Well, that's assuming 100% causality (worst case scenario) but even if this isn't the case (death is a tremendously complex endpoint) what we are seeing here at the population level with a bit of data and a splatter of stats is truly alarming.
John, please excuse me for playing devil's advocate here.
The XS deaths graph looks like a gradually increasing fn of time starting at around 0 and increasing to around 1000 over the time period shown. But in April 2022, there is a big dip down to -2000 deaths.
1) Is this dip because far fewer people are dying in absolute terms, or is it because there is a big peak in the average number of deaths in April in the reference period?
2) Without this big dip, would we still be seeing the smoking gun - i.e. is the main reason for the cross correlation the dip in jab rate and the dip in xs deaths rather than the +ve xs deaths either side?
3) If the jab is really resulting in xs deaths, what is causing the reduced xs death rate of -2000 at week 630.
In essence, if the jab was really a problem, surely we should see a +ve xs deaths corresponding to the jabs at a delay time t. When the jab rate was low, we should see xs deaths return to near normal (0) at delay time t?
That's a great point about the shifting baseline throwing the analysis out of kilter and why I've been grumbling about the ONS 5-year method. I'll be trying out a few ideas. That dip at w630 corresponds to the delay between dose 2 and dose 3 if shifted 18 weeks (i.e. we're seeing what you're saying) but I'll need to check what else it may be. A fly in the ointment is that deaths are by date of registration (=admin delays) and doses are by publication date (=admin delays), so there's always going to be a margin of ambiguity, which doesn't help. I might abandon excess deaths and look at raw counts since ARIMA can handle that with ease, it being the pattern of variation that counts. Lots more to do as always!
Why thank you kind sir. Yes indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing they should be doing and they're much better placed than I am to go about this. We all need to play the Devil's Avocado all the time, and tomorrow I shall set about trying to destroy my results! Occam and all that.
Science should be about seeing whether the null hypothesis is disproved, so good luck with your devilled avocado, may it be well spiced with a hint of refreshing lime!
At the beginning of Boris's government they would say things like 'any reasonable person would think....'
And we have one of those here - any reasonable person would put it down to the effects of lockdown, as per the Great Barrington Declaration. Statisticians and Actuaries will tell you that mortality goes up in groups affected by tragic events. Nothing to see here.....
And the data does fit perfectly..... but people will say it's a coincidence just like the increase in cases after a dose roll-out.
Or you've just kept fiddling with the data until you can make the lines match...
So could the Believers be correct? What could happen frequently enough 21 weeks after a vaccine dose to see an uptick in deaths?
People who got even less healthy during the lockdowns relax about Covid and start doing more, sleeping less which leads to cardiac events, exacerbate existing health problems etc?
I'm scratching my head here. And the NHS is still recommending it to pregnant women!
The problem for most people is lack of understanding of statistical methodology. This isn't a coincidence or something else that might possible be happening. The two data series shouldn't correlate over time as well as this unless something is definitely going on. Vaccines are either directly or indirectly causing the situation.
My hubby gets Chemistry world magazine monthly due to being a member of the royal society of chemistry. In December 2020 they run two articles about the vaccines, in one of the articles a Dr Poland says how that people will still need to social distance and mask wear as the efficacy and durability of the vaccines are to be determined, this is along with safety where data is to be collected and recorded as no long term data is available as they are rolled out to millions. I saved this magazine because what I read with what the public have been told didn’t add up or sit right with me.
It’s actually despicable that the data they do have now shows up the problems they’re causing, yet they bury it from the public. Millions who didn’t need it including pregnant women and children have been given this with no real research to what it can do to them.
Nothing about this ever sat right with me from the start, my neighbour confirmed it within two weeks of the first lockdown, this article made me understand why I felt so uneasy at the suggestion of taking it and people have even been openly hostile believing anti vaxxer like me should have been dumped on an island or put in camps.
I have never been anti vaccine in my life, I was even with this vax pro informed consent choice. That included informing people that it was an experimental gene therapy treatment with the trials which they would be part of running until 2023. Giving people a piece of paper to read with limited acknowledge side effects while Pfizer hid their trial data is abhorrent to me and is lacking at best from the medical community. Questions should have been asked, those that did were sent into the wilderness and the messaging was used in full force to do the right thing.
What I despise about all this is all the lies and misinformation directed at the public, they know they’re causing harm and reduce peoples immune system, they are withholding this and will be calling for the public to go get their boosters soon, I’m hoping most of the public sticks two fingers up and tell them to jog on.
People have the right to take them if they do so wish, what they should be told is the risk, benefit when doing so. I have vaccine damage friends and family from these jabs, not one was told about the yellow card system or how to report onto it, how many million are missing from the site due to not knowing anything about it. Scandalous doesn’t even touch it.
I think that after a lot of very frustrating and time consuming blind alleys, we are now hitting the real paydirt. It's been bloody frustrating and complex to follow at times, and being a sensible sort of pragmatist I have to swat away the buzzing flies of conspiracy theorists who want to put this all down to some kind of 'Dr Evil' mastermind attempt to destroy the human race, but there is zero doubt in my mind that the vaccines are killing people, and that they are doing so in numbers that make Dr Harold Shipman look like a rank amateur.
Now, someone asked why the Chinese haven't invested in MRNA vaccines, and I think we know the reason why: they still seriously believe in Zero Covid: it suits their world-model. I have no idea how they get away with it, their lockdown philosophy is ridiculous: a pantomime.
Your work is breathtaking. Thank you. If I’ve got this right ( I’m a newbie) this analysis is across a large and heterogeneous population. I wonder which age bands have a larger r-square and which have smaller as we know the excess death rate is not evenly distributed across age bands nor is vaccination uptake. Asking for a friend.... worried they might be asking to see if there is(are) inflection point(s).
Why thank you kind sir! Yep, a real jumble. I've got age band mortality data prepped and ready but I'm missing dosing by age band so can't proceed with anything sensible as yet. In general older groups always dominate matters so I look upon these analyses as illumination of a 'mature' problem.
Not sure why you dont like 5 year 2015-19 avg. to see covid and vaccination effects. Just when you get time.
Because 2015-19 is not typical - we had two very mild flu seasons. But there are other reasons that I touch on in this newsletter...
https://jdee.substack.com/p/weekly-deaths-update-part-10
...I've got a better summary somewhere where I go into a bit more detail - I'll see if I can find this for you.
Wow, evidence that 1 in 3 non Covid excess deaths are dose related!
Well, that's assuming 100% causality (worst case scenario) but even if this isn't the case (death is a tremendously complex endpoint) what we are seeing here at the population level with a bit of data and a splatter of stats is truly alarming.
John, please excuse me for playing devil's advocate here.
The XS deaths graph looks like a gradually increasing fn of time starting at around 0 and increasing to around 1000 over the time period shown. But in April 2022, there is a big dip down to -2000 deaths.
1) Is this dip because far fewer people are dying in absolute terms, or is it because there is a big peak in the average number of deaths in April in the reference period?
2) Without this big dip, would we still be seeing the smoking gun - i.e. is the main reason for the cross correlation the dip in jab rate and the dip in xs deaths rather than the +ve xs deaths either side?
3) If the jab is really resulting in xs deaths, what is causing the reduced xs death rate of -2000 at week 630.
In essence, if the jab was really a problem, surely we should see a +ve xs deaths corresponding to the jabs at a delay time t. When the jab rate was low, we should see xs deaths return to near normal (0) at delay time t?
That's a great point about the shifting baseline throwing the analysis out of kilter and why I've been grumbling about the ONS 5-year method. I'll be trying out a few ideas. That dip at w630 corresponds to the delay between dose 2 and dose 3 if shifted 18 weeks (i.e. we're seeing what you're saying) but I'll need to check what else it may be. A fly in the ointment is that deaths are by date of registration (=admin delays) and doses are by publication date (=admin delays), so there's always going to be a margin of ambiguity, which doesn't help. I might abandon excess deaths and look at raw counts since ARIMA can handle that with ease, it being the pattern of variation that counts. Lots more to do as always!
Thanks John, your work is much appreciated. One might have hoped that PHE or ONS or NICE would carry out these analyses.
Why thank you kind sir. Yes indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing they should be doing and they're much better placed than I am to go about this. We all need to play the Devil's Avocado all the time, and tomorrow I shall set about trying to destroy my results! Occam and all that.
Science should be about seeing whether the null hypothesis is disproved, so good luck with your devilled avocado, may it be well spiced with a hint of refreshing lime!
LOL - Mrs Dee has just handed me a G&T, so I'm clocking off!
Have you considered analysing the US Society of Actuaries data that Matt Crawford just discussed?
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/reanalysis-of-the-society-of-actuaries
Ooh yeah, that would be a good one!
If only I had the time!
At the beginning of Boris's government they would say things like 'any reasonable person would think....'
And we have one of those here - any reasonable person would put it down to the effects of lockdown, as per the Great Barrington Declaration. Statisticians and Actuaries will tell you that mortality goes up in groups affected by tragic events. Nothing to see here.....
And the data does fit perfectly..... but people will say it's a coincidence just like the increase in cases after a dose roll-out.
Or you've just kept fiddling with the data until you can make the lines match...
So could the Believers be correct? What could happen frequently enough 21 weeks after a vaccine dose to see an uptick in deaths?
People who got even less healthy during the lockdowns relax about Covid and start doing more, sleeping less which leads to cardiac events, exacerbate existing health problems etc?
I'm scratching my head here. And the NHS is still recommending it to pregnant women!
The problem for most people is lack of understanding of statistical methodology. This isn't a coincidence or something else that might possible be happening. The two data series shouldn't correlate over time as well as this unless something is definitely going on. Vaccines are either directly or indirectly causing the situation.
This is what I’m musing on.... how could the vaccines indirectly cause the excess deaths?
We need to grill some experts in that field!
My hubby gets Chemistry world magazine monthly due to being a member of the royal society of chemistry. In December 2020 they run two articles about the vaccines, in one of the articles a Dr Poland says how that people will still need to social distance and mask wear as the efficacy and durability of the vaccines are to be determined, this is along with safety where data is to be collected and recorded as no long term data is available as they are rolled out to millions. I saved this magazine because what I read with what the public have been told didn’t add up or sit right with me.
It’s actually despicable that the data they do have now shows up the problems they’re causing, yet they bury it from the public. Millions who didn’t need it including pregnant women and children have been given this with no real research to what it can do to them.
Nothing about this ever sat right with me from the start, my neighbour confirmed it within two weeks of the first lockdown, this article made me understand why I felt so uneasy at the suggestion of taking it and people have even been openly hostile believing anti vaxxer like me should have been dumped on an island or put in camps.
I have never been anti vaccine in my life, I was even with this vax pro informed consent choice. That included informing people that it was an experimental gene therapy treatment with the trials which they would be part of running until 2023. Giving people a piece of paper to read with limited acknowledge side effects while Pfizer hid their trial data is abhorrent to me and is lacking at best from the medical community. Questions should have been asked, those that did were sent into the wilderness and the messaging was used in full force to do the right thing.
What I despise about all this is all the lies and misinformation directed at the public, they know they’re causing harm and reduce peoples immune system, they are withholding this and will be calling for the public to go get their boosters soon, I’m hoping most of the public sticks two fingers up and tell them to jog on.
People have the right to take them if they do so wish, what they should be told is the risk, benefit when doing so. I have vaccine damage friends and family from these jabs, not one was told about the yellow card system or how to report onto it, how many million are missing from the site due to not knowing anything about it. Scandalous doesn’t even touch it.
Completely agree. And the truth about the other vaccines is a crazy rabbit hole you will never come out of. Just about everyone was ‘provax’ once!
I think that after a lot of very frustrating and time consuming blind alleys, we are now hitting the real paydirt. It's been bloody frustrating and complex to follow at times, and being a sensible sort of pragmatist I have to swat away the buzzing flies of conspiracy theorists who want to put this all down to some kind of 'Dr Evil' mastermind attempt to destroy the human race, but there is zero doubt in my mind that the vaccines are killing people, and that they are doing so in numbers that make Dr Harold Shipman look like a rank amateur.
Now, someone asked why the Chinese haven't invested in MRNA vaccines, and I think we know the reason why: they still seriously believe in Zero Covid: it suits their world-model. I have no idea how they get away with it, their lockdown philosophy is ridiculous: a pantomime.
Your work is breathtaking. Thank you. If I’ve got this right ( I’m a newbie) this analysis is across a large and heterogeneous population. I wonder which age bands have a larger r-square and which have smaller as we know the excess death rate is not evenly distributed across age bands nor is vaccination uptake. Asking for a friend.... worried they might be asking to see if there is(are) inflection point(s).
Why thank you kind sir! Yep, a real jumble. I've got age band mortality data prepped and ready but I'm missing dosing by age band so can't proceed with anything sensible as yet. In general older groups always dominate matters so I look upon these analyses as illumination of a 'mature' problem.