2 Studies Proving Covid-19 Vaxx Has Caused Excess Mortality Worldwide.

So, we all know the die-hard proCovid-19-vaxx, that doesn't work as a vaccine, will continue to claim that "it's all just a coincidence." Yet study after study keeps showing that after the push to FORCE people to take an experimental vaccination program which does not work as vaccines, since it doesn't stop you from getting or transmitting Covid-19, the amount of heart problems, blood clots, etc, has increased dramatically.

For example. One of the studies: Rational harm-benefit assessments by age group are required for continued COVID-19 vaccination , postulates that from January 2021 to the "time of writing" (21 December 2022) there has been 1,598 athletes who have suffered cardiac arrest and 1,101 had a deadly outcome. That's 1,101 deaths of athletes in about 23 months, or 1 year and 11 months. Yet BEFORE the vaccination program we would have to look at the time frame from 1966-2004, a 38 year period, in which a similar amount of athletes died from cardiac arrest, precisely 1,101. So, in 1 year 11 months after Covid-19 vaccinations we have had the same amount of deaths due to cardiac arrest in athletes as we used to have in 38 years before Covid-19 vaccines. Yet we still get people ignoring and dismissing such evidence.


twitter link

Second study.

The second study comes from Germany and it provides this graph.



Media Blackout: German Party Reveals Smoking Gun 'Vaccine' Data, Explosion of ‘Sudden and Unexpected’ Deaths (Videos)

Meanwhile caution and requests for "more research" keeps being asked we keep seeing these "coincidences" that keep stacking one on top of each other, and even after dozens upon dozens of research and thousands of doctors, bio-weapons specialists, virologists, etc have stated that these excess deaths and "injuries from Covid-19 vaccines proves causation, we still get people claiming "we need more and more studies." When are we going to have enough studies for these people to finally admit what everyone else sees?

After all the lies that mainstream media and western countries themselves partook in, including helping China hide the truth about COVID-19, and even after everyone, including the doubters, have seen this sudden massive increase in cardiac arrest, blood blots, etc from vaccines, I don't think these people will ever be satisfied. But the truth, for those of us with eyes to see, is clear. Covid-19 vaccines cause more deaths and injuries than COVID-19 itself does, which makes this massive experiment not only obsolete but dangerous.

Don't expect the people who approved this Warp Speed vaccine to admit they screwed up. Admitting they screwed up would possibly make them liable for any problems that occurred or get them dismissed from their high paid positions.

Does anyone believe that they would admit their lying or parroting lies....they will continue covering up anything that comes along till all of the people up high have kicked the bucket...maybe twenty five years or so.

I do not believe that the covid mRNA vaccines should have been allowed to be used without long term testing. The research before this point on mRNA use was full of bad outcomes, I do not think they got enough bugs out of this kind of medication and now they are creating more of this kind of vaccines basing the flawed evidence of the safety of this vaccine as evidence.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Every study I have seen so far has shown the MRNA have had zero or negative impact on overall mortality.

Surprisingly, the viral vector has shown a very positive all cause mortality benefit.

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary?

KUSI - Good Morning San Diego (not some crackpot video)

www.kusi.com...

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – Several US life insurance companies have recently revealed an overwhelming unexplained increase (40%) in “all-cause deaths” amongst 18 to 49-year-olds.

Three physician “whistle-blowers” have just released real data from the DoD, drawn from the clinical diagnosis codes. The increases found are from 2021, compared to the five year average from 2016 to 2020.

Myocardial infarction: 269% increase
> Miscarriages: 300% increase
> Bell’s palsy: 291% increase
> Congenital malformations: 156% increase
> Female infertility: 471% increase
> Pulmonary embolisms: 467% increase
> Neurologic abnormalities: 300% increase
> Cancers: 300% increase

And the biggest question for the new rediculous claim that it saved millions of lives:

How did it save millions of lives when all cause mortality increased drastically post vaxx rollout? Did some mysterious force kill millions of extra people to break even then millions more to account for the huge increases of all cause mortality?

No, because that's all based on a garbage model fed garbage data.

a reply to: infolurker
Yeah they're junk.

I've been reviewing a fair number of studies since they started ramping up and there are several things that are present to shocking degrees in many that have conclusions very favorable toward any of the government and pharma narratives. Not surprisingly it's prominent in virtually all the studies that make claims that seem to contradict what many of us have already seen firsthand in data.

They are funded by sources affiliated with officials that have openly lied, like the CDC or NIH. The WHO or Gates Foundation, or the beneficiaries of their funds, have also shown to have a keen interest in specific results rather than objective reality. In one case between the start of the study an publication an author became employed by Moderna and several other has biotech company affiliations. Ten years ago this may not have been something to immediately cause a red flag. Now that leaders of these agencies have made sweeping generalizations and supported the silencing of valid questions and all criticism, it's an immediate red flag. When the government boards start threatening licenses and highly qualified experts are called domestic threats the writing is on the wall that science can't contradict those who pay for it or sign the paychecks.

They have junk methodology. They use either restrictive criteria excluding known factors that would be likely to run counter to their desired result or use small sample sizes that don't support any degree of certainty. They use aggregate data that includes large populations without any reasonable expectation of the studies outcome or unreason let high expectations above baselines.

They do not explain how dramatically their case criteria might impact the certainty. This is quite prevalent in excluding vaccination under 14 or sometimes under 28 days. This without any study to determine the validity that vaccination may result in positive tests and actually trigger COVID related deaths or adverse events. Dying of COVID 10 days after vaccination shouldn't be blindly counted as an unvaccinated death with more than either including a side sr analysis or much more justification than "that's how it's always done". This is oarticutimpoetsnt because mRNA specifically doesn't have decades of underlying justification for methodologies. To use old standards after fundamentally changing the definition of vaccine is unscrupulous.

They use underlying demographic dynamics that skew results, but that evade detection from a casual reader. In one particular study on efficacy the numbers of participants in the target groups under 30 and over 50 were disproportionate versus the control in a way favorable to the outcome they wanted. When you have a large sample size of those at low risk due to known demographic disparity it should be stated transparently that it reduces the validity, or whatever the case is. They also use demographic clustering to show results that support the fits their desired conclusion. When citing deaths they may cluster a huge number of typically stratified demographics to inflate the the totals or conversely break down demographics nonsensically to make prevalence seem less severe. When they do these kinds of things and fail to mention it as a confounding factor is shows either incompetence or a willful attempt to deceive.

They cite other work for discussion that show only low certainty or marginal effect. That get around this by using words like "suggest" or "may indicate" and only by reviewing the studies that their discussion is based on can you start to see the leaning tower of tripe they've built. Imagine this extended our over two years of rushed studies each building on the others with bias toward desired outcomes. Many of the CDC studies, when followed back through the studies they're based on, start to look like a twisted game of telephone where the message is radically different as interpreted three studies down the line.

They make claims in their conclusions that are far outside the scope of their study. I see it constantly that a study on a single well defined thing, like incidence of myocarditis, has a conclusion that makes broad statements about how it impacts things like risk/benefit. In the case of myocarditis they make claims that it still out weights the risk of serious illness from COVID. While incorporating the full suite of COVID risks irrespective of incidence or based on equally biased studies, they do not account for the full suite of reported adverse vaccine effects. There are many adverse events flagged at a much higher rate than myocarditis, it just happens to be the one causing dramatic incidents of public collapse. This kind of dissimilar comparison and the addition of conclusions not even within the scope of the study show a bias and is a red flag. My college professors would have rejected this kind of science voodoo and forced you to edit it to fit within the scope, but it appears to be acceptable at doctoral levels in academia and meet national government standards.

That's a little of what I've observed in my perusal of numberous studies across a number of COVID topics. There is also the selective criteria for when a preprint is acceptable to "The Science" and isn't, which is entirely dependent on if it supports the paid narrative versus if it shows they may be wrong. This also has impacts for the media presentation. By using quotes from conclusions outside the scope of the study they give the impression that these claims are "settled science". Any author providing these convenient and ethically dubious comments for media to parrot should be viewed with extra skepticism.

Anybody that trusts a study without looking at it has no certainty. If anybody trusts that some person at one of the 6 companies that script all the many hundreds of media sources, that are paid to promote certain narratives, will give you objective science is even less certain. Those that base their entire belief system entirely on these things cannot it be taken seriously and they are seriously misinformed.

Edited, serious error in post display.

Oh come on.

Big Pharma loves their customers and cant wait to provide them more of all their others drugs at earlier stages of life. An across the board everyone getting sicker in every way is like the ultimate stimulus deal for the pharm industry, and should be applauded.

Buy Big Pharm stocks!

The second graph is one of the biggest bombshells there is, maybe top 5.

Sudden Death: The No. 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s

Evidence showing the COVID shots are a public health disaster keeps mounting. In late December 2022, Steve Kirsch1 and Jessica Rose,2 Ph.D., both published Substack articles detailing some of the latest evidence showing the shots are destroying people’s immune systems and have triggered an avalanche of turbo-charged cancers.

Confirmed: Covid Boosters Trigger Metastasis

Cancer rates have increased since the introduction of the COVID shots and is one of the top three leading causes of premature death among younger adults — a trend that in turn is driving down U.S. life expectancy.

I highly recommend to never inject yourself with experimental medicines posing as vaccines. I sure am glad I stuck with my gut instinct on this one, because I fit right into the high mortality age range for people dying from the clotshots.