280 Comments
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

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

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

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!"

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

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.

Expand full comment

As with all things covid, likely we will never know the truth about the data from NZ. Truth died of covid.

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

> 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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

> 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

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

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.

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023·edited Dec 6, 2023

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.

Expand full comment

The vigor with which the state pursued Barry Young is a sign that those records contain information embarrassing to the state.

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023·edited Dec 7, 2023Liked by eugyppius

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/

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

"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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

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.

Expand full comment
Dec 6, 2023Liked by eugyppius

> 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

Expand full comment
Dec 7, 2023·edited Dec 7, 2023Liked by eugyppius

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.

Expand full comment