously challenged mental gymnastics just to magically arrive at a conclusion that PCR testing cycles cannot be arbitrarily made in order to skew results. Take a break and step back for a minute
Ahh, yes, "take a break". The online tap-out du jour.
Before I let you out of this discursive armbar, I'll just point out that there is a MASSIVE difference between A/ PCR testing cycles can be arbitrarily made to skew results and B/ infection prevalence correlates with deaths attributed to C19 because someone was actively manipulating tests to achieve that result. You want to wave your hands and gesture in the direction of test manipulation to justify ignoring data that falsifies the deadly vaccine theory, because thinking through what that would actually entail for a moment reveals it to be, indeed, tortured.
I think Joel Smalley sums it up fairly convincingly for any critical thinker to arrive at a conclusion that “safe and effective” is just a Montra peddled buy those who either have something to gain or who worship the vaccine god. You might find a logic in Joel and Steve’s work that comfortably agrees with reality;
Lots of questions. If the excess death calculations are accepted, it is still a stretch to conclude they are due to the vaccine. Respiratory infection and its effects were noted to be primary early in the pandemic. However systemic clotting was also noted in many, hence the utilization of anticoagulants. Additionally it was recognized that Covid was a disease that effected the endothelial cells ie; the entire vasculature. The lungs, due to the rich capillary bed were an obvious point of vulnerability. The pulmonary component may have resolved sufficiently to allow one to survive the acute phase, yet the systemic effects could continue, ie; “long covid” with resultant effects due to diffuse ongoing systemic vascular injury. This would also be occurring with a ramp up of the vaccination program. Additionally there was no “standard” therapeutic regimen utilized across the country. This creates additional problems with interpretive data analysis. Also, we do not yet know the long term impact on the body of the infected but asymptomatic cohort. Lots of questions yet to be answered. The vaccine may not be what we hoped, but i am not ready to conclude that it is responsible for the excess deaths you site. We need lots more data.
if your hypothesis above is true that it is the virus that created the increase.. then we would have seen a ramp up starting with the initial wave of infections. It would be fairly obvious. We do not see this pattern, the ramp up doesnt start until the vax was introduced and ramps up as number of vaccinations in arms goes up (especially in the young)
In fact we see exactly that: https://imgur.com/a/6V3ECJ4
The excess deaths correlate with infections very well, including the initial wave.
No that is not what we see.. If we saw that we would see an uptick 6/5 to 12/8. We do not see a steady increase. Also in the the excess deaths in 7/13-12/16 do not follow the disease curve like excess deaths did in previous waves. There would be no LULL in excess deaths if Long covid was causing pulminary deaths
> "If we saw that we would see an uptick 6/5 to 12/8"
Yes, and active infections increased 10-fold in that period, from 5k to 50k.
See the figures below.
Are you looking at the *generated* (and therefore irrelevant) curve the author used or the *actual* case counts? (See my link above which replaces the imaginary curve with the actual case numbers curve. They correlate very well.) Then ask why they would use a graph made with "equations used to get the desired shapes" instead of actual infection counts. (Spoiler: Because that reality quickly invalidates their thesis of an anomaly.)
Since I can't embed the image here and for anyone else having trouble seeing that the "anomaly" (above average excess deaths late July-Dec 2021) is mirrored by C19 cases counts, here are the figures…
MA daily active C19 cases
--------------------------
5,664 : June 12 <-- long decline plateaus at 4-5k
4,231 : July 01
4,233 : July 13 <-- Delta wave start
7,693 : Aug 01
13,632 : Aug 13
18,171 : Sep 01
20,201 : Sep 13
22,801 : Sep 20 <-- Delta wave peak
19,586 : Oct 01
16,946 : Oct 14
14,413 : Nov 01 <-- Omicron wave start
20,683 : Nov 14
33,667 : Dec 01
55,865 : Dec 15
124,670 : Dec 31
you again missed the entire point. Your claim was that it was LONG covid, that means we would see it high EVEN WHEN THERE WERE NO HIGH ACTIVE INFECTIONS and RISING since more people would have been infected over time. we in fact did not see a steady increase until much much much later
I never mentioned long covid at all, nor implied anywhere that it's involved.
My argument is solely this: the excess deaths are very well correlated with and readily explained by acute C19 infections.
If it were the vaccine causing the above-average excess deaths, then we would see such deaths occurring independent of acute C19 infection numbers. But we do not.
To expand on that: if it were the vaccine causing them, we would expect to see excess deaths exceed the historical average by more than they had due to the virus alone, before the vaccines. And, in particular, we would expect that effect to be most pronounced April-July '21, when the majority of vaccinations occurred. Instead, we see excess deaths were actually entirely consistent at the historical average during that period, and only rose above the average again in late July, precisely when infections also rose at the start of the Delta wave.
sflr, I missed this before. From what I've seen there is sufficient reason to suspect there is non-trivial incidence of negative outcomes from the mRNA vaccines. What I've seen hasn't been sufficient to convince me that they're worse than the no-vaccines counterfactual. (Versus vector vaccines might be different story, though.)
There are absolutely intense forces trying to snuff any questioning of the safety. Sadly, the anti-scientific Believe Science! partisans and the extreme, hyperbolic theories on the opposite extreme (e.g., this post with "the C19 gene modification injection") are making nearly impossible for the more measured, reasoned inquiry to get traction.
I completely concur that it would be worthwhile and possibly very revealing to see this analysis repeated with the data from Dec 21-April 22. Likewise, I wish the OP had published their data sets & code. That would have gone a long way to boost credibility and facilitate further investigation.
Kotbeutel, the person who started this sub-thread of comment was the one that suggested it's long term effects of COVID that is killing people by circulatory diseases.
Your statement that the excess deaths correlate exactly with COVID infection trend, ignored the fact that this article mentioned several times, namely, that during the first half of 2021, the anomalous rise in all cause deaths already began, "but was obscured by lower than normal deaths of 85+yo’s due to culling from C19 in spring 2020". That fact is much more consistent with the vaccine being responsible.
Plus your hypothesis would then need to answer why COVID in 2021 causes, in the acute phase, mainly circulatory deaths rather than respiratory deaths.
The fact that these death statistic is provided by the govt WITHOUT VACCINATION STATUS INFO is enough to suggest there's definitely something to hide!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM
Remember, officially we're in the last phase of clinical trial of the "vaccines", with the whole population being test subjects. So why is the crucial information about vax status not recorded or published along with mortality and morbidity data? It's criminal.
It’s fallacious for you to base conclusions on raw data without adjusting for variations in testing cycles and other factors which incorrectly skew results aimed at confirming official narratives.
Let me see if I have this straight… We have two independent data sets that correlate closely. They fit the most straightforward explanation of events, namely that the number of infections is directly related to the number deaths. Then, despite this strong support for the infection incidence data from an independent data set, you want to claim that it should be ignored because it was intentionally manipulated with "testing cycles".
Implicit in this claim is that someone had the prescient knowledge necessary to use "testing cycles" to skew infection counts to ensure they continued to correlate closely with all deaths attributed to C19, i.e. both vaccine-caused and true disease deaths, thus covering up evidence of the vaccine's harms. Specifically, the claimed manipulation would require prescient knowledge of the true, *future* numbers of infections and deaths.
This extraordinary claim is made without any evidence to support it, let alone the extraordinary evidence it requires. Nevermind that the claimed manipulation would have to have also been done concurrently in every other state's DPH *and* in every other nation using the mRNA vaccines.
And finally, let's not lose sight of what you're choosing to believe instead of the supposedly manipulated infection counts: an entirely artificial curve, trivially generated with "equations used to get the desired shapes". You can choose to believe *admittedly fabricated data* if you want; just don't ask the rest of us to.
You go through tortuously challenged mental gymnastics just to magically arrive at a conclusion that PCR testing cycles cannot be arbitrarily made in order to skew results. Take a break and step back for a minute
Ahh, yes, "take a break". The online tap-out du jour.
Before I let you out of this discursive armbar, I'll just point out that there is a MASSIVE difference between A/ PCR testing cycles can be arbitrarily made to skew results and B/ infection prevalence correlates with deaths attributed to C19 because someone was actively manipulating tests to achieve that result. You want to wave your hands and gesture in the direction of test manipulation to justify ignoring data that falsifies the deadly vaccine theory, because thinking through what that would actually entail for a moment reveals it to be, indeed, tortured.
….or take one of today’s reports pouring in from around the world that are showing “safe and effective” is a lie that can no longer be denied;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/germans-severely-injured-covid-vaccines/
I think Joel Smalley sums it up fairly convincingly for any critical thinker to arrive at a conclusion that “safe and effective” is just a Montra peddled buy those who either have something to gain or who worship the vaccine god. You might find a logic in Joel and Steve’s work that comfortably agrees with reality;
https://metatron.substack.com/p/us-mortality-pre-and-post-vaccine
What explanation do you postulate for ACM’s sudden rise across the board?