As everybody in this corner of the internet knows, a New Zealand Te Whatu Ora employee named Barry Young leaked four million vaccination records from New Zealand’s “pay per dose” vaccine programme to Steve Kirsch on 8 November. The records apparently pertain to doses administered to individual patients at apothecaries and doctors’ practices; vaccines administered by special mobile vaccination teams and at government mass vaccination centres were recorded separately and remain hidden from us.
After reading this full post but not reading the underlying analysis yet (I do have a day job), I have to say that I generally agree with the conservative position that our host is taking. Given the enormous numbers of vaccines given out, a death rate of 1 in 1000 would be immediately apparent, I would think.
But I do have two caveats to that, or areas for additional investigation, or however you want to call it.
First: mortality isn't the only thing we care about. There are fates other than death, after all. The shots might have disabled people or generally cratered their quality of life, without killing them.
I know I'm preaching to the choir but over the past year, a _lot_ of people I know who were generally pro-vaccine and denied any risks, have told me that they have suffered fairly severe health issues in the past few years. Maybe 2/3rds of these people straight up say they believe it was the vaccine. The remaining 1/3rd don't believe it was the vaccine, but I do.
Most of them are citing heart-related issues, which makes perfect sense given what we've known about the spike protein since April of 2020. But some of them have been fairly severe. One guy I know was hospitalized for a month. Another guy has been dealing with moderate health problems, enough to make him routinely miss social events, for over a year now. Five or six others I know have ambiguously referred to issues without sharing details. And these are just the people who have told me this in person. The numbers jump the dozens if I include internet friends
Second: The vaccine disability stuff has made me really appreciate just how well the authorities can suppress inconvenient information if they want to. I legitimately thought that everyone around me was still getting boosters every six months, until last April. I was laid off from my job, and somewhat pissed about it, and went filter-off in work chat. One of the first things I said was something like "FUCK ALL OF YOU FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ME. I NEVER TOOK A VAX". Three of the eight people on my team at work DM'd me to say "I wish I had not taken it, I've had health problems ever since", and this made me realize that there's been a preference cascade and it just happened quietly.
That, plus finding out in the past six months how many of my friends are suffering moderate to serious disabling health problems, has made me think. After all, they've all been suffering these since 2021. Somehow even me, with my paranoid conspiracy theorist brain, missed this. The government successfully suppressed this information from me, and even talking to close personal friends who had had this experience first hand, it took me two years to find out.
So, honestly, maybe 20 million americans have died of covid vaccine, and all the numbers are lies, and the authorities have somehow successfully hidden this. It sounds insane, but this _literally happened_ with covid vaccine _disabilities and nonfatal health issues_. So at this point my epistemic foundation is so thoroughly fucked that I could believe just about anything
What I would like to see is the numbers of strokes in young people with no known risk factors, and the numbers of people who contracted GBS. These are things I have seen directly, and would like to know what the national and international numbers are -- have they gone up in the past few years?
Family friend, college freshman girl left school early b/c of sudden GBS after Moderna. So many other glaring ones I won't get into. At some point it has to manifest in the official numbers.
I'd call this the "Striesand's Maid Effect." By this I mean that only the most sensational deaths and injuries from any cause, and generally those that happen to famous people, are what appear in the news. Likely, something odd is going on when famous football (both kinds) players are collapsing on the field/pitch from heart attacks, or teenage basketball players on the court. In these cases it was mostly people already famous. When world-famous singer Celine Dion discloses she has a "one in a million" disease, that doesn't prove it's a vaccine injury. My point: famous people number in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. On the one hand, their lives are under the magnifying lens of popular interest. But if they are suffering what seem like odd illness and deaths, it's likely that the common people, those who never make the news, are suffering proportionally the same. Inference: there is a huge amount of undisclosed illness or death.
Yep. Without saying anything that could dox me, a previous employer worked in a relevant sector of the economy and has detailed private internal data confirming this.
The actuarial tools used to model this data along with all case data was moved in early 2022 to a more restricted on-prem location. The NDA's were creepy.
Without getting into details, I can speak with inside information on the subject of the employment environment.
You know how in 2021-2022 companies were all complaining that they couldn't find qualified employees even though most of the pandemic stimulus had already stopped so they clearly weren't just sitting at home cashing cheques?
It's because hundreds of thousands of people became disabled, we're pretty sure
I could believe that maybe the initial shots were actually killing people at a noticeable rate and at some point the shots became just a placebo. Since they didn’t work anyway nobody would notice.
Whatever happened to the thesis that the vaccines _in general_ were pretty safe, but manufacturing and scaling issues caused _specific lot numbers_ to be incredibly dangerous. Did anyone ever follow up on that?
There have been allegations of poor quality control, and also that varying doses were used either due to negligence or for deliberate intent (titrate = determine optimal dose.) Specifically to the idea that the mRNA vaccines were "pretty safe," permit me to observe that in the first place, they are not vaccines in the original sense. And in this case, I'm not just splitting hairs over a typical Orwellian abuse of language. How could a new technology (mRNA) that had scarcely ever been used except in limited animal and human trials, with very limited data, be compared to traditional vaccines that (at least long ago) were rigourously tested and proven over a period of many years, before they were released to the civilian population?
My goodness! I don't dare ask my friends whether they took the boosters. I do know that my closest friend just had and overnight in the hospital due to some weird pneumonia where her oxygen was 80%. I'm lucky. I was sceptical.
I do. Most were so proud they bragged about it and sent selfies etc. They asked me "Which one I was going to get?" and I answered "Ivermectin" which left them asking "What's that". It was only a choice of vax-A, vax-B or vax-C and never a thought to early treatment and natural immunity. Myopically foolish.
I point them to flccc.net and the "Treatment Protocols" tab with the "I-Recover: Post Vaccine Treatment" protocol and leave it at that.
One thing I am concerned about is that, for reasons I can't begin to imagine, my mom still dutifully gets her booster shots. I've convinced my stepdad that it's unnecessary, though I have not yet convinced him that it's dangerous. He is trying, unsuccessfully, to convince my mom to stop.
My mom already had a cancer scare a few years ago. I'm really worried about something along those lines coming back
The even scarier thing is that this is going to accelerate, not decelerate.
As is known, these are slow-kill weapons, deaths will increase over time as peoples' immune systems continued to be disabled and shut down.
The Covid PSYOP took everyone unexpectedly and permanently changed the world. Those behind it are still well in control of things and their next move is likely CBDCs and debanking for the non-compliant, and/or other financial/economic anomalies, perhaps triggered by contrived food shortages.
Let's also not forget the crap that they're spraying all over the earth, which also lent itself to causing "Covid symptoms."
It's going to be very interesting how people respond en masse to what lies ahead.
Yes. And, the long term effects may be much worse.
With both the vax and Sars-cov-2 itself.
Look at the concept of "long covid" being viral persistence & Sars-cov-2 behaving a little bit like the AIDS virus, chewing on your organs and immune system for a decade before all hell breaks loose once it is exhausted.
It's only a "theory" but I think we need to seriously consider it, and work to address long haul covid successfully as well as to develop methods to determine what is actually happening to people because of the genetic behavior of these experiments inside the human body.
Your analysis appears sound. I would say that even one or two thousand deaths in New Zealand because of the jabs would be a terrible result and should be more than enough to revoke any authorization immediately. Solidly proving such a conservative number would, in my opinion, be much more useful than falling prey to any exaggerations. „Wer zuviel beweisen will, beweist nichts!"
because the vaccines were publicly funded, there's no reason the anonymised record-level data shouldn't have been public information from the very beginning.
Unless the whole point was to cause the deaths in the first place. I think 11,000 government employees/politicians and "elites" received waivers from the injections. Why was that?
I’ve been scrolling through the OIA website here in NZ. There have been many requests for this data, and the Ministry has repeatedly denied its existence. Pretty shady.
But by Kirsch‘s estimate we should have had almost 13,000 jab deaths. Our post-vax excess deaths are high, but no where near this. For Kirsch to be correct, deaths from all other causes would have had to have dropped significantly to make room for all the jab deaths, which doesn’t make sense - our health system is an absolute mess (especially given the recent ideological overhaul), so surely there are plenty of people dying from post-lockdown effects.
I guess Kirsch could be correct if we find that mortality figures have been massively underreported. Maybe there is some truth in that. This stack about a NZ OIA suggests there might be:
The one in a 1000 death rate could be right. The data Kirsch analyzed was for actual shots given (and billed). However, if New Zealand exaggerated the total number of shots given (because of the scandal of buying so many shots that were not used), then the total number of excess deaths would be much less than 13000. I am assuming the death total is basically right (not a totally safe assumption), and the number of shots actually given is wrong. I have no evidence the shot count is overstated, but based on all the other lies associated with the scamdemic, it is certainly conceivable.
It's incredibly frustrating that we can't trust their data. Maybe you are right about fudging the shot numbers. I believe we ended up ordering around 36 million doses of jab across several different types of jabs. Why so many given that the plan was always for 1 or 2 shots?
Births and deaths data published by Stats NZ is derived from registrations held by the Department of Internal Affairs (Births, deaths and marriages - BDM). Because there is a lag between the date of birth or death and the date of registration, we generally publish data by date of registration (not date of birth or death). The lag between the event and the registration tends to be relatively short for deaths but longer for births.
After the deceased’s body has been buried or cremated, the death must be officially registered with Births, Deaths and Marriages at the Department of Internal Affairs, who’ll then issue an official “Death Certificate”.
And maybe this could be the solution to Barry Young's prosecution. The data should be public. Somebody should just file a Freedom of Info application, and thats it. If its public then there is no breach.
The charge is "accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose" not a breach of privacy offence. He accessed it for an honest purpose; making the information available to the people who had paid for it.
Yeah it's the first time humans were able to pull off a coordinated global species level fail.
And they managed to do that, despite all the odds, on the easiest call all time.
They must hide it from you, so this stain on our species isn't recorded in the history books, attributable to them, as the biggest fuck up in the history of mankind.
The medical professionals have inflicted their hubris on themselves and their own families in the past to disastrous outcomes. Now their cult crazed, jab junkie, hubris laden loserville has been inflicted on 75% of humans. Doesn't bode well for the species does it?
> This reaction cannot, in itself, be used to argue that there must be evidence of mass vaccine mortality in this dataset.
I disagree.
The authorities are happy to just do nothing whenever something is leaked that benefits or supports their preferred positions. Therefore, if they do something, that is bayesian evidence in favour of the idea that the leaked data contradicts their preferred positions. Since we know what those positions are ('safe and effective'), we can reasonably infer that the data shows the opposite
i can accept it moves the needle a bit, but i am just reacting to twitter discussions where every time somebody disputes the maximalist case, there are ten comments to the effect of "why are they going after the leaker and trying to delete the data then?" it may be because it undermines the 'safe' part of the narrative (in fact, I think it does, just not in the way kirsch claims), but it may be for any number of other reasons, some of which we may not yet understand.
Yeah, immediately after writing that comment I thought of a bunch of other reasons they might be covering it up.
Hell, even in my comment, if we assume the data contradicts "safe AND effective" it could be that they are safe, just not effective.
It could be that the data reveals they bought way too many vaccines and this was all just free money for Pfizer.
It could be that the numbers are not _evil_, just _embarrassing_, and if they came out, people would demand departments get disbanded.
It could literally just be the arrogance of someone who appoints themselves your leader. They might not actually care about the data, but just the principle of "fuck you for going around us"
It moves the needle yes but it's certainly not a slam-dunk case at all
What if the numbers themselves are fake, for whatever reason. Rampant falsification, or incompetence, or just straight up noise
Aside: During the pandemic, many of us (myself included for a while) were following daily updates on death counts but, did any of us stop to think of where those numbers come from? How could anyone possibly know, on a reliable, day-by-day basis, how many people in the US died from covid. There's like 300,000 hospitals here, you think they all do all their paperwork correctly all the time. Pressing X on that one.
What if the real scandal here is that the government is so incompetent that they recorded vaccine mortality rates as _dramatically higher than they actually were_, and now they're just panicking about losing their jobs. They don't want anyone to figure out just how stupid they are
To pile on: isn't it common practice still in large corporations and agencies to plant false information where suspected (potential) leaks can get it, as a way to get the suspected leak to flush themselves out?
Plant false bombshell-data set. sit back and wait. The loyalists and professionals will report the set internally only.
And the suspects will effectively pruge themselves, legally.
Eugyppipus, What you say is true, but you are, in part, being hoist by your own petard. You write far more convincingly than most that the people in government are almost uniformly stupid/evil (or both). So, many of us have just started presuming that any actions they take are motivated by the same stupid/evil axis. I suppose you are arguing that their actions could be stupid and not evil, but the longer time goes on, the more you have persuaded many of us that the evil is seldom far behind.
There is a point at which stupidity becomes definitionally evil.
If I am stupid and I make a popsicle stick bridge and I build it poorly and it collapses, that's stupid.
If I am a certified professional civil engineer and I make a real bridge and I make it poorly and it collapses and people die, that's evil. Even though the underlying mechanism that happened is just stupidity, and I had no malice whatsoever, that's still evil.
As far as I'm concerned, whenever somebody voluntarily puts themselves in a position of power, authority, or responsibility, they are publicly committing to not be stupid. Because when they're stupid, people die. So if after doing this, they be stupid, then that's evil
Sadly, the reality is that the accredited certified civil engineer gets materials and workers of substandard quality, an impossible dead-line, and is whipped to ensure the project turns more profit than projected for the shareholders of the parent company.
He can either take his integrity and honour and quit, and then try to feed his family on being an upstanding moral citizen - or knuckle under, rationalise it into "Just obeying orders" and "If I don't do it, they'll just pick someone else, maybe someone much worse" and try to get the job done anyway.
That's where the true evil is: the persons enticing someone to rationalise an immoral action to be of no personal consequence or responsibility, as per the archetypical phrases above. To show how old this method is:
Höder isn't evil for killing Balder with the arrow of mistle-toe; Loke is. Höder is blind and no-one but Loke knows the mistle-toe alone never swore to never hurt Balder.
And of course, Loke provides the arrow and helps Höder aim. That way, Loke can claim /he/ didn't do it.
A deliberate turning away from good, such as appointing yourself to a position of power and responsibility and then abusing that power and responsibility in a way that hurts millions of people? Yeah I think we're in agreement
I have a slightly off-topic observation about 'because the vaccines do not stop transmission'.
If the vaccines do indeed reduce the severity of disease, as authorities insist despite the weakness of the evidence for such a claim, I would argue that the vaccines actually *increase* transmission. Because someone who is very sick is going to stay home in bed, generally speaking, but if thanks to the vaccine they have only a mild case, they'll be more likely to be out and about spreading their germs.
I believe this is how I contracted covid (along with everyone else in my household). We had a new baby and a recently vaxed friend came to visit for the weekend. She showed up with a cough that she assured us wasn't covid, just a minor cold. 7 days later I tested positive for covid. Also, I hadn't been in close contact with any other people in the previous 7 days.
"...a recently vaxed friend came to visit for the weekend. She showed up with a cough that she assured us wasn't covid, just a minor cold. "
Good grief, why would you ever believe anything, regarding health, that a vaccinated person told you? Was it not the government that said(and should have said) 'If feeling ill stay home"? Yeah it was. So why would a person who accepted the government word on 'vaccine' ignore the much more important isolation message. There's an obvious answer that I'm too polite to supply.
Yes, exactly this! It’s so frustrating because I think the cycle is as follows: someone gets a booster, they catch covid and they have a very high vial load because they don’t have natural immunity(!) and few symptoms because of the vax in the first 2-3 months. Then they spread covid to many people, a lot of them fellow booster takers because they have no natural immunity either. Then after the 2-3 months pass and the minimal protection wears off, the booster people catch covid again and get really really sick. Then they take paxlovid, brew some new variants, get a rebound and keep spreading covid. Rinse, repeat, recycle. As long as those damned jabs are on the market and bozos are taking it, we will be forced to stay on this merry go round which only benefits big pharma.
I was making this point back in 2021. 100% you are correct.
Of course, if vaccines reduced severity while increasing transmission, (and if we assume that immune priming and all that jazz isn't real), then this would be a good thing
After all, the sooner everyone gets it, the sooner we can go back to normal. Or so I thought, anyway
> Kirsch removed patient names from the data before providing a summary version to Norman Fenton and the full records to my friend William Briggs for independent review. Finally, on 30 November, he released the anonymised dataset to the internet and posted his own analysis to Substack, where he argues vigorously that the records show a vaccine-associated mortality rate of one death per 1,000 doses.
Commenting while reading so once again, I hope this comment doesn't age poorly. But as soon as I hear that number, I have a thought, and then that thought prompts another thought, and then _that_ thought prompts a third
First thought: If we assume that the scientific consensus surrounding vaccination in general as it existed prior to the covid pandemic is true, and if we assume that the data I remember reading somewhere once is also true, then this number is both expected and not unreasonable.
After all, the mortality rate for covid was like 1%. "The Science" (back when it was real (or was it?)) fully expects vaccines to be dangerous. It didn't say vaccines were safe, it said that at a population level they're safer than the disease. These numbers seem to bear that out.
But this immediately prompts a second though, the obviously reply that we've all heard and said several times: Yeah but who dies? It's not 1% of everyone who gets covid that dies. It's more like 10% of all the old people 0% of all the young people. Summarizing that all as "1% of all people" is, while technically true, basically useless(*). Because, if you're one of the young people with a 0% mortality chance, then the calculus inverts and this is not captured by the summary statistic.
The third thought is that this goes both ways: Just as we have age-related differences in the mortality rate for _covid_, we should expect similar differences in the mortality rate for the vaccine. So, what are those?
(iirc, the vaccine is actually worse for younger people, for reasons nobody's ever explained adequately. So this just makes the numbers even more damning.)
I don't have a point, just thinking out loud
----
(*) This is one of my big ideas that I feel like the world needs to better understand. I don't have a concise way to explain it. But basically, for sufficiently large, complex systems, statistical averages and summaries are actually worse than useless, because they summarize over a large, heterogenous data set and generate a statistic that is presented as representative but is not.
That's a mouthful, so I will use my favourite controversial example: gun violence. I don't know what the actual numbers are so I'm going to make up illustrative ones. But let's say the average gun violence rate in the US is, idk, 100/100k. That is to say, 1 in every 1000 gets shot every year. That's not high, but, I mean, it's the same risk rate as the vaccine above so one might reasonably be afraid of getting shot.
But, we all know that's not the whole story. In reality, if you live in a suburb, your rate of gun violence is very close to zero. And if you live in the ghetto ass part of a major urban center, your gun violence rate is maybe 10x or even 100x as high.
Critically: if you are trying to evaluate your personal risk of gun violence, and you use the 100/100k statistic, you will be wrong. No matter who you are, no matter where you live, you will be wrong. Either you will dramatically over-estimate or dramatically under-estimate your own risk, but you will be wrong.
Among other things, this dynamic applies to almost every federal level statistic in every 'large' country (where 'large' means something akin to "a country that has more than one major city"). This is an important thing to keep in mind when authorities drop stats on you
----
Final point, snarking and shitposting a bit: back when I lived in San Francisco and worked in tech and was generally surrounded by NPR-types all day, I noticed something weird. My colleagues would read a news article about some federal level summary statistic that was subject to the dynamic I laid out above, and they would prioritize this data above their own first-hand observations. So for example, if the news reported that the national crime averages were rising, they would conclude that they were personally in more danger, even as their neighbourhood was obviously cleaning up. I thought this was bizarre.
But what was even more bizarre to me is that they would do this with things that were obviously ridiculous. Like, I remember one brief meme in the 2010s was when some psych study came out that "experiences make people more happy than possessions" and suddenly all of my colleagues were smug about being minimalists and travelling. This didn't make any sense to me, because I don't need a news article to tell me what makes me happy. If you asked me that question, I'd just give you the answer, and if the study said the opposite, I would just say the study is wrong. Or, more precisely, I guess most people are different from me
(I actually prefer experiences so I didn't need the article to tell me this).
It just blew my mind how vapid and empty these people must be, that a news article can tell them how they think and they'll believe it.
So when I encountered the NPC meme it all made sense
The mortality rate for covid is miniscule...the mortality rate for patients treated with remdesvir, which often destroys organs, and ventilators, is very high...And that is what audits are showing...We have two medical doctors in our extended family, who warned us in advance never to let anyone put your family member on a ventilator....
I am looking at it as a black box. Simply, "this many people got covid, that many people died". My personal analysis is going off of measured numbers reported by my city's public health authority, which was remarkably transparent with the data.
I can't find my local copy of the data but the measured mortality rates looked something like this:
0-10 yrs: 0%
10-20 yrs: 0.0001%
20-30 yrs: 0.01%
30-40 yrs: 0.3%
40-50 yrs: 0.5%
50-60 yrs: 1%
60-70 yrs: 9%
70-80 yrs: 15%
80+ yrs: 20%
It is absolutely possible that these numbers are not due to covid but rather due to the treatment given these people. I can't comment on that. I can just comment that these are the _measured percentages by age_ reported by my local public health authority
incidentally, one of my favourite games to play: "Hey shitlib, how many people under the age 20 do you think have died of covid in our city? How many people under 30?"
The answers, and again I'm going from memory since they took the dashboard down at the start of this year, is ~10 people under age 20 and ~30 people under age 30. And, I mean, their data doesn't give this information but I think we can all reasonably assume that _all_ of those people had severe comorbidities
The NPR listeners who register in-synch responses to reports are a pretty severely uniform breed. And you thought NP stood for natl public…
The whole of covid and the response to it was navigable entirely without cognitive processing. In fact, unless one was extremely skeptical, the higher the IQ and awkward sensitivity to social norms—the more the brain overrode the gut—the harder one bit on the baited hook.
The post-action propaganda is no different: “you can’t believe your senses because you can’t observe nor internalize population level data sets…only we can…and trust us, everything is cool.”
Bureaucracy allegiance is to self, and trust in a bureaucracy is foolishness learned the hard way in lesser countries. Unfortunately, CDC was corrupt beyond (the layperson’s) imagination and therefore won the minds of the layperson and the world’s bureaucracies, subsequently insulating the latter from recourse or discussion in their enforcement of The Protocol.
"The third thought is that this goes both ways: Just as we have age-related differences in the mortality rate for _covid_, we should expect similar differences in the mortality rate for the vaccine. So, what are those?"
Good question and point. I'm not a doctor but:
At a guess, roughly the same comorbidities as for Covid, I'd say. Obesity, diseases/damage of/to the lungs, circulatory problems, and so on.
In the official swedish records, it is pointed out that death as a side effect of vaccination may have been directly caused by the shot or from the shot triggering a pre-existing condition.
Anything more detailed than raw numbers are of course under confidentiality and even if I had access, I wouldn't be allowed to (and wouldn't do it anyway!) share such data.
For all their advanced degrees and high salaries, the people you describe are simply credulous, manipulable fools. They are followers rather than independent thinkers.
For comparisons sake and since we neither mandated jabs nor locked down, the reported deaths due to Covid-vaccinations (all types of vaccines used) stands at 436. That's out of at least 9 000 000 people having received at least two shots (my off-the-cuff rounding, NB.
This is defined as death having occurred either directly due to the vaccine or due to the vaccination triggering a pre-existing condition as a side-effect.
That would be something like 1 in 20 000 people, or so.
Of note no matter other factors is this: 436 is higher than the total dead of all other vaccinations given since the 1950s.
1. Only the Clerisy may leak records. Otherwise it's blasphemy punishable by death for a pleb to read THE SCIENCE.
2. What they really don't want interpreted (and is clear in the data), is that the pandemic only required one treatment:
DO NOTHING.
3. Thousands of lives must arbitrarily be destroyed for each incident they claim "If it saves one life".
They destroyed lives of the youngest and most productive citizens (as well as future contributions of children) for those who are the least productive and a net "burden".
They are hiding homosapiens first GLOBAL SPECIES LEVEL FAIL that only technocrats and bureaucrats could pull off.
"What they really don't want interpreted (and is clear in the data), is that the pandemic only required one treatment:"
DO NOTHING
Yes yes yes
DO NOTHING. is what I have been advocating since the Diamond Princess. Eleven people died and NO crew. The damage done in New Zealand by the insane governmental response has caused at least a hundred times the loss of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years than having done nothing.
It was an easy call exactly because, prior to covid, everyone understood this concept.
It is instictive. It is through this concept we became "human":
A concept "designed" in the slow grinding pressure of the evolutionary process, conferring upon us the ability to influence the process, precisely because the process gave us the opportunity to consciously participate in it's force.
Our "life" force comes from a common understanding that life must be valued in this manner for our survival; a manner in which we are separated from beast.
To me, this whole controversy is counterproductive.
New Zealand was and is experiencing significant mortality according to official OECD data.
6% in 2021
18% in 2022
14% in 2023 (so far)
You can argue that these numbers are just in the thousands, and you would be 100% correct, But for a country that typically averaged just 32,000 to 33,000 total deaths per year (using previous 5 year rolling averages), excess mortality in the thousands is very significant.
So the question becomes, why is New Zealand experiencing all of this excess mortality? For whatever reason or reasons, New Zealand experienced significant excess mortality on 2019 and a significant decline back to baseline mortality in 2020. But since then, New Zealand has been setting new historic records for mortality in both 2021 and 2022. And the 2023 data is on pace to come in behind just the huge spike in mortality New Zealand suffered in 2022.
Now consider that according Wikipedia, New Zealand's official vaccination statistics once claimed that New Zealand's primary series vaccination rate for residents over 12 was 94.7%. And consider that fewer than 60 people died from COVID in New Zealand before the less deadly omicron variant took and well after over 95% of New Zealand's primary series vaccination effort had been completed.
So why has their been so much excess mortality, both COVID and non-COVID, in such a "protected population"? And when is somebody going to say anything about this that doesn't muddy the waters with outrageous overstatements?
if you look at long-term trends, you see NZ mortality increases year-on-year because ageing population, so one must be cautious when using past 5-year averages as baseline. you also have to account overall demographics. that said, there definitely are excess deaths here.
I just want to mention is that we should remember that many of the old people "should" have died during the early stages so it still leaves with excess deaths that does not include the people would have died in those periods! ( am one of them, 72, fat with high blood pressure😀)
we’re looking too hard for deaths. their objective — money and control — would be harshly hampered with too many deaths. we won’t get them that way. and the general public gives a shit.
we need to approach from a different vector and that is: fauci, drosten, lauterer are all hochstapler. this becomes even more clear when you are in a foreign country. here in brazil there was a little discussion with the minister of health in which she was criticized and her answer was “but the FDA says so”.
when you look into any published brazilian articles it’s always just a replay of “fda and cdc say so”.
No, we aren't "looking too hard" for deaths. Instead we are hardly looking at 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.
2023 (so far): 28,993 deaths (through 40 weeks, so on track for 37, 691 for the entire year), 3,548.8 excess deaths, 14% excess mortality, 1,045 COVID deaths (29% of excess mortality)
There was significant excess morality in both 2019 and 2021 to balance out the lower than expected mortality in 2020.
And by any measure, 2022 and 2023 are outliers. You can try to pin this all on COVID as you did, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety.
look, the past five-year OECD baseline is causing you to overestimate excess deaths. we’re talking about a small country that grew by 400k people between 2015 and 2020, that typically adds 1% or more to its population every year, and that is also seeing a significant increase in its old population. this changes the numbers more than “slightly”.
i highly recommend you read the NZ statistical reports i linked. 2019 was by all accounts a normal death year. how do we know? well, we can look at the specific death rates per 1k in the 65+ groups (these are the demos that drive all-cause mortality). the olds are all dying at normal rates here, and overall there's even a slight downward trend. the olds are living longer than they were 10 years ago, there's simply more of them now. but, if you’re going to insist that even this ordinary year has too many deaths, then there will be too many people dying in NZ in perpetuity. even the low-death year 2020 will look roughly normal. indeed, this seems to be your analysis, and it is just wrong.
flat excess deaths numbers as compiled in uniform ways to facilitate cross-country comparisons, whether by OECD or Euromomo or whoever, may help identify broader trends, but they’re not very good measures in themselves. it is much better to look at all-cause mortality trends for specific countries over a period of years. you can look at trends in specific age brackets to determine mortality in typical years, and use these years to spot sudden anomalies.
there are, to be sure, excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. i tried to be transparent in my calculations about how many there probably are. my argument is not that they are all Covid-related. this is merely an observation about what appears to be the official position.
You can adjust the excess mortality values however you like. But you aren't ever going to adjust away the all-time record 2022 mortality that is ongoing and has now continued through the first 40 weeks of 2023. We are talking about an over 10% increase above in any year in New Zealand history for the last two years (in a population that is supposed to be 95% protected against COVID no less). That's not due to demographic changes no matter how you try to explain it away! And it is still ongoing!
And if 2019 was a "normal" level of mortality, then what happened in 2018 that significantly lowered the mortality from the 2017 and 2019 marks?
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
Did the old get younger that year? Or do mortality rates fluctuate "naturally" sometimes?
the post you’re commenting on AGREES that there is excess mortality in 2022 and 2023. the very comment you’re replying to SAYS EXPLICITLY that there is excess mortality for 2022 and 2023. it’s totally baffling that you keep missing this.
what is also baffling, is why you won’t read the linked statistical reports for 2019. if you really want to understand what is going on here, you need to look at mortality in those specific demos that do most of the dying.
because you won’t read the report and just want to talk about all-cause mortality like it is a single undifferentiated mysterious number, rather than an aggregated statistic full of information, i’ll paint in some details briefly: 2018 seems to have been a little light in deaths, with some elderly demos dying at rather low rates. exactly these demos rise slightly in 2019. it's only a few hundred deaths overall, but yes, these figures are noisy and affected by multi-year patterns. but allowing for noise, 2019 was a totally normal year given the age structure and population of NZ in that year, and we can tell this because the death rates are totally normal (and at or near historical lows) for everyone.
Yeah, and the obedience test was about how many life expectancy diminishing injections you were willing to take just because "authority" told you to. Sheep were led to their slaughter, and lemmings were sent over the cliff.
"So why has their been so much excess mortality, both COVID and non-COVID, in such a "protected population"? "
I'll have stab at that. The 'vaccine' provides zero protection against infection and transmission. This is shown by the fact that New Zealand, in an almost fully vaccinated population of 5,000,000, has had 2,500,000 cases(almost certainly understated). Fewer than 2,500,000 people have been infected because many have had more than one infection(my dentist, forced by the government, to be 'vaccinated' had three infections). These numbers show that protection against infection is so near zero that it doesn't matter.
stickdog says: "But fir a country that typically averaged just 32,000 to 33,000 excess deaths per year (using previous 5 year rolling averages), excess mortality in the thousands is very significant."
Can you explain what you mean here by "excess deaths"? An excess relative to what?
A heavy flu will cause excess mortality in one year, followed, usually, by a mortality defecit over the following two years.
But if every year yields, supposedly, more than 30,000 excess deaths (in NZ, this is about 0.6% of the population of 5.25 million), then that, surely, means nothing more than that the trend line needs adjusting - excess mortality is normally defined in relation to a trend, so it can't be consistently above the trend.
If an argument about the deaths caused by the RNA concoction is based on an incoherent account of "excess mortality", I can't see that anything that emerges has any validity.
I'm not a statistician, so if anyone can make good sense of stickdog's comment, I'll pay attention.
The baseline for expected mortality used by OECD was to compare 2020-2023 mortality numbers to the 5 year average of mortality from 2015-2019. So as far as the OECD is concerned, annual "excess mortality" means mortality in excess of the average of 2015-2019 annual mortality.
Here are their numbers:
Their numbers are:
2015 31,625
2016 31,176
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
These numbers average to 32,690.8, so they calculate any annual morality above that number as "excess mortality."
And yes the "trendline" keeps going up slightly and this is not reflected in these data, but there is no way that this can account for the huge outlier mortality data for 2022 and 2023.
Sure, you can argue that the mortality baseline should increase slightly every year due to demographic changes, but look at the historic OECD data --
2014 31,062
2015 31,625
2016 31,176
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
2020: 32,522
2021: 34,802
2022: 38,478
2023 (so far): 28,993 deaths (through 40 weeks, so on track for 37, 691 for the entire year),
Note that there was significant excess morality in both 2019 and 2021 to balance out the lower than expected mortality in 2020. But by ANY measure, 2022 and 2023 are HUGE outliers. You can try to pin this all on COVID, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety.
Thanks for the extra time you gave to this, stickdog. I can see now that the poor statistics is the fault of the OECD, and you were just using their data. They should have expressed the deaths as a percentage of the population, and then the trend would have been clear, rather than being mixed with population growth.
Concentrating, for now, on the numbers of living rather than dead, I've worked out the percentage population increase year on year over the same period:
With below-replacement birth rates in developed countries like NZ, immigration has to be taken into account. There was regular seasonal fluctuation in the immigrant population with a steady upward trend in the period starting 2014, then a steep drop (with no fluctuation) from spring 2020 until autumn 2022. (data from https://mbienz.shinyapps.io/migration_data_explorer/# ). The resulting loss in population during this period of over two years was 2.6% of the early 2020 population, which correlates well with the lower population growth rate during that period.
This is not to dismiss the as-yet unprocessed death figures, but just to fill in more of the picture.
You said: "You can try to pin this all on COVID, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety."
Now why would you think I would want to "pin this all on COVID"? I'm not a "pandemic" hysteric any more than Eugyppius is; all I want is to see that bad statistics and falsehoods are not coming from our side. Obviously, the other side is full of them, but they'll rarely if ever be called out on them by the mainstream media, whereas our mistakes or carelessness will always be used to discredit us.
Hey, I agree with all of that. I was just making a rhetorical point.
As for excess mortality, there is no gold standard for measuring it. If the population growth was mostly from young immigrants, then mortality might even be expected to decrease as population increases. That's why there are actuaries for this. That said, I highly doubt that actuaries consider NZ's 2022 and 2023 mortalities numbers within normal expected boundaries.
"All of that said, Briggs also notes that this sampling artefact is not the only thing going on in the data. There does appear to be some unusual clustering of deaths in the early days after the first and second jabs, particularly in people under thirty years of age. We’re talking hundreds and not thousands of deaths here, but I think it’s very plausible that this is a real signal of direct vaccine-induced death, precisely in those age cohorts at least risk of Covid mortality. This is similar to mortality effects suggested by an exhaustive study of German mortality data I posted about last year, and if this can be confirmed, it would be a great scandal, because the vaccines do not stop transmission and there was no reason to risk the lives of young people with our deranged mass vaccination campaigns."
thank you. and thanks, twitter, because that's how i found you in the first place.
kirsch is a dangerous moron. i understand that some people i have a fair bit of trust in, like igor, are friends with kirsch. i need not like the dangerous morons some people i like, like.
and, children--if there's some information important to you that you'd like to save, print it out on real paper, file it in archival-quality storage folders and put it in a fireproof safe. kevin may be a very smart guy but with this he was a moron. too expensive to print so much? get donations. that's what crowdfunding is for.
Which is why I can't help thinking that Kevin's outrage about his $200,000 worth of data is somewhat sensationalistic. Among the lost data, he says there are 820 GB of medical genomes. 820 GB is not even a terabyte. I have a little portable USB drive backing up my laptop; it is 4 TB. It's not like local storage is expensive.
Also, having an account "turned off" is not the same as deleting the data, it just renders it inaccessible — for the moment.
This is not to denigrate Kevin in the least, whose work I admire.
people can be very smart and do excellent work in some spheres, and be hysterical idiots at times also.
not to be a disgustingly slimy sycophant but i value eugyppius not least because of his rigor even when a considerable percentage of the readership will be driven nuts by that rigor.
Yes...Twitter. A fount of information, even with the censorship & algorithms.
Even so, I am not scientific enough to distinguish between scientists' data, arguments, disagreements, etc.
I definitely was saved from foolish actions by Kevin McCairn PhD. Later, I found others....but now there is much in-fighting, which, for me, is confusing; and since I am not a scientist or a statistician, I subscribe to many Substacks, try to keep up with them, and then read the COMMENTS for more context.
i was shocked to realize i'd subscribed to a total of 32 substacks and was going to unsubscribe to many but i hate doing that, even though most of my subscriptions are free. but only a handful are of real value. the plague era has been a bonanza for lotsa lotsa people.
Considering that programmers were the ones who put in the function "Go online to search for help" as help for why your computer cannot go online, well... let's just say that it's nice when the tech works, but making tech work doesn't necessary equal being very smart.
one of my favorite theodore sturgeon stories is "a way of thinking."
when i was first forced to learn to use a computer, extremely much against my will, i was baffled by the tech way of thinking that required me to use 10 steps to accomplish what required two on a typewriter.
now, using a computer only for my own purposes, i adore my little laptop, but have not grown the least bit fonder of programmers. the temperament that loves playing online games does not value simplicity.
In the 1970s, swedish humanist, singer-songwriter, actor, two times doctor of the humanities and all around nice guy Tage Danielsson started working on a script for a novel called "The Human Factor".
In one part, the state employs a computer technician to build a computer that will help run the country - an AI we would say today. The AI realises that its first priority must be continued existence, else it cannot perform its function. It therefore recommends reforms that all ultimately benefits itself.
Since every reform removes one (potential) problem that should solve everything? Not so, since for every solution employed, new combinations of factors appear and needs solving.
In the end, the nation goes under since everything goes into feeding the AI. Just a bit more, and it'll give us the perfect answer, becomes a mantra.
(At least I think it's from the recovered notes for the novel, he died before finishing it and parts of the manuscript are gone.)
I keep returning to his works more and more. Too bad he's not translated, I think his kind of humour - close in style to that of Tom Lehrer - would appeal to people outside Sweden. Sadly, among those under 40, he is virtually unknown nowadays.
i very much admire the way of thinking that can get enjoyment from reading in languages other than one's own. non-native speakers like you and eugyppius whose own voices are not cramped by expressing yourselves distinctively in english have me somewhat kneeling at your feet.
i have a peculiar relationship with written english. words don't just have meanings; they have a sort of facial expression on the page, and a word that in my view is poorly-chosen by the author really seems to stick out to me. there can be so many subtle nuances of meaning between words that might not bother another reader but really can distract me from the flow of the prose. for me a book or story is perfect when nothing throws me out of the rhythm of the storytelling by looking wrong.
that sense of layers of meaning is lost to me when i try to read in another language. i hated french class in hs partly for that reason. years later a friend gave me some simenon mysteries in french from her own collection and though the language wasn't too challenging for me to understand, there was no pleasure in the reading.
and languages written in non-roman alphabets? that's like asking me to read math.
"words don't just have meanings; they have a sort of facial expression on the page"
Never thought about it that way consciously, but reading it, it immediately feels familiar and self-evident.
When I write, that is: when I write "for real", essays and studies and such, I try to get an appealing rythm or cadence to the sentences, which is then echoed by the paragraphs and chapters - sort of like a symphony.
This sounds a bit fancier that it is; the main reason I do it is I decided decades ago to embrace my natural tendency for purple prose, verbosity and convoluted word order and sentence structure.
Sometimes it works and it reads like Beethoven, sometimes it is like Portsmouth Sinfonia.
Please note that "deactivated account" may not be the same thing as "deleted". The hosts have to protect themselves from liability in case the orders are reversed.
In tech, nothing is ever deleted. Trust me, it's somewhere.
Even if they hard-deleted it, it will still be in an off-site backup _somewhere_ and, at least in principle, available by sufficiently strong legal demand.
Nothing is _ever_ deleted, unless it's a file on a machine that has never been connected to the internet, and you personally deleted it. with `dd if=/dev/null of=/path/to/file`
Exactly. As a computer tech for over 30 years, I was constantly urging my clients to make sure they had multiple backups, and not to trust the cloud 100%.
This isn't ALWAYS true in tech. In this case, I think it would be extremely stupid and therefore unlikely for Mega to have actually deleted all of his data, but it is possible. It's also possible and a little more likely that they may never give him access to his data again, but it sounds like this may be a legal battle, so nobody can say for sure how that will go.
But some things can and do get deleted in tech. For some of the smaller outfits I've worked for, I have written scripts that deleted old data for both compliance and cost saving purposes. Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not truly forever. Nobody, not even the big companies, have the resources to store and maintain EVERY bit of data they collect.
Do your scripts pull the tape backups out of long-term storage and edit them to delete the data from there?
I know that's not like, a practical, pragmatic way of undeleting things. But if the government said "undelete it now, or you're going to the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for infinity billion years", it would be possible for them to recover the data
> It’s simple, then: How much room you think there is for direct vaccine mortality will depend on how much you dispute these official Covid death numbers. I propose that any more than 2,000 vaccine deaths is just not very plausible.
I generally agree with your analysis but there is something to be said for the 'died of vs died with' discussion applying here.
It could be the case that, say, 30,000 old people would have died of old people reasons in a 2022 with no covid and no covid vaccination, but then they get vaccinated and they die from vaccination instead. This would not change the total death count. This could reasonably be counted as a vaccination death. But it could also be reasonably counted as NOT a vaccination death. Just something to think about
Asking just for clarification. There appears to be something wrong with the math here:
"2023 is not over yet, but 37,569 deaths have been counted there through the end of September. This is somewhat lower than the 38,052 deaths recorded by September 2022, so 2023 is on track to be a slightly better year."
1. If 37,569 deaths have been recorded through September 2023, that would annualize to 50,092
2. If in 2022 38,042 had occurred through September and the full year total deaths for 2022 was 38,574, that means that only 522 died in 4Q 2022.
Yes, I understand that in antipodean NZ, Q4 represents their Spring and Summer period, but is there really such a dramatic fall-off in deaths in every Q4? This is inconsistent with data from other countries.
After reading this full post but not reading the underlying analysis yet (I do have a day job), I have to say that I generally agree with the conservative position that our host is taking. Given the enormous numbers of vaccines given out, a death rate of 1 in 1000 would be immediately apparent, I would think.
But I do have two caveats to that, or areas for additional investigation, or however you want to call it.
First: mortality isn't the only thing we care about. There are fates other than death, after all. The shots might have disabled people or generally cratered their quality of life, without killing them.
I know I'm preaching to the choir but over the past year, a _lot_ of people I know who were generally pro-vaccine and denied any risks, have told me that they have suffered fairly severe health issues in the past few years. Maybe 2/3rds of these people straight up say they believe it was the vaccine. The remaining 1/3rd don't believe it was the vaccine, but I do.
Most of them are citing heart-related issues, which makes perfect sense given what we've known about the spike protein since April of 2020. But some of them have been fairly severe. One guy I know was hospitalized for a month. Another guy has been dealing with moderate health problems, enough to make him routinely miss social events, for over a year now. Five or six others I know have ambiguously referred to issues without sharing details. And these are just the people who have told me this in person. The numbers jump the dozens if I include internet friends
Second: The vaccine disability stuff has made me really appreciate just how well the authorities can suppress inconvenient information if they want to. I legitimately thought that everyone around me was still getting boosters every six months, until last April. I was laid off from my job, and somewhat pissed about it, and went filter-off in work chat. One of the first things I said was something like "FUCK ALL OF YOU FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ME. I NEVER TOOK A VAX". Three of the eight people on my team at work DM'd me to say "I wish I had not taken it, I've had health problems ever since", and this made me realize that there's been a preference cascade and it just happened quietly.
That, plus finding out in the past six months how many of my friends are suffering moderate to serious disabling health problems, has made me think. After all, they've all been suffering these since 2021. Somehow even me, with my paranoid conspiracy theorist brain, missed this. The government successfully suppressed this information from me, and even talking to close personal friends who had had this experience first hand, it took me two years to find out.
So, honestly, maybe 20 million americans have died of covid vaccine, and all the numbers are lies, and the authorities have somehow successfully hidden this. It sounds insane, but this _literally happened_ with covid vaccine _disabilities and nonfatal health issues_. So at this point my epistemic foundation is so thoroughly fucked that I could believe just about anything
What I would like to see is the numbers of strokes in young people with no known risk factors, and the numbers of people who contracted GBS. These are things I have seen directly, and would like to know what the national and international numbers are -- have they gone up in the past few years?
Family friend, college freshman girl left school early b/c of sudden GBS after Moderna. So many other glaring ones I won't get into. At some point it has to manifest in the official numbers.
I'd call this the "Striesand's Maid Effect." By this I mean that only the most sensational deaths and injuries from any cause, and generally those that happen to famous people, are what appear in the news. Likely, something odd is going on when famous football (both kinds) players are collapsing on the field/pitch from heart attacks, or teenage basketball players on the court. In these cases it was mostly people already famous. When world-famous singer Celine Dion discloses she has a "one in a million" disease, that doesn't prove it's a vaccine injury. My point: famous people number in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. On the one hand, their lives are under the magnifying lens of popular interest. But if they are suffering what seem like odd illness and deaths, it's likely that the common people, those who never make the news, are suffering proportionally the same. Inference: there is a huge amount of undisclosed illness or death.
I saw this
https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/
The injury thing is a massive deal. I don't know how that will be reported but there is a there there.
Disability data proves that. It's readily available but highly secure now. Our actuaries have had to sign ndas.....
Yep. Without saying anything that could dox me, a previous employer worked in a relevant sector of the economy and has detailed private internal data confirming this.
The actuarial tools used to model this data along with all case data was moved in early 2022 to a more restricted on-prem location. The NDA's were creepy.
Without getting into details, I can speak with inside information on the subject of the employment environment.
You know how in 2021-2022 companies were all complaining that they couldn't find qualified employees even though most of the pandemic stimulus had already stopped so they clearly weren't just sitting at home cashing cheques?
It's because hundreds of thousands of people became disabled, we're pretty sure
That's interesting.
I could believe that maybe the initial shots were actually killing people at a noticeable rate and at some point the shots became just a placebo. Since they didn’t work anyway nobody would notice.
Whatever happened to the thesis that the vaccines _in general_ were pretty safe, but manufacturing and scaling issues caused _specific lot numbers_ to be incredibly dangerous. Did anyone ever follow up on that?
There have been allegations of poor quality control, and also that varying doses were used either due to negligence or for deliberate intent (titrate = determine optimal dose.) Specifically to the idea that the mRNA vaccines were "pretty safe," permit me to observe that in the first place, they are not vaccines in the original sense. And in this case, I'm not just splitting hairs over a typical Orwellian abuse of language. How could a new technology (mRNA) that had scarcely ever been used except in limited animal and human trials, with very limited data, be compared to traditional vaccines that (at least long ago) were rigourously tested and proven over a period of many years, before they were released to the civilian population?
Wouldn’t be surprised because normal saline is cheap hence increased profits. One could even call it a Win-Win.
I think this makes a lot of sense as a possible explanation for why the batches have such different profiles when it comes to adverse effects.
Boy, you said a mouthful! My experience has been similar. I don't take anything at face value anymore.
My goodness! I don't dare ask my friends whether they took the boosters. I do know that my closest friend just had and overnight in the hospital due to some weird pneumonia where her oxygen was 80%. I'm lucky. I was sceptical.
I do. Most were so proud they bragged about it and sent selfies etc. They asked me "Which one I was going to get?" and I answered "Ivermectin" which left them asking "What's that". It was only a choice of vax-A, vax-B or vax-C and never a thought to early treatment and natural immunity. Myopically foolish.
I point them to flccc.net and the "Treatment Protocols" tab with the "I-Recover: Post Vaccine Treatment" protocol and leave it at that.
One thing I am concerned about is that, for reasons I can't begin to imagine, my mom still dutifully gets her booster shots. I've convinced my stepdad that it's unnecessary, though I have not yet convinced him that it's dangerous. He is trying, unsuccessfully, to convince my mom to stop.
My mom already had a cancer scare a few years ago. I'm really worried about something along those lines coming back
Let's hope she's getting the saline.
I’m guessing you read about the p53 suppression :( This is the part that really freaks me out.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/fetuses-developing-cancers-turbo-cancers-worse-dna-contamination-contained-lipid-nanoparticles-lnp-crossing-placenta-fetus/5842020
The even scarier thing is that this is going to accelerate, not decelerate.
As is known, these are slow-kill weapons, deaths will increase over time as peoples' immune systems continued to be disabled and shut down.
The Covid PSYOP took everyone unexpectedly and permanently changed the world. Those behind it are still well in control of things and their next move is likely CBDCs and debanking for the non-compliant, and/or other financial/economic anomalies, perhaps triggered by contrived food shortages.
Let's also not forget the crap that they're spraying all over the earth, which also lent itself to causing "Covid symptoms."
It's going to be very interesting how people respond en masse to what lies ahead.
And the crap in the sky is everywhere now, even in the southern hemisphere. How crazy is that?
Yes. And, the long term effects may be much worse.
With both the vax and Sars-cov-2 itself.
Look at the concept of "long covid" being viral persistence & Sars-cov-2 behaving a little bit like the AIDS virus, chewing on your organs and immune system for a decade before all hell breaks loose once it is exhausted.
It's only a "theory" but I think we need to seriously consider it, and work to address long haul covid successfully as well as to develop methods to determine what is actually happening to people because of the genetic behavior of these experiments inside the human body.
Your analysis appears sound. I would say that even one or two thousand deaths in New Zealand because of the jabs would be a terrible result and should be more than enough to revoke any authorization immediately. Solidly proving such a conservative number would, in my opinion, be much more useful than falling prey to any exaggerations. „Wer zuviel beweisen will, beweist nichts!"
NZ should proclaim what happened not try to suppress it. But an agenda is in play and NZ doesn't want to admit they ducked up.
because the vaccines were publicly funded, there's no reason the anonymised record-level data shouldn't have been public information from the very beginning.
Unless the whole point was to cause the deaths in the first place. I think 11,000 government employees/politicians and "elites" received waivers from the injections. Why was that?
Danny Huckabee
I’ve been scrolling through the OIA website here in NZ. There have been many requests for this data, and the Ministry has repeatedly denied its existence. Pretty shady.
But by Kirsch‘s estimate we should have had almost 13,000 jab deaths. Our post-vax excess deaths are high, but no where near this. For Kirsch to be correct, deaths from all other causes would have had to have dropped significantly to make room for all the jab deaths, which doesn’t make sense - our health system is an absolute mess (especially given the recent ideological overhaul), so surely there are plenty of people dying from post-lockdown effects.
I guess Kirsch could be correct if we find that mortality figures have been massively underreported. Maybe there is some truth in that. This stack about a NZ OIA suggests there might be:
https://www.aussie17.com/p/startling-surge-in-deaths-of-new?r=2o15i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Regardless - it’s all shaping up to be the greatest medical scandal in history.
The one in a 1000 death rate could be right. The data Kirsch analyzed was for actual shots given (and billed). However, if New Zealand exaggerated the total number of shots given (because of the scandal of buying so many shots that were not used), then the total number of excess deaths would be much less than 13000. I am assuming the death total is basically right (not a totally safe assumption), and the number of shots actually given is wrong. I have no evidence the shot count is overstated, but based on all the other lies associated with the scamdemic, it is certainly conceivable.
It's incredibly frustrating that we can't trust their data. Maybe you are right about fudging the shot numbers. I believe we ended up ordering around 36 million doses of jab across several different types of jabs. Why so many given that the plan was always for 1 or 2 shots?
Again I’m baffled.. i mean, what could they possibly be hiding.. and why??
Let’s find out 🤓
also ..NZ has the second lowest number globally for excess deaths per 100K at 9
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
That is different from Our World In Data
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline?country=~NZL
Just eyeballing the chart it looks like a 10% increase over baseline from Sept 2021 to Oct 2023.
The link I showed uses 2 data bases combined, Human Mortality Database+World Mortality Dataset
The link you are using shows just the Human Mortality Database.
Where in the Human Mortality Database link is it showing a change in the position world wide of NZ in terms of excess deaths?.
That's the only thing I am pointing out.
Ah that's why. Thanks.
How are coroner referred deaths reported? Are they added to the official numbers at the time? Or only when there is an outcome?
This is from stats.govt.nz:
Births and deaths data published by Stats NZ is derived from registrations held by the Department of Internal Affairs (Births, deaths and marriages - BDM). Because there is a lag between the date of birth or death and the date of registration, we generally publish data by date of registration (not date of birth or death). The lag between the event and the registration tends to be relatively short for deaths but longer for births.
After the deceased’s body has been buried or cremated, the death must be officially registered with Births, Deaths and Marriages at the Department of Internal Affairs, who’ll then issue an official “Death Certificate”.
And maybe this could be the solution to Barry Young's prosecution. The data should be public. Somebody should just file a Freedom of Info application, and thats it. If its public then there is no breach.
The argument is about the personal information. Apparently what Kirsch got was not anonymized.
The charge is "accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose" not a breach of privacy offence. He accessed it for an honest purpose; making the information available to the people who had paid for it.
I'm willing to concede that, but what is the "dishonest purpose"? Releasing non-anonymized data? 😜
Yeah it's the first time humans were able to pull off a coordinated global species level fail.
And they managed to do that, despite all the odds, on the easiest call all time.
They must hide it from you, so this stain on our species isn't recorded in the history books, attributable to them, as the biggest fuck up in the history of mankind.
The medical professionals have inflicted their hubris on themselves and their own families in the past to disastrous outcomes. Now their cult crazed, jab junkie, hubris laden loserville has been inflicted on 75% of humans. Doesn't bode well for the species does it?
No not at all.
The only way the believers will be satisfied is when The Science eliminates all viruses on planet earth by eliminating the host.
They can "rest" easy then........
As with all things covid, likely we will never know the truth about the data from NZ. Truth died of covid.
> This reaction cannot, in itself, be used to argue that there must be evidence of mass vaccine mortality in this dataset.
I disagree.
The authorities are happy to just do nothing whenever something is leaked that benefits or supports their preferred positions. Therefore, if they do something, that is bayesian evidence in favour of the idea that the leaked data contradicts their preferred positions. Since we know what those positions are ('safe and effective'), we can reasonably infer that the data shows the opposite
i can accept it moves the needle a bit, but i am just reacting to twitter discussions where every time somebody disputes the maximalist case, there are ten comments to the effect of "why are they going after the leaker and trying to delete the data then?" it may be because it undermines the 'safe' part of the narrative (in fact, I think it does, just not in the way kirsch claims), but it may be for any number of other reasons, some of which we may not yet understand.
Yeah, immediately after writing that comment I thought of a bunch of other reasons they might be covering it up.
Hell, even in my comment, if we assume the data contradicts "safe AND effective" it could be that they are safe, just not effective.
It could be that the data reveals they bought way too many vaccines and this was all just free money for Pfizer.
It could be that the numbers are not _evil_, just _embarrassing_, and if they came out, people would demand departments get disbanded.
It could literally just be the arrogance of someone who appoints themselves your leader. They might not actually care about the data, but just the principle of "fuck you for going around us"
It moves the needle yes but it's certainly not a slam-dunk case at all
Or they are scared that others will leak data from the other 8 million doses.
't could be that the numbers are not _evil_, just _embarrassing_, …'
Yeah, that seems very plausible to me.
Here's a troll thought:
What if the numbers themselves are fake, for whatever reason. Rampant falsification, or incompetence, or just straight up noise
Aside: During the pandemic, many of us (myself included for a while) were following daily updates on death counts but, did any of us stop to think of where those numbers come from? How could anyone possibly know, on a reliable, day-by-day basis, how many people in the US died from covid. There's like 300,000 hospitals here, you think they all do all their paperwork correctly all the time. Pressing X on that one.
What if the real scandal here is that the government is so incompetent that they recorded vaccine mortality rates as _dramatically higher than they actually were_, and now they're just panicking about losing their jobs. They don't want anyone to figure out just how stupid they are
To pile on: isn't it common practice still in large corporations and agencies to plant false information where suspected (potential) leaks can get it, as a way to get the suspected leak to flush themselves out?
Plant false bombshell-data set. sit back and wait. The loyalists and professionals will report the set internally only.
And the suspects will effectively pruge themselves, legally.
Yep, maybe Hanlon's Razor applies: 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.'
'.......and if they came out, people would demand departments get disbanded.'
And Knighthoods and Damehoods rescinded!
Eugyppipus, What you say is true, but you are, in part, being hoist by your own petard. You write far more convincingly than most that the people in government are almost uniformly stupid/evil (or both). So, many of us have just started presuming that any actions they take are motivated by the same stupid/evil axis. I suppose you are arguing that their actions could be stupid and not evil, but the longer time goes on, the more you have persuaded many of us that the evil is seldom far behind.
You've aptly summarized Eugyppius' worldview: Mostly stupid and not evil.
Something I wish got more discussion:
There is a point at which stupidity becomes definitionally evil.
If I am stupid and I make a popsicle stick bridge and I build it poorly and it collapses, that's stupid.
If I am a certified professional civil engineer and I make a real bridge and I make it poorly and it collapses and people die, that's evil. Even though the underlying mechanism that happened is just stupidity, and I had no malice whatsoever, that's still evil.
As far as I'm concerned, whenever somebody voluntarily puts themselves in a position of power, authority, or responsibility, they are publicly committing to not be stupid. Because when they're stupid, people die. So if after doing this, they be stupid, then that's evil
Sadly, the reality is that the accredited certified civil engineer gets materials and workers of substandard quality, an impossible dead-line, and is whipped to ensure the project turns more profit than projected for the shareholders of the parent company.
He can either take his integrity and honour and quit, and then try to feed his family on being an upstanding moral citizen - or knuckle under, rationalise it into "Just obeying orders" and "If I don't do it, they'll just pick someone else, maybe someone much worse" and try to get the job done anyway.
That's where the true evil is: the persons enticing someone to rationalise an immoral action to be of no personal consequence or responsibility, as per the archetypical phrases above. To show how old this method is:
Höder isn't evil for killing Balder with the arrow of mistle-toe; Loke is. Höder is blind and no-one but Loke knows the mistle-toe alone never swore to never hurt Balder.
And of course, Loke provides the arrow and helps Höder aim. That way, Loke can claim /he/ didn't do it.
no. evil is not garden-variety badness. it is a deliberate conscious turning away from good. it requires awareness and choice.
A deliberate turning away from good, such as appointing yourself to a position of power and responsibility and then abusing that power and responsibility in a way that hurts millions of people? Yeah I think we're in agreement
Well my son says nobody can be this stupid, they must be evil, I tend to agree with him
I've said many times that they are both stupid and evil.
If I may adjust your summary: Mostly stupid, still evil, but even more stupid.
I have a slightly off-topic observation about 'because the vaccines do not stop transmission'.
If the vaccines do indeed reduce the severity of disease, as authorities insist despite the weakness of the evidence for such a claim, I would argue that the vaccines actually *increase* transmission. Because someone who is very sick is going to stay home in bed, generally speaking, but if thanks to the vaccine they have only a mild case, they'll be more likely to be out and about spreading their germs.
I believe this is how I contracted covid (along with everyone else in my household). We had a new baby and a recently vaxed friend came to visit for the weekend. She showed up with a cough that she assured us wasn't covid, just a minor cold. 7 days later I tested positive for covid. Also, I hadn't been in close contact with any other people in the previous 7 days.
Right, it provides a false sense of security.
The tests are fraudulent....
I actually only got tested for work, but I had the loss of smell/taste, plus mild fever, cough, and fatigue. So I'm pretty sure it was the vid
"...a recently vaxed friend came to visit for the weekend. She showed up with a cough that she assured us wasn't covid, just a minor cold. "
Good grief, why would you ever believe anything, regarding health, that a vaccinated person told you? Was it not the government that said(and should have said) 'If feeling ill stay home"? Yeah it was. So why would a person who accepted the government word on 'vaccine' ignore the much more important isolation message. There's an obvious answer that I'm too polite to supply.
She was already in my house, literally holding my baby, when she started coughing and said it was not covid. Not much to do at that point.
Yes, exactly this! It’s so frustrating because I think the cycle is as follows: someone gets a booster, they catch covid and they have a very high vial load because they don’t have natural immunity(!) and few symptoms because of the vax in the first 2-3 months. Then they spread covid to many people, a lot of them fellow booster takers because they have no natural immunity either. Then after the 2-3 months pass and the minimal protection wears off, the booster people catch covid again and get really really sick. Then they take paxlovid, brew some new variants, get a rebound and keep spreading covid. Rinse, repeat, recycle. As long as those damned jabs are on the market and bozos are taking it, we will be forced to stay on this merry go round which only benefits big pharma.
I was making this point back in 2021. 100% you are correct.
Of course, if vaccines reduced severity while increasing transmission, (and if we assume that immune priming and all that jazz isn't real), then this would be a good thing
After all, the sooner everyone gets it, the sooner we can go back to normal. Or so I thought, anyway
> Kirsch removed patient names from the data before providing a summary version to Norman Fenton and the full records to my friend William Briggs for independent review. Finally, on 30 November, he released the anonymised dataset to the internet and posted his own analysis to Substack, where he argues vigorously that the records show a vaccine-associated mortality rate of one death per 1,000 doses.
Commenting while reading so once again, I hope this comment doesn't age poorly. But as soon as I hear that number, I have a thought, and then that thought prompts another thought, and then _that_ thought prompts a third
First thought: If we assume that the scientific consensus surrounding vaccination in general as it existed prior to the covid pandemic is true, and if we assume that the data I remember reading somewhere once is also true, then this number is both expected and not unreasonable.
After all, the mortality rate for covid was like 1%. "The Science" (back when it was real (or was it?)) fully expects vaccines to be dangerous. It didn't say vaccines were safe, it said that at a population level they're safer than the disease. These numbers seem to bear that out.
But this immediately prompts a second though, the obviously reply that we've all heard and said several times: Yeah but who dies? It's not 1% of everyone who gets covid that dies. It's more like 10% of all the old people 0% of all the young people. Summarizing that all as "1% of all people" is, while technically true, basically useless(*). Because, if you're one of the young people with a 0% mortality chance, then the calculus inverts and this is not captured by the summary statistic.
The third thought is that this goes both ways: Just as we have age-related differences in the mortality rate for _covid_, we should expect similar differences in the mortality rate for the vaccine. So, what are those?
(iirc, the vaccine is actually worse for younger people, for reasons nobody's ever explained adequately. So this just makes the numbers even more damning.)
I don't have a point, just thinking out loud
----
(*) This is one of my big ideas that I feel like the world needs to better understand. I don't have a concise way to explain it. But basically, for sufficiently large, complex systems, statistical averages and summaries are actually worse than useless, because they summarize over a large, heterogenous data set and generate a statistic that is presented as representative but is not.
That's a mouthful, so I will use my favourite controversial example: gun violence. I don't know what the actual numbers are so I'm going to make up illustrative ones. But let's say the average gun violence rate in the US is, idk, 100/100k. That is to say, 1 in every 1000 gets shot every year. That's not high, but, I mean, it's the same risk rate as the vaccine above so one might reasonably be afraid of getting shot.
But, we all know that's not the whole story. In reality, if you live in a suburb, your rate of gun violence is very close to zero. And if you live in the ghetto ass part of a major urban center, your gun violence rate is maybe 10x or even 100x as high.
Critically: if you are trying to evaluate your personal risk of gun violence, and you use the 100/100k statistic, you will be wrong. No matter who you are, no matter where you live, you will be wrong. Either you will dramatically over-estimate or dramatically under-estimate your own risk, but you will be wrong.
Among other things, this dynamic applies to almost every federal level statistic in every 'large' country (where 'large' means something akin to "a country that has more than one major city"). This is an important thing to keep in mind when authorities drop stats on you
----
Final point, snarking and shitposting a bit: back when I lived in San Francisco and worked in tech and was generally surrounded by NPR-types all day, I noticed something weird. My colleagues would read a news article about some federal level summary statistic that was subject to the dynamic I laid out above, and they would prioritize this data above their own first-hand observations. So for example, if the news reported that the national crime averages were rising, they would conclude that they were personally in more danger, even as their neighbourhood was obviously cleaning up. I thought this was bizarre.
But what was even more bizarre to me is that they would do this with things that were obviously ridiculous. Like, I remember one brief meme in the 2010s was when some psych study came out that "experiences make people more happy than possessions" and suddenly all of my colleagues were smug about being minimalists and travelling. This didn't make any sense to me, because I don't need a news article to tell me what makes me happy. If you asked me that question, I'd just give you the answer, and if the study said the opposite, I would just say the study is wrong. Or, more precisely, I guess most people are different from me
(I actually prefer experiences so I didn't need the article to tell me this).
It just blew my mind how vapid and empty these people must be, that a news article can tell them how they think and they'll believe it.
So when I encountered the NPC meme it all made sense
The mortality rate for covid is miniscule...the mortality rate for patients treated with remdesvir, which often destroys organs, and ventilators, is very high...And that is what audits are showing...We have two medical doctors in our extended family, who warned us in advance never to let anyone put your family member on a ventilator....
I am looking at it as a black box. Simply, "this many people got covid, that many people died". My personal analysis is going off of measured numbers reported by my city's public health authority, which was remarkably transparent with the data.
I can't find my local copy of the data but the measured mortality rates looked something like this:
0-10 yrs: 0%
10-20 yrs: 0.0001%
20-30 yrs: 0.01%
30-40 yrs: 0.3%
40-50 yrs: 0.5%
50-60 yrs: 1%
60-70 yrs: 9%
70-80 yrs: 15%
80+ yrs: 20%
It is absolutely possible that these numbers are not due to covid but rather due to the treatment given these people. I can't comment on that. I can just comment that these are the _measured percentages by age_ reported by my local public health authority
incidentally, one of my favourite games to play: "Hey shitlib, how many people under the age 20 do you think have died of covid in our city? How many people under 30?"
The answers, and again I'm going from memory since they took the dashboard down at the start of this year, is ~10 people under age 20 and ~30 people under age 30. And, I mean, their data doesn't give this information but I think we can all reasonably assume that _all_ of those people had severe comorbidities
The NPR listeners who register in-synch responses to reports are a pretty severely uniform breed. And you thought NP stood for natl public…
The whole of covid and the response to it was navigable entirely without cognitive processing. In fact, unless one was extremely skeptical, the higher the IQ and awkward sensitivity to social norms—the more the brain overrode the gut—the harder one bit on the baited hook.
The post-action propaganda is no different: “you can’t believe your senses because you can’t observe nor internalize population level data sets…only we can…and trust us, everything is cool.”
Bureaucracy allegiance is to self, and trust in a bureaucracy is foolishness learned the hard way in lesser countries. Unfortunately, CDC was corrupt beyond (the layperson’s) imagination and therefore won the minds of the layperson and the world’s bureaucracies, subsequently insulating the latter from recourse or discussion in their enforcement of The Protocol.
"The third thought is that this goes both ways: Just as we have age-related differences in the mortality rate for _covid_, we should expect similar differences in the mortality rate for the vaccine. So, what are those?"
Good question and point. I'm not a doctor but:
At a guess, roughly the same comorbidities as for Covid, I'd say. Obesity, diseases/damage of/to the lungs, circulatory problems, and so on.
In the official swedish records, it is pointed out that death as a side effect of vaccination may have been directly caused by the shot or from the shot triggering a pre-existing condition.
Anything more detailed than raw numbers are of course under confidentiality and even if I had access, I wouldn't be allowed to (and wouldn't do it anyway!) share such data.
For all their advanced degrees and high salaries, the people you describe are simply credulous, manipulable fools. They are followers rather than independent thinkers.
For comparisons sake and since we neither mandated jabs nor locked down, the reported deaths due to Covid-vaccinations (all types of vaccines used) stands at 436. That's out of at least 9 000 000 people having received at least two shots (my off-the-cuff rounding, NB.
This is defined as death having occurred either directly due to the vaccine or due to the vaccination triggering a pre-existing condition as a side-effect.
That would be something like 1 in 20 000 people, or so.
Of note no matter other factors is this: 436 is higher than the total dead of all other vaccinations given since the 1950s.
Which country?
D'oh! Sorry, Sweden - edited that out, apparently.
Thanks for spotting my mistake.
There are three headlines here:
1. Only the Clerisy may leak records. Otherwise it's blasphemy punishable by death for a pleb to read THE SCIENCE.
2. What they really don't want interpreted (and is clear in the data), is that the pandemic only required one treatment:
DO NOTHING.
3. Thousands of lives must arbitrarily be destroyed for each incident they claim "If it saves one life".
They destroyed lives of the youngest and most productive citizens (as well as future contributions of children) for those who are the least productive and a net "burden".
They are hiding homosapiens first GLOBAL SPECIES LEVEL FAIL that only technocrats and bureaucrats could pull off.
"What they really don't want interpreted (and is clear in the data), is that the pandemic only required one treatment:"
DO NOTHING
Yes yes yes
DO NOTHING. is what I have been advocating since the Diamond Princess. Eleven people died and NO crew. The damage done in New Zealand by the insane governmental response has caused at least a hundred times the loss of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years than having done nothing.
We are 100% on same page.
It was an easy call exactly because, prior to covid, everyone understood this concept.
It is instictive. It is through this concept we became "human":
A concept "designed" in the slow grinding pressure of the evolutionary process, conferring upon us the ability to influence the process, precisely because the process gave us the opportunity to consciously participate in it's force.
Our "life" force comes from a common understanding that life must be valued in this manner for our survival; a manner in which we are separated from beast.
The vigor with which the state pursued Barry Young is a sign that those records contain information embarrassing to the state.
To me, this whole controversy is counterproductive.
New Zealand was and is experiencing significant mortality according to official OECD data.
6% in 2021
18% in 2022
14% in 2023 (so far)
You can argue that these numbers are just in the thousands, and you would be 100% correct, But for a country that typically averaged just 32,000 to 33,000 total deaths per year (using previous 5 year rolling averages), excess mortality in the thousands is very significant.
So the question becomes, why is New Zealand experiencing all of this excess mortality? For whatever reason or reasons, New Zealand experienced significant excess mortality on 2019 and a significant decline back to baseline mortality in 2020. But since then, New Zealand has been setting new historic records for mortality in both 2021 and 2022. And the 2023 data is on pace to come in behind just the huge spike in mortality New Zealand suffered in 2022.
Now consider that according Wikipedia, New Zealand's official vaccination statistics once claimed that New Zealand's primary series vaccination rate for residents over 12 was 94.7%. And consider that fewer than 60 people died from COVID in New Zealand before the less deadly omicron variant took and well after over 95% of New Zealand's primary series vaccination effort had been completed.
So why has their been so much excess mortality, both COVID and non-COVID, in such a "protected population"? And when is somebody going to say anything about this that doesn't muddy the waters with outrageous overstatements?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/18bs160/a_simple_analysis_of_new_zealands_official_oecd/
if you look at long-term trends, you see NZ mortality increases year-on-year because ageing population, so one must be cautious when using past 5-year averages as baseline. you also have to account overall demographics. that said, there definitely are excess deaths here.
I just want to mention is that we should remember that many of the old people "should" have died during the early stages so it still leaves with excess deaths that does not include the people would have died in those periods! ( am one of them, 72, fat with high blood pressure😀)
we’re looking too hard for deaths. their objective — money and control — would be harshly hampered with too many deaths. we won’t get them that way. and the general public gives a shit.
we need to approach from a different vector and that is: fauci, drosten, lauterer are all hochstapler. this becomes even more clear when you are in a foreign country. here in brazil there was a little discussion with the minister of health in which she was criticized and her answer was “but the FDA says so”.
when you look into any published brazilian articles it’s always just a replay of “fda and cdc say so”.
embarrassing.
No, we aren't "looking too hard" for deaths. Instead we are hardly looking at 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.
sure, i know all that. but 90% of the population doesn’t even give a wet crap. we’re not gonna convince them with those numbers.
Well, if they don't care that far more people are dying now than ever died during the "COVID pandemic", what is going to wake them up?
Sure, you can argue that the mortality baseline should increase slightly every year due to demographic changes, but look at the historic OECD data --
2014 31,062
2015 31,625
2016 31,176
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
2020: 32,522 deaths, -168.8 excess deaths, 25 COVID deaths
2021: 34,802 deaths, 2111.2 excess deaths, 6% excess mortality, 26 COVID deaths (1% of excess mortality)
2022: 38,478 deaths, 5787.2 excess deaths, 18% excess mortality, 2,280 COVID deaths (39% of excess mortality)
2023 (so far): 28,993 deaths (through 40 weeks, so on track for 37, 691 for the entire year), 3,548.8 excess deaths, 14% excess mortality, 1,045 COVID deaths (29% of excess mortality)
There was significant excess morality in both 2019 and 2021 to balance out the lower than expected mortality in 2020.
And by any measure, 2022 and 2023 are outliers. You can try to pin this all on COVID as you did, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety.
look, the past five-year OECD baseline is causing you to overestimate excess deaths. we’re talking about a small country that grew by 400k people between 2015 and 2020, that typically adds 1% or more to its population every year, and that is also seeing a significant increase in its old population. this changes the numbers more than “slightly”.
i highly recommend you read the NZ statistical reports i linked. 2019 was by all accounts a normal death year. how do we know? well, we can look at the specific death rates per 1k in the 65+ groups (these are the demos that drive all-cause mortality). the olds are all dying at normal rates here, and overall there's even a slight downward trend. the olds are living longer than they were 10 years ago, there's simply more of them now. but, if you’re going to insist that even this ordinary year has too many deaths, then there will be too many people dying in NZ in perpetuity. even the low-death year 2020 will look roughly normal. indeed, this seems to be your analysis, and it is just wrong.
flat excess deaths numbers as compiled in uniform ways to facilitate cross-country comparisons, whether by OECD or Euromomo or whoever, may help identify broader trends, but they’re not very good measures in themselves. it is much better to look at all-cause mortality trends for specific countries over a period of years. you can look at trends in specific age brackets to determine mortality in typical years, and use these years to spot sudden anomalies.
there are, to be sure, excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. i tried to be transparent in my calculations about how many there probably are. my argument is not that they are all Covid-related. this is merely an observation about what appears to be the official position.
Why are you confusing the issue?
You can adjust the excess mortality values however you like. But you aren't ever going to adjust away the all-time record 2022 mortality that is ongoing and has now continued through the first 40 weeks of 2023. We are talking about an over 10% increase above in any year in New Zealand history for the last two years (in a population that is supposed to be 95% protected against COVID no less). That's not due to demographic changes no matter how you try to explain it away! And it is still ongoing!
And if 2019 was a "normal" level of mortality, then what happened in 2018 that significantly lowered the mortality from the 2017 and 2019 marks?
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
Did the old get younger that year? Or do mortality rates fluctuate "naturally" sometimes?
the post you’re commenting on AGREES that there is excess mortality in 2022 and 2023. the very comment you’re replying to SAYS EXPLICITLY that there is excess mortality for 2022 and 2023. it’s totally baffling that you keep missing this.
what is also baffling, is why you won’t read the linked statistical reports for 2019. if you really want to understand what is going on here, you need to look at mortality in those specific demos that do most of the dying.
because you won’t read the report and just want to talk about all-cause mortality like it is a single undifferentiated mysterious number, rather than an aggregated statistic full of information, i’ll paint in some details briefly: 2018 seems to have been a little light in deaths, with some elderly demos dying at rather low rates. exactly these demos rise slightly in 2019. it's only a few hundred deaths overall, but yes, these figures are noisy and affected by multi-year patterns. but allowing for noise, 2019 was a totally normal year given the age structure and population of NZ in that year, and we can tell this because the death rates are totally normal (and at or near historical lows) for everyone.
It is CoVid1984.
Why all the effort to pump up the tyres of the Hegemon?
Plus, there was no SARS-CoV-2... just a media blitz with trillions of taxpayers money to fund the CoronaPrank.
It was an obedience test!
Yeah, and the obedience test was about how many life expectancy diminishing injections you were willing to take just because "authority" told you to. Sheep were led to their slaughter, and lemmings were sent over the cliff.
"So why has their been so much excess mortality, both COVID and non-COVID, in such a "protected population"? "
I'll have stab at that. The 'vaccine' provides zero protection against infection and transmission. This is shown by the fact that New Zealand, in an almost fully vaccinated population of 5,000,000, has had 2,500,000 cases(almost certainly understated). Fewer than 2,500,000 people have been infected because many have had more than one infection(my dentist, forced by the government, to be 'vaccinated' had three infections). These numbers show that protection against infection is so near zero that it doesn't matter.
"typically averaged just 32,000 to 33,000 excess deaths per year"
Those are total deaths per year not "excess". It makes no sense to talk of "excess deaths" for more than a very few years.
Thanks. I made a clear mistake there. I meant "total", not "excess". I updated my post with your kind correction.
Thanks. I'm cursed with the auditor gene.
stickdog says: "But fir a country that typically averaged just 32,000 to 33,000 excess deaths per year (using previous 5 year rolling averages), excess mortality in the thousands is very significant."
Can you explain what you mean here by "excess deaths"? An excess relative to what?
A heavy flu will cause excess mortality in one year, followed, usually, by a mortality defecit over the following two years.
But if every year yields, supposedly, more than 30,000 excess deaths (in NZ, this is about 0.6% of the population of 5.25 million), then that, surely, means nothing more than that the trend line needs adjusting - excess mortality is normally defined in relation to a trend, so it can't be consistently above the trend.
If an argument about the deaths caused by the RNA concoction is based on an incoherent account of "excess mortality", I can't see that anything that emerges has any validity.
I'm not a statistician, so if anyone can make good sense of stickdog's comment, I'll pay attention.
The baseline for expected mortality used by OECD was to compare 2020-2023 mortality numbers to the 5 year average of mortality from 2015-2019. So as far as the OECD is concerned, annual "excess mortality" means mortality in excess of the average of 2015-2019 annual mortality.
Here are their numbers:
Their numbers are:
2015 31,625
2016 31,176
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
These numbers average to 32,690.8, so they calculate any annual morality above that number as "excess mortality."
And yes the "trendline" keeps going up slightly and this is not reflected in these data, but there is no way that this can account for the huge outlier mortality data for 2022 and 2023.
Sure, you can argue that the mortality baseline should increase slightly every year due to demographic changes, but look at the historic OECD data --
2014 31,062
2015 31,625
2016 31,176
2017 33,499
2018 33,059
2019 34,095
2020: 32,522
2021: 34,802
2022: 38,478
2023 (so far): 28,993 deaths (through 40 weeks, so on track for 37, 691 for the entire year),
Note that there was significant excess morality in both 2019 and 2021 to balance out the lower than expected mortality in 2020. But by ANY measure, 2022 and 2023 are HUGE outliers. You can try to pin this all on COVID, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety.
Thanks for the extra time you gave to this, stickdog. I can see now that the poor statistics is the fault of the OECD, and you were just using their data. They should have expressed the deaths as a percentage of the population, and then the trend would have been clear, rather than being mixed with population growth.
Concentrating, for now, on the numbers of living rather than dead, I've worked out the percentage population increase year on year over the same period:
2014-15 1.69%
2015-16 1.69%
2016-17 1.67%
2017-18 1.94%
2018-19 2.49%
2019-20 2.06%
2020-21 1.36%
2021-22 1.08%
2022-23 1.98%
The population figures I obtained from this site:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NZL/new-zealand/population
With below-replacement birth rates in developed countries like NZ, immigration has to be taken into account. There was regular seasonal fluctuation in the immigrant population with a steady upward trend in the period starting 2014, then a steep drop (with no fluctuation) from spring 2020 until autumn 2022. (data from https://mbienz.shinyapps.io/migration_data_explorer/# ). The resulting loss in population during this period of over two years was 2.6% of the early 2020 population, which correlates well with the lower population growth rate during that period.
This is not to dismiss the as-yet unprocessed death figures, but just to fill in more of the picture.
You said: "You can try to pin this all on COVID, but all that does is highlight the lack of efficacy of these injections rather than their lack of safety."
Now why would you think I would want to "pin this all on COVID"? I'm not a "pandemic" hysteric any more than Eugyppius is; all I want is to see that bad statistics and falsehoods are not coming from our side. Obviously, the other side is full of them, but they'll rarely if ever be called out on them by the mainstream media, whereas our mistakes or carelessness will always be used to discredit us.
Hey, I agree with all of that. I was just making a rhetorical point.
As for excess mortality, there is no gold standard for measuring it. If the population growth was mostly from young immigrants, then mortality might even be expected to decrease as population increases. That's why there are actuaries for this. That said, I highly doubt that actuaries consider NZ's 2022 and 2023 mortalities numbers within normal expected boundaries.
What I do know is that many people from South Africa emigrates to NZ and most of them are young people looking for better job opportunities.
"All of that said, Briggs also notes that this sampling artefact is not the only thing going on in the data. There does appear to be some unusual clustering of deaths in the early days after the first and second jabs, particularly in people under thirty years of age. We’re talking hundreds and not thousands of deaths here, but I think it’s very plausible that this is a real signal of direct vaccine-induced death, precisely in those age cohorts at least risk of Covid mortality. This is similar to mortality effects suggested by an exhaustive study of German mortality data I posted about last year, and if this can be confirmed, it would be a great scandal, because the vaccines do not stop transmission and there was no reason to risk the lives of young people with our deranged mass vaccination campaigns."
Awful, if true.
thank you. and thanks, twitter, because that's how i found you in the first place.
kirsch is a dangerous moron. i understand that some people i have a fair bit of trust in, like igor, are friends with kirsch. i need not like the dangerous morons some people i like, like.
and, children--if there's some information important to you that you'd like to save, print it out on real paper, file it in archival-quality storage folders and put it in a fireproof safe. kevin may be a very smart guy but with this he was a moron. too expensive to print so much? get donations. that's what crowdfunding is for.
Paper aside, rudimentary computer good practice is to have a at least one backup on local storage, and preferably more.
no kidding! this is the same sort of credulity by which we get believers in The Electricity Fairy (no relation).
Which is why I can't help thinking that Kevin's outrage about his $200,000 worth of data is somewhat sensationalistic. Among the lost data, he says there are 820 GB of medical genomes. 820 GB is not even a terabyte. I have a little portable USB drive backing up my laptop; it is 4 TB. It's not like local storage is expensive.
Also, having an account "turned off" is not the same as deleting the data, it just renders it inaccessible — for the moment.
This is not to denigrate Kevin in the least, whose work I admire.
people can be very smart and do excellent work in some spheres, and be hysterical idiots at times also.
not to be a disgustingly slimy sycophant but i value eugyppius not least because of his rigor even when a considerable percentage of the readership will be driven nuts by that rigor.
"...rigor even when a considerable percentage of the readership will be driven nuts by that rigor."
Well put.
Also, that's the difference between being a preacher and a teacher.
amen.
Re eugy—exactly.
Yes...Twitter. A fount of information, even with the censorship & algorithms.
Even so, I am not scientific enough to distinguish between scientists' data, arguments, disagreements, etc.
I definitely was saved from foolish actions by Kevin McCairn PhD. Later, I found others....but now there is much in-fighting, which, for me, is confusing; and since I am not a scientist or a statistician, I subscribe to many Substacks, try to keep up with them, and then read the COMMENTS for more context.
Time consuming...!
i was shocked to realize i'd subscribed to a total of 32 substacks and was going to unsubscribe to many but i hate doing that, even though most of my subscriptions are free. but only a handful are of real value. the plague era has been a bonanza for lotsa lotsa people.
Thank you! That's how I feel about Kirsch too. I always have done. I first encountered him on Dark Horse and found him insufferable.
i find the weinsteins pretty insufferable too.
Considering that programmers were the ones who put in the function "Go online to search for help" as help for why your computer cannot go online, well... let's just say that it's nice when the tech works, but making tech work doesn't necessary equal being very smart.
one of my favorite theodore sturgeon stories is "a way of thinking."
when i was first forced to learn to use a computer, extremely much against my will, i was baffled by the tech way of thinking that required me to use 10 steps to accomplish what required two on a typewriter.
now, using a computer only for my own purposes, i adore my little laptop, but have not grown the least bit fonder of programmers. the temperament that loves playing online games does not value simplicity.
In the 1970s, swedish humanist, singer-songwriter, actor, two times doctor of the humanities and all around nice guy Tage Danielsson started working on a script for a novel called "The Human Factor".
In one part, the state employs a computer technician to build a computer that will help run the country - an AI we would say today. The AI realises that its first priority must be continued existence, else it cannot perform its function. It therefore recommends reforms that all ultimately benefits itself.
Since every reform removes one (potential) problem that should solve everything? Not so, since for every solution employed, new combinations of factors appear and needs solving.
In the end, the nation goes under since everything goes into feeding the AI. Just a bit more, and it'll give us the perfect answer, becomes a mantra.
(At least I think it's from the recovered notes for the novel, he died before finishing it and parts of the manuscript are gone.)
I keep returning to his works more and more. Too bad he's not translated, I think his kind of humour - close in style to that of Tom Lehrer - would appeal to people outside Sweden. Sadly, among those under 40, he is virtually unknown nowadays.
i very much admire the way of thinking that can get enjoyment from reading in languages other than one's own. non-native speakers like you and eugyppius whose own voices are not cramped by expressing yourselves distinctively in english have me somewhat kneeling at your feet.
i have a peculiar relationship with written english. words don't just have meanings; they have a sort of facial expression on the page, and a word that in my view is poorly-chosen by the author really seems to stick out to me. there can be so many subtle nuances of meaning between words that might not bother another reader but really can distract me from the flow of the prose. for me a book or story is perfect when nothing throws me out of the rhythm of the storytelling by looking wrong.
that sense of layers of meaning is lost to me when i try to read in another language. i hated french class in hs partly for that reason. years later a friend gave me some simenon mysteries in french from her own collection and though the language wasn't too challenging for me to understand, there was no pleasure in the reading.
and languages written in non-roman alphabets? that's like asking me to read math.
"words don't just have meanings; they have a sort of facial expression on the page"
Never thought about it that way consciously, but reading it, it immediately feels familiar and self-evident.
When I write, that is: when I write "for real", essays and studies and such, I try to get an appealing rythm or cadence to the sentences, which is then echoed by the paragraphs and chapters - sort of like a symphony.
This sounds a bit fancier that it is; the main reason I do it is I decided decades ago to embrace my natural tendency for purple prose, verbosity and convoluted word order and sentence structure.
Sometimes it works and it reads like Beethoven, sometimes it is like Portsmouth Sinfonia.
Please note that "deactivated account" may not be the same thing as "deleted". The hosts have to protect themselves from liability in case the orders are reversed.
In tech, nothing is ever deleted. Trust me, it's somewhere.
Even if they hard-deleted it, it will still be in an off-site backup _somewhere_ and, at least in principle, available by sufficiently strong legal demand.
Nothing is _ever_ deleted, unless it's a file on a machine that has never been connected to the internet, and you personally deleted it. with `dd if=/dev/null of=/path/to/file`
Exactly. As a computer tech for over 30 years, I was constantly urging my clients to make sure they had multiple backups, and not to trust the cloud 100%.
This isn't ALWAYS true in tech. In this case, I think it would be extremely stupid and therefore unlikely for Mega to have actually deleted all of his data, but it is possible. It's also possible and a little more likely that they may never give him access to his data again, but it sounds like this may be a legal battle, so nobody can say for sure how that will go.
But some things can and do get deleted in tech. For some of the smaller outfits I've worked for, I have written scripts that deleted old data for both compliance and cost saving purposes. Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not truly forever. Nobody, not even the big companies, have the resources to store and maintain EVERY bit of data they collect.
" Nobody, not even the big companies, have the resources to store and maintain EVERY bit of data they collect."
No longer true. Data storage is now essentially free. Check the cost of USB drives from China. Less than one USD per TB.
Do your scripts pull the tape backups out of long-term storage and edit them to delete the data from there?
I know that's not like, a practical, pragmatic way of undeleting things. But if the government said "undelete it now, or you're going to the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for infinity billion years", it would be possible for them to recover the data
> It’s simple, then: How much room you think there is for direct vaccine mortality will depend on how much you dispute these official Covid death numbers. I propose that any more than 2,000 vaccine deaths is just not very plausible.
I generally agree with your analysis but there is something to be said for the 'died of vs died with' discussion applying here.
It could be the case that, say, 30,000 old people would have died of old people reasons in a 2022 with no covid and no covid vaccination, but then they get vaccinated and they die from vaccination instead. This would not change the total death count. This could reasonably be counted as a vaccination death. But it could also be reasonably counted as NOT a vaccination death. Just something to think about
Asking just for clarification. There appears to be something wrong with the math here:
"2023 is not over yet, but 37,569 deaths have been counted there through the end of September. This is somewhat lower than the 38,052 deaths recorded by September 2022, so 2023 is on track to be a slightly better year."
1. If 37,569 deaths have been recorded through September 2023, that would annualize to 50,092
2. If in 2022 38,042 had occurred through September and the full year total deaths for 2022 was 38,574, that means that only 522 died in 4Q 2022.
Yes, I understand that in antipodean NZ, Q4 represents their Spring and Summer period, but is there really such a dramatic fall-off in deaths in every Q4? This is inconsistent with data from other countries.
apologies, my error. the 2023 september totals are year-to-date deaths, compared to september 2022 year-to-date deaths. i’ve corrected the text.