Thanks to everybody from yesterday. I saw nothing that made me change my mind, so I’m publishing my analysis as is. There is this new caveat about the data a reader at the Substack mirror discovered. But as I have always insisted, all analyses are conditional on the data. Substack informs me not everybody will see the entire post in emails, and that you have to go to the site to read it all.
My take away is if everything were kosher, we wouldn't have to rely on bootleg data to assess safety. The fact the complete data is hidden speaks volumes, even if this data set is inconclusive.
Correctomento. This is so commonsensical that it will even get you a jury instruction on spoliation of evidence in a court of law: where one party destroys or hides evidence it has, the jury is entitled to conclude that the evidence is unfavorable to that party.
Dec 6, 2023·edited Dec 6, 2023Liked by William M Briggs
Fauci and "the numbers" were always questionable...because there was a great discrepancy between what was being reported (dead body pile up) and what was happening (frontline nurse) empty beds no pandemic. All I know is young people without previous disease died suddenly after the shot(s). Coworkers had family members died immediately, (some had pre-existing illness), still a shock. Coworkers had side effects ranging from uterine hemorrhaging, myocarditis needing heart transplant to kidney disease. We have an explosion in pre-eclampsia, NICU admissions and post partum hypertension requiring magnesium (used to be rare, now common).
Because EVERYTHING was and continues to be labeled "NOT RELATED" we may never know...someone also made sure the electronic medical records removed any mention of the shots so no comparisons can be done...
I have been a nurse over 20 years and never seen anything like this before and hope to never again. Mainstream refuses to cover this and as far as I'm concerned, the shots are the problem until proven otherwise.
I work in healthcare, too, and have lots of anecdotal evidence pointing to vaccine harm. Strokes, heart attacks, and 3 cases of Guillaine-Barre syndrome. But that's all it is: anecdotal evidence.
@EthicalSkeptic analyzes statistics of excess mortality and increasing cancer rates. Dr. Briggs mentioned that he posed a question to @ES regarding the data and was immediately blocked, immediately making @ES' analysis suspect. Anyone who shuts down questioning is not to be trusted.
I had the same reaction to ES. I saw him block a couple people who pointed out big errors in some of his other analyses. He wouldn't share raw data or code for anyone to double-check or replicate. Not even raw data to back up a claim about the CDC hiding deaths. Hard to trust a person after that.
People's trust in official numbers given the now known multiple coordinated lies and coverups (e.g. vaccine can prevent spread) is astonishing. Even if you think these people were making a good faith effort, they now would be facing the prospect of prison time or worse under Nuremberg laws if Kirsch and the leaker are correct. Yet people point to all-cause mortality numbers as if those are iron clad truth? Wild to me.
Quick thought experiment, if the raw data shows numbers that might mean prison time for you if they got out, would you decide to (once again) lie about those numbers?
It seems people continue to have faith in them despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence and raw data from whistleblowers that suggests much higher numbers. They trust those who have a reason to hide data, over those basically sacrificing their careers and risking long term imprisonment (7 years in case of NZ leaker) with nothing to gain. Again, why on god's green earth would you trust said known lying authorities over someone with nothing to gain and everything to lose?
That makes me think those cleaving to authority and the stats they provide, either have a psychological reflexive cleaving to authority, are absolutely terrified by the implications and therefore in denial, lack critical thinking ability, or have questionable motives.
Unfortunately the situation is more complicated than that. Infiltrators can pretend to be whistleblowers or social media heroes while undermining the efforts to reveal the truth with ridiculous grandstanding and claims. That is what some call “5th generational warfare”, but is actually the oldest game in history, manipulation of the minds of humans.
That is actually an excellent point. There are false leaks and the like. Very well said. I will say, there is close to zero doubt in my mind this is an intentional depopulation effort with sterilization and soft-kill being the primary goals, the latter being "difficult to trace to source" deaths like turbo-cancers from shutting down the body's anti-cancer, natural immunity functions.
That is what my intuition tells me as well. I get you have done a more thorough examination. I also think Kathy raised a good point about having a Pyrrhic Skeptic mindset as we are in the midst of 5th Generation Warfare, which is to say military grade psyops being waged on civilian populations.
Nicely done. Where are the p-values? This analysis is thoughtful and balanced. The upfront acknowledgement of the limitations in drawing definitive conclusions given the lack of a non-vaccinated control group and cause of death data is well received. You clearly explained how the observable temporal patterns in deaths for different dosage levels are affected by truncation bias and rollout timing, limiting ability to control for other factors or make causation inferences. The analyzing of distributions by age at each dose and death for suggestive, but inconclusive signals, like the possibility of slightly elevated risks in younger groups after fewer doses was well done and steered clear of claiming certainty. I appreciated the noting where additional data like true control groups and cause of death detail could strengthen analyses, while acknowledging practical barriers. The discussion of how even a harmful vaccine would not necessarily violate expectations around overall death distribution shapes due to differential update – is an important contextualization. The statement that harm for some individuals is possible based on first principles, but evidence was limited is insightful. Most appreciated the restraint in making strong claims despite confirmation bias is refreshing given the other analysis on this data. Unlike Steve’s paper this work underscores the challenges of dataset limitations rather than claiming “PROOF”. This is an honest assessment that should encourage improved analyses to establish facts rather. William, I cannot find a particular fault with the statistical review. This represents a model of temperance amidst complexity. Again William, very nicely done! We would all like to see more like this. William, I think Barry Young is a computer scientist?
Analysis to account for vaccine effects would have built in variability on the subjects thereof, because we humans each differ individually in both inherited and developed immune response.
(And that's a good thing for the survivability of any species.)
It also goes without saying that the COVID shots were not a "vaccine" in the normal sense of the word, and that the decision to take the shot should have been a personal one (that includes impacts on loved ones) -not imposed by the State.
Also the actual deaths and impacts due to covid or shots are so small in terms of the overall population, that it's difficult to discern any hard facts from the data. My gut take is the shots were just as bad as the virus. Taking the shot should have been a personal decision.
I've now known 6 people under age 40 who've died suspiciously after vaccination. Before that I hardly knew anyone who died at that age, just a couple accidents and suicides. So yeah, not sure if it's "so small".
This is where we are: Private citizens have to risk incarceration to obtain covid/vax data so other private citizens can analyze it to determine efficacy/harm. Every government should make this data available. Anything less is a cover up.
i think the assumption that a medicine is bad only if it kills you right after administering is completely wrong. and i think it would be too obvious. i also think it was not the objective if we assume intent b/c it’d be too obvious.
what’s clear to me is that “science” is full of shitheads nit actually knowing what they do. they’re just there for the money. thus the chaos, censorship and willingness to persecute people to prevent the truth be known. that’s where we should be headed: expose scientism.
The odd thing to me is the very wide differences in %'s of reported Covid deaths divided by the total population or different countries. I did a quick look at 15 different countries around the world and the numbers were all over the place. Surprisingly, the Country I found with the highest percentage of reported Covid Deaths per population is the US....by a WIDE margin! Didn't know our healthcare system sucked so bad. Altho, come to think of it, our local Health Department DID get caught reporting car crash fatalities as Covid deaths on two separate occasions, so there is no telling what the numbers really are. Especially considering that our beneficent government was handsomely rewarding hospitals with large sums of my tax dollars for every Covid death they reported. Not much incentive there, huh? I would like to see someone, one day, to do an analysis of what happened to US Hospitals profit margins during the whole coronavirus event, and break out the amount of $$ that came in from the gov't for reported covid cases/deaths. I'd REALLY like to see these numbers tied to the # of deaths of people on ventilators.
As a side note, I noted on the official New Zealand Government website that next to their reported # of people who died from Covid, they added this little caveat - "(or it was a contributing factor)". Ha.
I actually argue against the "placebo" in safety studies of vaccines, in that a "control" is still a control even if you don't inject them with anything. In fact, the only way to be CERTAIN they're a true control, is to NOT inject them with anything at all. The entire basis of a "control" is that NOTHING (at all) is done to that subject. Since there is ZERO evidence to support the theory an unvaccinated person will have a LACK of brain cancer, heart attacks, blood clots, or DEATH merely because of some "belief" about not being injected with anything, there is ZERO reason to suspect the unvaccinated would be healthier ONLY because of their beliefs about injections. So there's no reason to inject them at all with ANYTHING. They are TRUE controls, who are left ALONE with ZERO pretense of any "treatment" since they were ALREADY HEALTHY and don't need to treat anything.
The entire idea of "placebo control" has been tossed on its head. First, placebos were given due to the fact there can be a HEALING effect, i.e. "mind over matter" when someone believes they've been medicated. It started with doctors who had to deal with hypochondriacs who wanted attention, so the doc would give them a sugar pill to shut them up. However, even in the context of "mind over matter", the numbers will ALWAYS be nebulous due the fact the human body is ALREADY able to heal on it's own, with or without a pill of any sort. So we can never know what % of any healing was actually due to the person's beliefs, or was just a matter of the natural HEALING process, (which pharma would have us believe is impossible without their drugs OR a "placebo";-)
People have been led to believe that placebo and control are synonymous, but they are not. Until someone shows me EVIDENCE that a person's beliefs about NOT being injected can cause a LACK of cancer, heart attacks, brain damage, blood clots, etc., I will not accept that everyone in a trial must be injected with SOMETHING. True controls are LEFT ALONE. In the TRUE "scientific method" there must be 3 groups. A- Controls (to whom NOTHING is done), B-Placebo, C- Treated. At the end, all three groups are examined for OUTCOMES. This is also the only possible way to measure the effects of a placebo (if any there are) vs. no treatment at all.
But a "treatment" for an existing condition is VERY different from a vaccine. Vaccines are not a "treatment" for any condition. So the only study needed to determine "safety" is a TOXICOLIGY study (exposed vs. unexposed). The entire reason pharma has perverted the term "placebo" is to justify injecting the so-called "controls" with "excipients" - which, according to the FDA, can include anti-freeze, aluminum oxides, graphene oxides, benzene, polysorbates 80, and a host of other extremely TOXIC items, all of which the FDA says are so "safe" that the makers can put it into a so-called "saline placebo" and never tell anyone what ELSE is in the fluid. So this will help them show us how "safe" the new vaccine is, due to the fact many of the (fake) "controls" had the same problems the vaccinated had.
Spot on. My wife and I are both in our early 70's, and our immuno-compromised son with D own syndrome and Diabetes T1 is in his late 20's, and all three of us are therefore in 'high risk' categories. We all chose NOT to vaccinate, and apart from being rather better educated and slightly more affluent than average - we all have normal-ish bodies and enjoy good general health. I'm genuinely surprised that nobody has approached us yet to ask for more information. Oh, we all had Covid (we think) in late 2019, and another dose in 2022, but again, nobody knows that because it was so mild we did not seek any medical help.
Exactly, well said. A placebo is used to remove the placebo effect in a comparison; to compare two medications for instance. If you wanted to compare two poison 'vaccines' then a placebo would be used. Here we want to compare to real life scenarios of people who got injected, versus those who didn't.
Most of the time, they inject the "control" with another vaccine and don't even bother claiming they used "saline" (which is also full of deadly crap anyway).
How would anyone find unvaxxed Kiwis for comparison? Not that I trust Wikipedia, but they claim that for New Zealanders (12+) 95.8% had at least 1 shot and 94.7% are fully vaxxed as of February of 2022. The data is derived from "COVID-19: Vaccine data". Ministry of Health NZ”. So how many unvaxxed are there?
the unofficial street count of the unvaccinated is between 15-20% of the eligible population - which is not the total population of 5 Million. the NZ Ministry of Health secretly exempted 11,000 of it own employees from being forced to get the injection
Yes, the NZ government's lies about the percentage of the eligible population that was "fully vaxxed" was obviously a part of its psychological operation. "Comrade" Jacinda Ardern and her bought off mainstream media (similarly to all the other 1st world globalist heads of state who were following the same psyop playbook of genocide) used all the known psychological tricks in the book, from the incessant repetition about the jabs being "safe and effective," to the "warm and fuzzy" sound bites of NZ being a "team of Five Million" who were "in this together" and "protecting each other" (by lining up like lemmings to take the jabs). Announcing the lie that 95% of Kiwis had at least 1 shot was part of the psychological pressure -- geared toward the understanding that most people "want to belong" and not be the odd ones out. Kiwis were taught by Ardern and her Labour Party comrades that the unvaxxed were "selfish" and were second class citizens, and Kiwis were encouraged to be snitches and report any New Zealanders who, say, were all alone at the beach getting fresh air and sunshine, WITHOUT A MASK (gasp!), when they were supposed to be locked down in their homes.
And all the time Ardern was coaching her compliant and vaxxed "good Germans" how to treat with contempt the "selfish" unvaxxed second class citizens, she knew that approximately 11,000 health care workers and Ministry of Health personnel had gotten secret exemptions. So while thousands of Kiwis were mandated out of their jobs and lost their homes in order not to risk their lives taking the dangerous Pfizer jabs, and thousands of Kiwis lost their small businesses due to all the mandatory lockdowns, and Kiwi schoolchildren's education was grossly interrupted, and Kiwis were barred from attending church services because they were unvaxxed, deceitful doctors in our town and all over NZ were "secretly" unvaxxed and deceiving their own patients, coming into close personal contact with the frightened elderly who trusted them, and being "willing executioners" by encouraging their patients to get vaxxed with the jabs that they themselves knew were unsafe. And they got rewarded with money for each jab they were able to convince their trusting patients to get. The banality of evil ...
In a dirty cross-sectional incomplete analysis we are trying to construct valid generalisable conclusions. Equivocation, "It does not say the vax was a great killer, nor does it say the vax was harmless" makes a wonderful tool and I wouldn't put it past the investing NZ MoH and their WEF/CEPI partners to have engineered precisely the appearance of equipoise that effectively served to diffuse and deflect the 'blood on their hands' accusation.
Elsewhere, clarity abounds in spades, for example, https://metatron.substack.com/p/the-big-lie-and-the-non-existent, or the simple observation that New Zealand has sustained 12,000 excess deaths above the 2015 - 2019 mean since 2020, while Australia has sustained 55,000 excess deaths, both in perfect concordance, both summing to 0.21% of their populations since 2020.
The MOH in NZ will not explain/cannot explain three separate weeks between 2022 and 2023 in which >30% excess weekly deaths were exceeded, and some 9 weeks in which excess weekly deaths surpassed 20%.
As with all assaults masquerading as uncontrolled experiments, the correct scientific position in such uncertainty and cruel unethical inhumanity is to assume the "intervention" is causal until proved otherwise.
So what changed in 2022 that accounts for New Zealand's all-time record mortality (by at least 3,000) in both 2022 and so far (through the first 40 weeks) in 2023? And before you say COVID, NZ claims a 95% full vaccination rate. Weren't these injections supposed to protect against COVID mortality?
As far as I can tell, corporate media, the medical establishment, and all of our political misleaders are somehow managing to currently ignore extremely disturbing continuing excess mortality rates that would have been trumpeted to the high heavens had they occurred in 2020 or 2021.
Huge, ongoing excess mortality numbers stand out in Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA and to a lesser degree in Chile, Norway, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland.
Taiwan, Singapore, Qatar, and South Korea are off the charts! And Japan, Brazil, Ecuador, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, South Africa, and Thailand all remain disturbingly high.
And nobody is making a peep about all of the continuing excess mortality that is almost exclusively occurring in highly vaccinated countries as far as I can tell.
How long can the public health and medical establishment officials ostensibly charged with lowering rates of excess mortality keep ignoring these clear, ongoing signals in almost every single highly injected country on Earth?
I disagree. There is a control group, but it is quite specific. It consists of people registered with government healthcare agencies, and documented to have received invitations to be vaccinated, who chose not to be vaccinated.
Like me and my family.
I entirely accept that many - migrants and younger people especially - were undocumented, but there is a perfectly reasonable cohort of the documented unvaxxed out here -and it is high time we were recognised as such and invited to take part in research.
Once I started receiving numerous "invitations" from my doctor's group here in NZ to make an appointment to get the "safe and effective" Pfizer jab, I never went back, as I couldn't trust them ever again. By the time the jabs were being rolled out in NZ, there was already a HUGE signal of harm from both VAERS and EudraVigilance, plus whistleblower docs from Israel were sounding the alarm, as they were one of the first countries to start their vax program. Drs Yeadon and Wodarg were also sounding the alarm. NZ doctors had no excuse for their ignorance of what was happening.
This is consistent with what I have seen anecdotally here in Australia. I know of 15 deaths in my immediate circle after the first two shots. Some of those in their 20s and 30s and closely related in time to those shots. After that no particular signal from the boosters although there is also no information about who was boosted and when.And numbers getting boosted have dropped with each shot.However I am now seeing an increase in deaths currently from cancers, sudden deaths , heart attacks, strokes etc which appears to be accelerating. These are only in my vaxed friends. I'm also seeing people sicker than they've ever been. My unvaxed friends are fine. I'm also suspicious of the official percentages of vaccination and feel they are overstated. Or at least don't apply to the people I know
Thanx for your report and all your work. The inference of this dataset is dissappointing with no controlls, I understand. But what happened to the BATCH-analysis because that is what Young triggered to toll the bell? The fact that different batches behave differently is a huge signal for a bad product (the words of Michael Yeadon). An ANOVA between batches could lead the way.
My take away is if everything were kosher, we wouldn't have to rely on bootleg data to assess safety. The fact the complete data is hidden speaks volumes, even if this data set is inconclusive.
Thanks for your analysis.
Correctomento. This is so commonsensical that it will even get you a jury instruction on spoliation of evidence in a court of law: where one party destroys or hides evidence it has, the jury is entitled to conclude that the evidence is unfavorable to that party.
It isn't as inconclusive as most here think.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/new-zealand-serious-vaccine-safety
Fauci and "the numbers" were always questionable...because there was a great discrepancy between what was being reported (dead body pile up) and what was happening (frontline nurse) empty beds no pandemic. All I know is young people without previous disease died suddenly after the shot(s). Coworkers had family members died immediately, (some had pre-existing illness), still a shock. Coworkers had side effects ranging from uterine hemorrhaging, myocarditis needing heart transplant to kidney disease. We have an explosion in pre-eclampsia, NICU admissions and post partum hypertension requiring magnesium (used to be rare, now common).
Because EVERYTHING was and continues to be labeled "NOT RELATED" we may never know...someone also made sure the electronic medical records removed any mention of the shots so no comparisons can be done...
I have been a nurse over 20 years and never seen anything like this before and hope to never again. Mainstream refuses to cover this and as far as I'm concerned, the shots are the problem until proven otherwise.
I work in healthcare, too, and have lots of anecdotal evidence pointing to vaccine harm. Strokes, heart attacks, and 3 cases of Guillaine-Barre syndrome. But that's all it is: anecdotal evidence.
@EthicalSkeptic analyzes statistics of excess mortality and increasing cancer rates. Dr. Briggs mentioned that he posed a question to @ES regarding the data and was immediately blocked, immediately making @ES' analysis suspect. Anyone who shuts down questioning is not to be trusted.
I had the same reaction to ES. I saw him block a couple people who pointed out big errors in some of his other analyses. He wouldn't share raw data or code for anyone to double-check or replicate. Not even raw data to back up a claim about the CDC hiding deaths. Hard to trust a person after that.
Indeed.
People's trust in official numbers given the now known multiple coordinated lies and coverups (e.g. vaccine can prevent spread) is astonishing. Even if you think these people were making a good faith effort, they now would be facing the prospect of prison time or worse under Nuremberg laws if Kirsch and the leaker are correct. Yet people point to all-cause mortality numbers as if those are iron clad truth? Wild to me.
Quick thought experiment, if the raw data shows numbers that might mean prison time for you if they got out, would you decide to (once again) lie about those numbers?
It seems people continue to have faith in them despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence and raw data from whistleblowers that suggests much higher numbers. They trust those who have a reason to hide data, over those basically sacrificing their careers and risking long term imprisonment (7 years in case of NZ leaker) with nothing to gain. Again, why on god's green earth would you trust said known lying authorities over someone with nothing to gain and everything to lose?
That makes me think those cleaving to authority and the stats they provide, either have a psychological reflexive cleaving to authority, are absolutely terrified by the implications and therefore in denial, lack critical thinking ability, or have questionable motives.
Unfortunately the situation is more complicated than that. Infiltrators can pretend to be whistleblowers or social media heroes while undermining the efforts to reveal the truth with ridiculous grandstanding and claims. That is what some call “5th generational warfare”, but is actually the oldest game in history, manipulation of the minds of humans.
That is actually an excellent point. There are false leaks and the like. Very well said. I will say, there is close to zero doubt in my mind this is an intentional depopulation effort with sterilization and soft-kill being the primary goals, the latter being "difficult to trace to source" deaths like turbo-cancers from shutting down the body's anti-cancer, natural immunity functions.
I believe this is a genuine leak, for genuine reasons, because the data is so credible on professional examination.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/new-zealand-serious-vaccine-safety
That is what my intuition tells me as well. I get you have done a more thorough examination. I also think Kathy raised a good point about having a Pyrrhic Skeptic mindset as we are in the midst of 5th Generation Warfare, which is to say military grade psyops being waged on civilian populations.
That is a helpful thought experiment. Thank you.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dee746/p/the-covid-psyop?r=1g1b1r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
All,
Eugyppius amplifies the analysis here.
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/the-new-zealand-vaccination-records?publication_id=268621&post_id=139503467&isFreemail=true&r=b9swm
Thanks for the sober analysis. Overplaying a weak hand is not a useful tool in the pursuit of truth.
Nicely done. Where are the p-values? This analysis is thoughtful and balanced. The upfront acknowledgement of the limitations in drawing definitive conclusions given the lack of a non-vaccinated control group and cause of death data is well received. You clearly explained how the observable temporal patterns in deaths for different dosage levels are affected by truncation bias and rollout timing, limiting ability to control for other factors or make causation inferences. The analyzing of distributions by age at each dose and death for suggestive, but inconclusive signals, like the possibility of slightly elevated risks in younger groups after fewer doses was well done and steered clear of claiming certainty. I appreciated the noting where additional data like true control groups and cause of death detail could strengthen analyses, while acknowledging practical barriers. The discussion of how even a harmful vaccine would not necessarily violate expectations around overall death distribution shapes due to differential update – is an important contextualization. The statement that harm for some individuals is possible based on first principles, but evidence was limited is insightful. Most appreciated the restraint in making strong claims despite confirmation bias is refreshing given the other analysis on this data. Unlike Steve’s paper this work underscores the challenges of dataset limitations rather than claiming “PROOF”. This is an honest assessment that should encourage improved analyses to establish facts rather. William, I cannot find a particular fault with the statistical review. This represents a model of temperance amidst complexity. Again William, very nicely done! We would all like to see more like this. William, I think Barry Young is a computer scientist?
Analysis to account for vaccine effects would have built in variability on the subjects thereof, because we humans each differ individually in both inherited and developed immune response.
(And that's a good thing for the survivability of any species.)
It also goes without saying that the COVID shots were not a "vaccine" in the normal sense of the word, and that the decision to take the shot should have been a personal one (that includes impacts on loved ones) -not imposed by the State.
Also the actual deaths and impacts due to covid or shots are so small in terms of the overall population, that it's difficult to discern any hard facts from the data. My gut take is the shots were just as bad as the virus. Taking the shot should have been a personal decision.
I've now known 6 people under age 40 who've died suspiciously after vaccination. Before that I hardly knew anyone who died at that age, just a couple accidents and suicides. So yeah, not sure if it's "so small".
This is where we are: Private citizens have to risk incarceration to obtain covid/vax data so other private citizens can analyze it to determine efficacy/harm. Every government should make this data available. Anything less is a cover up.
i think the assumption that a medicine is bad only if it kills you right after administering is completely wrong. and i think it would be too obvious. i also think it was not the objective if we assume intent b/c it’d be too obvious.
what’s clear to me is that “science” is full of shitheads nit actually knowing what they do. they’re just there for the money. thus the chaos, censorship and willingness to persecute people to prevent the truth be known. that’s where we should be headed: expose scientism.
The odd thing to me is the very wide differences in %'s of reported Covid deaths divided by the total population or different countries. I did a quick look at 15 different countries around the world and the numbers were all over the place. Surprisingly, the Country I found with the highest percentage of reported Covid Deaths per population is the US....by a WIDE margin! Didn't know our healthcare system sucked so bad. Altho, come to think of it, our local Health Department DID get caught reporting car crash fatalities as Covid deaths on two separate occasions, so there is no telling what the numbers really are. Especially considering that our beneficent government was handsomely rewarding hospitals with large sums of my tax dollars for every Covid death they reported. Not much incentive there, huh? I would like to see someone, one day, to do an analysis of what happened to US Hospitals profit margins during the whole coronavirus event, and break out the amount of $$ that came in from the gov't for reported covid cases/deaths. I'd REALLY like to see these numbers tied to the # of deaths of people on ventilators.
As a side note, I noted on the official New Zealand Government website that next to their reported # of people who died from Covid, they added this little caveat - "(or it was a contributing factor)". Ha.
Good you're covering this NZ nightmare!
I actually argue against the "placebo" in safety studies of vaccines, in that a "control" is still a control even if you don't inject them with anything. In fact, the only way to be CERTAIN they're a true control, is to NOT inject them with anything at all. The entire basis of a "control" is that NOTHING (at all) is done to that subject. Since there is ZERO evidence to support the theory an unvaccinated person will have a LACK of brain cancer, heart attacks, blood clots, or DEATH merely because of some "belief" about not being injected with anything, there is ZERO reason to suspect the unvaccinated would be healthier ONLY because of their beliefs about injections. So there's no reason to inject them at all with ANYTHING. They are TRUE controls, who are left ALONE with ZERO pretense of any "treatment" since they were ALREADY HEALTHY and don't need to treat anything.
The entire idea of "placebo control" has been tossed on its head. First, placebos were given due to the fact there can be a HEALING effect, i.e. "mind over matter" when someone believes they've been medicated. It started with doctors who had to deal with hypochondriacs who wanted attention, so the doc would give them a sugar pill to shut them up. However, even in the context of "mind over matter", the numbers will ALWAYS be nebulous due the fact the human body is ALREADY able to heal on it's own, with or without a pill of any sort. So we can never know what % of any healing was actually due to the person's beliefs, or was just a matter of the natural HEALING process, (which pharma would have us believe is impossible without their drugs OR a "placebo";-)
People have been led to believe that placebo and control are synonymous, but they are not. Until someone shows me EVIDENCE that a person's beliefs about NOT being injected can cause a LACK of cancer, heart attacks, brain damage, blood clots, etc., I will not accept that everyone in a trial must be injected with SOMETHING. True controls are LEFT ALONE. In the TRUE "scientific method" there must be 3 groups. A- Controls (to whom NOTHING is done), B-Placebo, C- Treated. At the end, all three groups are examined for OUTCOMES. This is also the only possible way to measure the effects of a placebo (if any there are) vs. no treatment at all.
But a "treatment" for an existing condition is VERY different from a vaccine. Vaccines are not a "treatment" for any condition. So the only study needed to determine "safety" is a TOXICOLIGY study (exposed vs. unexposed). The entire reason pharma has perverted the term "placebo" is to justify injecting the so-called "controls" with "excipients" - which, according to the FDA, can include anti-freeze, aluminum oxides, graphene oxides, benzene, polysorbates 80, and a host of other extremely TOXIC items, all of which the FDA says are so "safe" that the makers can put it into a so-called "saline placebo" and never tell anyone what ELSE is in the fluid. So this will help them show us how "safe" the new vaccine is, due to the fact many of the (fake) "controls" had the same problems the vaccinated had.
Spot on. My wife and I are both in our early 70's, and our immuno-compromised son with D own syndrome and Diabetes T1 is in his late 20's, and all three of us are therefore in 'high risk' categories. We all chose NOT to vaccinate, and apart from being rather better educated and slightly more affluent than average - we all have normal-ish bodies and enjoy good general health. I'm genuinely surprised that nobody has approached us yet to ask for more information. Oh, we all had Covid (we think) in late 2019, and another dose in 2022, but again, nobody knows that because it was so mild we did not seek any medical help.
Exactly, well said. A placebo is used to remove the placebo effect in a comparison; to compare two medications for instance. If you wanted to compare two poison 'vaccines' then a placebo would be used. Here we want to compare to real life scenarios of people who got injected, versus those who didn't.
Most of the time, they inject the "control" with another vaccine and don't even bother claiming they used "saline" (which is also full of deadly crap anyway).
Yes, true. The situation is absolutely absurd.
How would anyone find unvaxxed Kiwis for comparison? Not that I trust Wikipedia, but they claim that for New Zealanders (12+) 95.8% had at least 1 shot and 94.7% are fully vaxxed as of February of 2022. The data is derived from "COVID-19: Vaccine data". Ministry of Health NZ”. So how many unvaxxed are there?
No idea. That's the problem.
the unofficial street count of the unvaccinated is between 15-20% of the eligible population - which is not the total population of 5 Million. the NZ Ministry of Health secretly exempted 11,000 of it own employees from being forced to get the injection
Yes, the NZ government's lies about the percentage of the eligible population that was "fully vaxxed" was obviously a part of its psychological operation. "Comrade" Jacinda Ardern and her bought off mainstream media (similarly to all the other 1st world globalist heads of state who were following the same psyop playbook of genocide) used all the known psychological tricks in the book, from the incessant repetition about the jabs being "safe and effective," to the "warm and fuzzy" sound bites of NZ being a "team of Five Million" who were "in this together" and "protecting each other" (by lining up like lemmings to take the jabs). Announcing the lie that 95% of Kiwis had at least 1 shot was part of the psychological pressure -- geared toward the understanding that most people "want to belong" and not be the odd ones out. Kiwis were taught by Ardern and her Labour Party comrades that the unvaxxed were "selfish" and were second class citizens, and Kiwis were encouraged to be snitches and report any New Zealanders who, say, were all alone at the beach getting fresh air and sunshine, WITHOUT A MASK (gasp!), when they were supposed to be locked down in their homes.
And all the time Ardern was coaching her compliant and vaxxed "good Germans" how to treat with contempt the "selfish" unvaxxed second class citizens, she knew that approximately 11,000 health care workers and Ministry of Health personnel had gotten secret exemptions. So while thousands of Kiwis were mandated out of their jobs and lost their homes in order not to risk their lives taking the dangerous Pfizer jabs, and thousands of Kiwis lost their small businesses due to all the mandatory lockdowns, and Kiwi schoolchildren's education was grossly interrupted, and Kiwis were barred from attending church services because they were unvaxxed, deceitful doctors in our town and all over NZ were "secretly" unvaxxed and deceiving their own patients, coming into close personal contact with the frightened elderly who trusted them, and being "willing executioners" by encouraging their patients to get vaxxed with the jabs that they themselves knew were unsafe. And they got rewarded with money for each jab they were able to convince their trusting patients to get. The banality of evil ...
Pure evil.
In a dirty cross-sectional incomplete analysis we are trying to construct valid generalisable conclusions. Equivocation, "It does not say the vax was a great killer, nor does it say the vax was harmless" makes a wonderful tool and I wouldn't put it past the investing NZ MoH and their WEF/CEPI partners to have engineered precisely the appearance of equipoise that effectively served to diffuse and deflect the 'blood on their hands' accusation.
Elsewhere, clarity abounds in spades, for example, https://metatron.substack.com/p/the-big-lie-and-the-non-existent, or the simple observation that New Zealand has sustained 12,000 excess deaths above the 2015 - 2019 mean since 2020, while Australia has sustained 55,000 excess deaths, both in perfect concordance, both summing to 0.21% of their populations since 2020.
The MOH in NZ will not explain/cannot explain three separate weeks between 2022 and 2023 in which >30% excess weekly deaths were exceeded, and some 9 weeks in which excess weekly deaths surpassed 20%.
As with all assaults masquerading as uncontrolled experiments, the correct scientific position in such uncertainty and cruel unethical inhumanity is to assume the "intervention" is causal until proved otherwise.
Each month since January 2022, at least one hundred more New Zealanders have died than would be expected by any reasonable mortality baseline: https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/18bs160/a_simple_analysis_of_new_zealands_official_oecd/
So what changed in 2022 that accounts for New Zealand's all-time record mortality (by at least 3,000) in both 2022 and so far (through the first 40 weeks) in 2023? And before you say COVID, NZ claims a 95% full vaccination rate. Weren't these injections supposed to protect against COVID mortality?
As far as I can tell, corporate media, the medical establishment, and all of our political misleaders are somehow managing to currently ignore extremely disturbing continuing excess mortality rates that would have been trumpeted to the high heavens had they occurred in 2020 or 2021.
Just look at the OECD data: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676
Huge, ongoing excess mortality numbers stand out in Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA and to a lesser degree in Chile, Norway, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland.
Now look at the Our World in Data excess mortality rates: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
Taiwan, Singapore, Qatar, and South Korea are off the charts! And Japan, Brazil, Ecuador, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, South Africa, and Thailand all remain disturbingly high.
And nobody is making a peep about all of the continuing excess mortality that is almost exclusively occurring in highly vaccinated countries as far as I can tell.
How long can the public health and medical establishment officials ostensibly charged with lowering rates of excess mortality keep ignoring these clear, ongoing signals in almost every single highly injected country on Earth?
"There is no control group."
I disagree. There is a control group, but it is quite specific. It consists of people registered with government healthcare agencies, and documented to have received invitations to be vaccinated, who chose not to be vaccinated.
Like me and my family.
I entirely accept that many - migrants and younger people especially - were undocumented, but there is a perfectly reasonable cohort of the documented unvaxxed out here -and it is high time we were recognised as such and invited to take part in research.
Once I started receiving numerous "invitations" from my doctor's group here in NZ to make an appointment to get the "safe and effective" Pfizer jab, I never went back, as I couldn't trust them ever again. By the time the jabs were being rolled out in NZ, there was already a HUGE signal of harm from both VAERS and EudraVigilance, plus whistleblower docs from Israel were sounding the alarm, as they were one of the first countries to start their vax program. Drs Yeadon and Wodarg were also sounding the alarm. NZ doctors had no excuse for their ignorance of what was happening.
Oh , I didn't need any of that science stuff - I start off with the assumption that the government always lies, and so far, I am generally right.
This is consistent with what I have seen anecdotally here in Australia. I know of 15 deaths in my immediate circle after the first two shots. Some of those in their 20s and 30s and closely related in time to those shots. After that no particular signal from the boosters although there is also no information about who was boosted and when.And numbers getting boosted have dropped with each shot.However I am now seeing an increase in deaths currently from cancers, sudden deaths , heart attacks, strokes etc which appears to be accelerating. These are only in my vaxed friends. I'm also seeing people sicker than they've ever been. My unvaxed friends are fine. I'm also suspicious of the official percentages of vaccination and feel they are overstated. Or at least don't apply to the people I know
Thanx for your report and all your work. The inference of this dataset is dissappointing with no controlls, I understand. But what happened to the BATCH-analysis because that is what Young triggered to toll the bell? The fact that different batches behave differently is a huge signal for a bad product (the words of Michael Yeadon). An ANOVA between batches could lead the way.