Replies

My take, and I didn't research it as deeply as you did (which is why I asked you), is that it seems indicative of an all-cause mortality rate.

I didn't suggest that it was vaccine-related, although the article goes on to discuss COVID-19. I am aware of the concerns that the vaccine+boosters boosts the immune system against a virus that is outdated, and that it might cause the immune system to relax against other threats while it hyper-focuses on something it's not going to find. I think this is the basis for the look into all-cause deaths.

The problem that I have with stories like this is that, firstly, it takes an observation of an abnormal condition (the sudden spike in all-cause deaths) to signal the need to investigate further. Secondly, there has to be the investigation to confirm the observation. And thirdly, there has to be controlled experiments to identify the root causes. The pattern that I've observed is the willful ignorance of the "experts" to refuse to look into areas where they don't want to find any conclusions.

This lack of urgency, to me, was defined by the refusal to conduct autopsies on people who died within a few weeks of being vaccinated. I remember seeing a video of a doctor parent chastising a school board over vaccine mandates for children, offering his services to the board to help them understand the medical literature. His quote to them was something like "They will never find what they refuse to look for."

I think that the current environment of conflicting evidence, evidence-free (or evidence-questionable) articles, or lack of evidence at all, going on two years now, is a result of the lack of desire by invested interests to investigate anything that had a risk of controverting the established narrative.

The continued fight over whether to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, over the dangers of COVID-19 to various age groupings, over natural immunities, over mask and social-distancing effectiveness, etc., proliferates because the base data that all sides use to defend their positions is not evolving commensurately with the anecdotal observations that usually are the triggers to look deeper. So we have these independent agencies looking at whatever data they can find, while the "trusted" sources (CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, etc.) remain silent on providing fresh studies based on recent global changes, or only seem to release a study when unfavorable news requires a counter-narrative.

-PJ