All Cause Mortality in Britain: Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.

t.me ^ | November 20, 2021 | Alex Berenson

[ransomnote]

[H/T tatown]  

The basic data is available here, download the Excel file and see table 4:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland t.me/Alex_Berenson/613

1.7Kviewsedited  Nov 20 at 07:02

[semimojo]

Yes, because he was trying to focus on the segment of the population where mortality is generally low, and where any adverse effects of the vaccines might be more apparent and more relevant.

But he doesn't have the data to explore that because the vaccinated group skews older.

His source for the data explicitly stated this and explained why the comparison he's making isn't valid, yet he publishes this anyway.

If I was a vax sceptic I'd be offended that Berenson has so little respect for me. He's willing to intentionally mislead me just to perpetuate his grift.

If he had included the older age groups, you probably would have made an issue of THAT.

Why would I make an issue of more complete data?

I have the raw data set.

I haven't done a big analysis but in the week of September 24th the all-cause death rate per 100,000 for fully vaccinated people over 80 was 10. For the unvaccinated over 80 it was 40.

Four times higher for the unvaccinated.

How about the 60-69 cohort?

Vaccinated - 1.1

Unvaccinated - 8.5

He's focusing on the one cohort where he can misrepresent the data since he thinks people won't read the footnotes while ignoring the data showing the all-cause death rate is overall massively higher in the unvaccinated.

[Ceebass]

Imagine a giant jar of one billion M&Ms and the government insists that everyone....in the US needs to .... eat 2 of them but .05% (500,000) of the M&Ms are laced with a fatal amount of cyanide, would you still be willing to eat just one?

Good analogy.

I like the one with a table full of revolvers, one of which is loaded with one shot. Then you get to play russian roulette.

[ransomnote]

volunbeer wrote:

Honest and respectful question.

At this point, given the overwhelming data, why should we believe the VAERS data when it is put in the system and administered by the same people who deny the effectiveness of ivermectin, HCQ, and other therapeutic treatments?

They might as well allow Merck and Pfizer to administer the VAERS system.

The CDC is withholding, deleting and revising data in VAERS to falsely portray the 'vaccines' as safe. They created a forumula to calculate the number of deaths which would signal the 'vaccine' should be pulled from use. Mathmeticians got together to examine the formula and determined that it was quite literally mathmatically impossible to exceed the safety threshold using the CDC's algorithm.

Normally they name a panel of experts which will review the data in VAERS. This time, with Covid 'vaccines', they said nothing until after the review was over and refused to name any physicians on it, other than to say they were with the FDA. However, FDA physicians do not have the training/skill set to conduct a safety review, which would in reality have taken months to conduct because of all the data.

Two whistleblowers (and their lawsuits) allege they have seen 45 thousand post vaccine deaths (within three days) sitting in the CMS (medicare) database unreported to VAERS. The CMS database is only one of a dozen systems intended to automatically report to VAERs. How many systems have data unreported to VAERS?

The CDC should have honored it's mandate and made the database accessible, but it intionally left the buggy, hard-to-use interface exactly as it was to discourage reporting (e.g., it logs you out automatically without warning at the 20minute mark, and you have to start over from the beginning). With Covid, the CDC created V-Safe, a database to house Covid adverse events (why not centralize as intended?) which only the CDC is permitted to access (oh that's why!). ALl persons vaccinated are offered a free convenient phone app (why isn't there one for VAERS after 30 years?) to report adverse events - and keep it hidden from the public.

Many doctors don't even know VAERS exists, and if they do they are either threatened if they report to it or they are unwilling to spend 45 minutes of unpaid time filling out paper reports.

VAERS wildly under reports the harm done by the Covid 'vaccines', and all other vaccines, because that's the way the CDC responded to the Congressional mandate to make vaccine harm data available to the public.

But even though the CDC is working to hide most of the data, and we're only looking at a sliver, the sliver is catastrophic. The vaccines are far worse than VAERS reveals, and whistleblowers, and doctors, victims, funeral home directors, researchers etc.

[Steve_Seattle]

One other thing to consider is that deaths from Covid within two weeks of vaccination are classified as deaths of the unvaccinated. Similarly, most deaths (rightly or wrongly) attributed to the vaccines themselves occur within two weeks of the vaccination, and so are classified as deaths - from whatever cause - of the unvaccinated.

To make an exaggerated example, if 100,000 people were vaccinated, and the jab killed 10,000 of those people within two weeks, those would all be classified as deaths of the unvaccinated. Now, such a massive death rate (10%) so close to vaccination could not be ignored even by the most avid pro-vaxxer, but how far can you reduce the death rate to the point where people will ignore it? 5,000? No. 1,000? Probably not. 500? Maybe. 100-300? Almost without a doubt.

[bagster]

If I was a vax sceptic I'd be offended that Berenson has so little respect for me.

He's not alone, banned liberal troll formerly known as Mojo.

He's focusing on the one cohort where he can misrepresent the data since he thinks people won't read the footnotes while ignoring the data showing the all-cause death rate is overall massively higher in the unvaccinated.

But back in the real world, ALL CAUSE deaths are up in the vaccinated.

Ergo ipso facto, the vax is killing people.

I don't like that fact, but you REALLY don't like it. Cause you're a derp state shill for the vax, no matter the consequences.

No. You just go ahead and be offended, nobody has respect for you.

[semimojo]

You really had to dig deep in the data to come up with that irrelevant footnote.

You mean the footnote the researchers included because they figured some grifter would try to misrepresent their data?

The one where they explicitly say you can't use this data to claim what Berenson is?

That one?

[volunbeer]

Good explanation and thanks for writing it. I had not paid more than scant attention to the system admittedly because I have so little trust in the institutions to begin with.

This is criminal. Local jurisdictions need to start talking about empaneling grand juries to investigate this. One can make a compelling argument (albeit not a slam dunk) that the behavior of some in our government is bordering on negligent homicide.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Imagine a giant jar of one billion M&Ms and the government insists that every man, woman and child in the US needs to reach inside and eat 2 of them but .05% (500,000) of the M&Ms are laced with a fatal amount of cyanide, would you still be willing even eat just one?"

The government is telling us that half of the M&Ms are tainted with Covid-19, but if we are vaccinated we can eat as many as we want. If unvaccinated, we dare not try eating even one.

[bagster]

You mean the footnote the researchers included because they figured some grifter would try to misrepresent their data?

I wouldn't call you a grifter, Mojo. More like a derp state shill embed looking to steer opinion away from your derp state fake poison vax.

You're basically #TeamDerp on every issue. Nobody's buying what you're selling. You are revealed.

No. Not a grifter. Something much worse.

[CTyank]

I personally know 3 elderly folks(2 in their 80’s). All 3 received their boosters - all 3 suffered seizures within 2 - 3 weeks. All 3 were diagnosed with encephalopathy. 2 have since died from this disease. 1 is in bad shape.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any acquaintance dying of this prior to this last month. There is a known link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8420261/

[Ceebass]

You mean the footnote blah blah blah?

The one where they explicitly blah blah?

That blah?.....

Hi leftist troll and previously banned mojo.

Why should I answer any of your loaded questions when you never answered my simple one?

The next time you get banned are you coming back as quasimojo?

[Ceebass]

#YouGetStupiderByTheMinute

Hi Bagster.

mojo can’t help it. Apparently the process of getting banned reduced him by 50% to semimojo.

[ScaniaBoy]

Yes, that is correct. Though, in this data set you compare the age-corrected mortality before first dose, within 21 days of first dose, more than 21 days after the first dose etc. (see sheet 2)

Some mortal side-effects must be included in the number of deaths in the interim period after the 1st vaccination, but the mortality is still lower than the unvaccinated death rate. But as I have written a number of times when discussing an earlier data set from the UK, when looking at the effect on mortality caused by COVID-19 (and the vaccines) one must differ between the elderly and younger people. In the age corrected data for the whole population there in all likelihood hides a large positive effect for the elderly, and possibly a none- or even negative effect for the younger persons).

What is a bit strange is that they define the same period after the 2nd dose, but do not give any data for the period between 0 and 21 days post 2nd dose vaccination. Do they include all deaths directly after the 2nd dose or is there a hiatus where deaths are not counted??

Another statistical problem is the report from Germany showing that the percentage of vaccinated people correlate positively (sic!) with the excess mortality. This means, if true, that the vaccine kills more people than it protects.

However, it is a weird data set. There are two states that cause this correlation - remove them and you receive a stronger negative correlation. Now if one looks at the time the period the comparisons where made and the COVID-19 infection rates in the various German states, it is obvious that the new infection wave spread to the two formerly East-German states of Saxony and Thuringen latest of them all (despite low vaccination rates!) - later than the last week of the comparisons. Is the higher excess death rate in the more heavily vaccinated states due to the earlier rise in COVID-cases? I don't know, but one would have wished that the authors had discussed this.

[NetAddicted]

Read later.

[Rurudyne]

The few they probably intend to survive that long will be well indoctrinated if they get their way.

Which they will not.

And the Revelation to John says what happens.

[steve86]

Just in case it isn’t clear to you, encephalopathy refers to any kind of brain problem (basically). Surely you have heard of people dying from brain pathology. I am sorry to hear about your acquaintances.

[Antoninus]

He is only including people in the prime of life.

Yup. The people who are having the vax mandated for them. The point is that the mandate is more likely to kill them than if they remained unvaxxed. Get it?

[Fury]

Hi leftist troll and previously banned mojo.

So instead of being able to discern and determine if semimojo’s claims are true, you focus on if he was banned?

It suggests the position you are arguing is weak.

[Fury]

At this point, given the overwhelming data, why should we believe the VAERS data when it is put in the system and administered by the same people who deny the effectiveness of ivermectin, HCQ, and other therapeutic treatments?

A reasonable viewpoint is the data in VAERS is believed as long as it supports the claims of those who do not support vaccinations. And the same goes for those who support vaccinations - they will use VAERS to their advantage as well.

[semimojo]

...you focus on if he was banned?

The funny part is it takes 20 seconds to find out I've been here under the same handle for 20 years.

I don't remember exactly but I'm sure the poster I'm supposed to be the reincarnation of was posting here much more recently than that.

I suppose I could have been clever and set up a burner account to troll from, but I wasn't clever enough to use a more distinct handle...?

I guess when your thought process isn't reason based you rely on things like the similarity of names to draw your conclusions.