It would be just like me to tease you with a clever, ironic headline like this introducing a long, detailed analysis of the British mortality data. But in this case, I’m being serious. This article is about why I think the data are unreliable and unworthy of our credence.
This is some of the fuzziest logic I’ve seen in quite a while. For example, “In the 18-39 age group, almost no one is dying from COVID. The most significant causes of death are accidents, suicide, and overdoses. It is not reasonable to think that three COVID shots have the effect of lowering these risks by 20%.” As a mater of fact, the people in this age group were NEVER in any danger from covid, yet they are the ones dropping dead on camera and in the field from myocarditis and blood clots. The lockdowns preventing bozos from jumping off cliffs or drunken driving are a more likely explanation than the bioweapon jabs. Of course this data is a bit sketchy because apparently batches administered were not all of the same strength, absurd definitions of vaxxed and so on. But the trend is clear. This bioweopon developed by DARPA and the DoD via gain of function research in Wuhan was obviously meant to cause harm, and long term harm at that. The average age in the US for covid deaths was 82. In NY and CA they deliberately infected those in nursing homes, denied them early treatment with ivermectin and hydrochloroquine, shot them up with the poison Pfizer drug remsdivir, and destroyed their lungs with intubation. It was murder plain and simple. How a pacifist like you can shill for big pharma in any way, shape or form is beyond me. Why don’t you find the upside of gas chambers while your at it?
My understanding is that a person is considered unvaxxed until 2 weeks after their most recent shot. So if a person were to die within that 2 week period they go into the unvaxxed group. Not sure how much difference this makes on a large scale. I have listened to Ed Dowd a lot and his statistics show results that can hardly be argued with., but those who got the shots don't want to look at the facts even when they are affected or someone close to them is.
I would love to see a retrospective (?) study done. The "treatment" group is citizens who actually have one or more records of injection by a Covid-19 "vaccine". These would be followed for incidence of illness or deaths. The "control" would be a comparable group for a time period ending before the pandemic [likely] started. The information this study would need is surely available in many jurisdictions. Probably millions of "test subjects" could be used. Such a study could be done simply by accessing and analyzing records. But I doubt it'll ever be done. I think we can think of many reasons why that'd be the case.
[The following are based on my scant reading; I’m assuming these statements generally true, but I could be in error.]
It is well known that with vaccines (the earlier types) that severe adverse effects tend to occur very soon after and become less frequent as time passes. E.g. the first few minutes, hours, days. I agree with many critics who say it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that those who take an experimental jab are “unvaccinated” for two weeks (or more).
However, in defense of Pharma, they stipulate that full effect is not for two weeks (or whatever) after the injection(s).
Nevertheless, the deliberate calling of the just-injected group as “unvaccinated” is, I concur, a fraud.
Lies ,damn lies, and ONS statistics!