Mysterious jump in excess mortality among younger cohorts

Page 6 of 15 [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

17 Jan 2022, 10:46 am

Excess mortality in the EU, 2020 is the darker blue line, 2021 is the lighter one:

Image

Something is going on...

Also slightly interesting, but far from anything substantial. This is a recorded phone call with an NHS doctor who claims that the vaccines will be pulled shortly due to new data and safety concerns (2m19s):

https://twitter.com/theysayitsrare/stat ... 2058863617

The phone number checks out. Perhaps the good doctor knows something we don't. Or maybe she's a rabid antivaxxer about to get fired by the NHS for saying that. Guess we'll know in


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

17 Jan 2022, 12:00 pm

For those who enjoy dark humour:

https://freewestmedia.com/2022/01/14/li ... ine-death/

Life insurer refuses to cover vaccine death

An explosive case is currently being hotly debated on social media: In France, a rich, older entrepreneur from Paris is said to have died as a result of a Corona injection. Previously, he had taken out multi-million dollar life insurance policies for the benefit of his children and grandchildren, according to a media report.

Although vaccination is recognized as the cause of death by doctors and the insurance company, it has refused to pay out. The reason is because the side effects of the Corona jabs are known and published. They argue that the deceased took part in an experiment at his own risk. Covid-19 in itself is not classed as a “critical illness”.

According to the company, an experimental vaccination resulting in death is like suicide


Well at least insurance companies will survive the vaccine apocalypse...


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

19 Jan 2022, 7:35 am

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/15/tripl ... oping-ade/

Some will dismiss the Daily Expose out of hand, but here they do their own analysis using publicly available UK data and Pfizer's own method used to claim that the vaccines were "95% effective".

N.B. They are taking liberties here using the phrases "immune system performance" and "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome" aka. "Vaxx-AIDS" . Vaccine effectiveness versus covid is all that can be discerned from the data and while there is evidence that the vaccines appear to make you more vulnerable to covid long term - whether it makes you more vulnerable to non-covid illness is not yet known (though there are some reasons to think it might, especially regarding cancer - but that is for another post).

Official data suggests the Triple Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome at an alarming rate

An in-depth investigation of 5 months worth of official UK Government data published by the UK Health Security Agency seems to confirm predictions previously made by The Expose that the Covid-19 “booster” dose would provide a very short lived temporary boost to the immune systems of the vaccinated population before decimating their immune systems much more rapidly than had already been seen in people who had received two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine.

In short, official UK Government data strongly suggests that the Covid-19 vaccinated population are developing some new form of Covid-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.


...

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

What we can see from the above is that the immune system performance for adults aged between 18 and 59 has deteriorated to the worst levels yet since they were given the Covid-19 vaccine. Whilst the immune system performance of everyone over the age of 60 has deteriorated dramatically following receipt of the booster shot, but not yet to the level seen between week 37 and week 40.

The over 70’s have however seen the most dramatic fall in immune system performance between month 4 and month 5 alongside 18-29-year-olds.

The 55% boost to the immune systems of the over 80’s given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 1% better than it was in month 3 but still 54% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.

The 73% boost to the immune systems of the 70-79-year-olds given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has also all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 10% better than it was in month 3 but still 63% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.

The minor boost however, given to the immune Systems of everyone between the age of 30 and 59 by the boosters between month 3 and 4 has been completely decimated by the following month, whilst 18-29-year-olds have seen a 60% decline in their immune system performance between months 4 and 5.


...

Covid-19 Vaccine Induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

The real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections wanes significantly in a short amount of time, but unfortunately for the vaccinated population, rather than the immune system returning to the same state it was prior to vaccination, the immune system performance begins to rapidly decline making it inferior to that of the unvaccinated.

Now the official UK Government data proves that a booster dose of the vaccine can give a short term boost to the immune system of the vaccinated, but unfortunately this same data shows that the immune system performance then begins to decline even faster than it was prior to the booster dose being given.

This data therefore suggests that the vaccinated population will now require an endless cycle of booster shots to boost their immune systems to a point where it does not fail but is inferior to that of the unvaccinated population.

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a condition that leads to the loss of immune cells and leaves individuals susceptible to other infections and the development of certain types of cancers. In other words, it completely decimates the immune system.

Therefore, could we be seeing some new form of Covid-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome?

Only time will tell, but judging by the current figures it looks like we will only need to wait a matter of weeks to find out.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

23 Jan 2022, 11:55 am

Run this site through google translate. It's a large insurance company from Germany. Guess what they don't cover?

Image

Also interesting, the phrase "Impfschäden aufgrund angeordneter Massenimpfungen." (Vaccination damage due to ordered mass vaccinations) first appears on that site on the 22nd of July 2020 according to the wayback machine, the shots were first rolled out in December and talk of mandates didn't really start until late 2021. Rather good foresight for this particular insurance company not just knowing that mandates and the like were coming but that the vaccines might not be as safe as promised - months before they were rolled out. That's Germany and France now where insurance companies need not fear paying up over "suicide-by-vaccine".


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

28 Jan 2022, 6:44 am



Not sure I'm going to watch all of this, but if I do I'll note any highlights.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

29 Jan 2022, 8:32 am

Mikah wrote:


Not sure I'm going to watch all of this, but if I do I'll note any highlights.


Watched most of it now. There isn't much new here if you are up to date on your vaccine/mask/lockdown skepticism studies/data.

There was something I haven't heard about before. A lawyer addressed the hearing about data said to have been leaked from the Defense Health Agencies Defense Medical Epidemiology Database ("DMED") it allegedly shows increases in various conditions reported by personnel after the rollout. I found the full list on a questionable site:

Myocardial Infarction / Heart Attack heart rose 269% from 612 annual cases to YTD 1,650.
Pericarditis rose 175% from 589 annual cases to YTD 1,029.
Myocarditis rose 285% from 127 annual cases to YTD 363.
Pulmonary embolisms 467% from 746 annual cases to YTD 3,489,
Cerebral infarction rose 393% with current YTD 3,438.
Bell’s Palsy rose 319% with current YTD 1,470.
Guillain-Barre Syndrome rose 250% with current YTD 3,635.
Immunodeficiencies rose 275% with current YTD 3,172.
Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura rose 322% with current YTD 564.
Menstrual Irregularity rose 476% with current YTD 22,938.
Multiple Schlerosis / Demyelinating Diagnosis rose 487% with current YTD 3,444 .
Neoplasms (tissue growth, often cancer precursor) rose 296% with current YTD 114,645.
Nontraumatic Subarchnoid Hemorrhage/ICH rose 312% with current YTD 1,858.
Spontaneous Abortion / Miscarriage rose 306% with current YTD 4,602.
Disseminate Intravascular Condition rose 1,175% from 7 annual cases to YTD 87.
HIV rose 590% from 454 annual cases to YTD 2,681.
Chest pain rose 1,529% from 4,892 annual cases to YTD 74,813 individuals.
Dyspnea / Difficult or labored breathing rose 905% from 4,968 annual cases to YTD 44,990.

That's the increase in incidence January through November 2021 compared to the 5 year average. Military data collection is usually slightly more reliable than their civilian counterparts. If true, these are the conditions to look out for in the civilian population in the months and years to come.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

30 Jan 2022, 7:49 pm

Latest news in the "the spike protein is what makes most people sick" avenue of thought (reminder the mRNA vaccines are designed to turn your body into a spike protein factory):

https://phys.org/news/2022-01-sars-cov- ... enous.html

SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activates human endogenous retroviruses in blood cells

On Tuesday, a real zinger was dropped onto the medRxiv preprint server that could potentially explain many of the commonly observed pathogenic features of SARS-CoV-2. The authors provide solid evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activates the envelope (ENV) protein encoded by HERV-W in blood cells, which is in turn directly responsible for many pathological features of the disease. HERV-W is named for the fact that many retroviruses in the group use a tryptophan tRNA in the primer binding site. Apparently, the shape of the letter W somehow reminded the naming committee of the shape of the ring structure of atoms in the side chain of tryptophan.

Researchers had previously observed a correlation in the expression of HERV-W ENV protein in T lymphocytes with severe respiratory distress in SARS-CoV-2 patients. However, the exact mechanisms involved were not clear. Now, the real culprit in HERV-W activation has been discovered. Researchers added a recombinant trimeric spike protein without stabilizing mutations to cultured peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from SARS-CoV-2 patients. They found immediate and significant upregulation of the RNAs for the ENV protein from both HERV-W and HERV-K. Curiously, only the RNAs for HERV-W resulted in subsequent ENV protein expression.

Native spike proteins tend to prematurely refold into a post-fusion conformation, which compromises immunogenic properties and prefusion trimer yields. mRNA vaccines therefore have slight modifications that simultaneously make the mRNA less immunogenic, and the spike protein it encodes more immunogenic. One way this has been done is to stabilize specific conformers through the addition of two strategic prolines to the code. However, more research is needed to fully characterize the fusogenic potential of stabilized spike proteins. Some vaccine manufacturers have eliminated the furin cleavage site from their mRNA construct in order to reduce potential residual fusion of a 2-PP stabilized construct. A few of these observations were initially pointed out to me by an anonymous researcher on social media operating with the moniker "Underground courtlady."

A key finding in these studies is that not all COVID patients had significant HERV-W ENV activation; only 20 or 30 percent of them did. This finding likely reflects an underlying genetic susceptibility among the infected that absolutely needs to be defined and taken into account, particularly if HERV-W is going to be used as a general marker for disease severity, or as a therapeutic target for a humanized monoclonal antibody therapy, as is now envisioned. For example, activation of a soluble hexameric form of HERV-W was found in multiple sclerosis, and is earmarked as potentially druggable option.

But which HERV-W, exactly? Over 1 percent of our genomes are HERV-W remnants, more than all our protein-coding regions put together. In fact, there are at least 13 HERV-W loci with full-length ENV genes in the human genome. One of these, which hails from chromosome region 7q21.2, has an uninterrupted open reading frame for a complete HERV-W ENV protein. This protein, Syncytin-1, figures famously and essentially in normal placental development. To complicate things, MS now seems to have many eclectic potential origins. Researchers revealed this week, to considerable acclaim, that infection with Epstein-Barr virus is an important upstream, or downstream, or perhaps altogether independent trigger for MS.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

05 Feb 2022, 7:23 pm

Another update on the DMED database leak.

Long story short: The DMED leak appears to be real and the DoD are covering it up. Badly.

DoD spokesman claims that the DMED database was underreported in 2016-2020

A PolitiFact “fact check” noted that:

But Peter Graves, spokesperson for the Defense Health Agency’s Armed Forces Surveillance Division, told PolitiFact by email that "in response to concerns mentioned in news reports" the division reviewed data in the DMED "and found that the data was incorrect for the years 2016-2020."

Officials compared numbers in the DMED with source data in the DMSS and found that the total number of medical diagnoses from those years "represented only a small fraction of actual medical diagnoses." The 2021 numbers, however, were up-to-date, giving the "appearance of significant increased occurrence of all medical diagnoses in 2021 because of the underreported data for 2016-2020," Graves said.

The DMED system has been taken offline to "identify and correct the root-cause of the data corruption," Graves said.


What’s interesting is that only the event counts related to adverse events caused by the vaccines (as determined in VAERS) were affected by this “corruption.” That is, huge increases observed prior to the correction were only on symptoms that were vaccine related, not on other symptoms. That makes their “corruption” explanation hard to explain. Very hard to explain.

How could a glitch in the computer only affect symptoms associated with the COVID vaccine? That would be the most amazing glitch in computer history. I would love to hear the explanation for that.


The U.S. military just doesn't do cover ups like they used to. They just don't put their hearts into it anymore. Anyway, this suggests that there might be something to the leaked data.

This is also the first piece of data I've seen to suggest the vaccines-cause-sterility doomers might have been right. The leak had the following disturbing data points:

congenital malformations (for children of military personnel) – 156% increase
female infertility – 471% increase


Continuing with Steve:

You can easily determine for yourself who is lying.

I wanted to see for myself who was lying so I picked an event that I’ve said for a long time has been highly elevated by the vaccines: pulmonary embolism. I didn’t cherry pick this event. It was mentioned in my public ACIP testimony on January 4, before I ever looked at any of the DMED data. But I’ve long highlighted pulmonary embolism as an elevated adverse event from the COVID vaccines as you can see from this post from October 30, which was the very first article I wrote on my Substack!

If you download Renz’s spreadsheet, look at the spreadsheet tabs where it has the original data on the left and the “after the corruption was fixed” data on the right.

In the case above, I looked at the pulmonary embolism tab in the spreadsheet. The incidence of PE is estimated to be approximately 60 to 70 per 100,000 in the general population. This means that for the 1.4M members of the military in the DMED database, we’d expect fewer than 839 to 979 events per year since people in the military are healthier in general than the overall population.

On the left in the chart below are the numbers before the data was “fixed” by the DoD on January 31, 2022. The rates on the left experienced nearly exactly match what would be expected. In four of the 5 years before the vaccine, the numbers were below 839. And even in the peak year (2020), the numbers are below 979.

The rates on the right hand side after the “corruption” was corrected are simply too high to be believed, roughly around 3 times higher than the normal rates. How do they explain that?

But there are other examples of data manipulation that was done that are even more obvious, even to totally untrained observers. I’ll reveal those later since I don’t want to help them clean up the manipulated data… those smoking guns will be revealed later.


Image

The DoD have dug themselves into a hole by saying the 2021 figures were correct and the previous 5 year data was wrong.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

06 Feb 2022, 2:44 am

More from the DMED leak.

There has actually been a theory for some time that the vaccines might have a negative effect on the human body's ability to fight cancer. There have been a few lab studies like this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/a ... MC8538446/ investigating that potential. But for the most part there hasn't been any hard data - just lots of anecdotes from doctors seeing new cases in abundance or formerly recovered people seeing their cancer suddenly return with incredible and often fatal speed. If you've taken the vaccine and have had cancer in the past, it might be a good idea to get a check up.

Now we have the DMED data. The cancer data was not "fixed" by the DoD, not yet being directly linked to the vaccines, so not even they are disputing this (yet).

You can download the raw data (including pre-"fix" and post-"fix" and all the graphs) here: https://renz-law.com/dmed-data/

Image
Image
Image
Image

For an extra pinch of doom, here are the fertility graphs.

Image
Image
Image


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,241
Location: Long Island, New York

08 Feb 2022, 8:36 pm

Why Are We Boosting Kids?

Quote:
David Zweig
Writer for the Atlantic, New York magazine, Wired, and other outlets. Author of INVISIBLES and, forthcoming, AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION

The Covid vaccines are medical miracles. During the pandemic they have been literal life-savers; I’ll never forget the relief I felt after getting that first shot.

Despite the conspiracy theories in some corners of the web or on Fox News, there is simply zero evidence that they are killing people; that they are harming people in large numbers; or that this is all some malicious plot by Big Pharma. There is overwhelming proof that these vaccines prevent serious illness.

Like all medical interventions, though, vaccines can have side effects. And in the case of mRNA vaccines—those from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna—there is a small but real risk for young people, especially young males. The need for an evidence-based discussion about the wisdom of requiring boosters is urgent.

But that’s easier said than done.

Over the course of this pandemic, the public has been told that pronouncements from federal health officials represent “the science.” Distinguished medical experts, including some from our nation’s most elite institutions, who have questioned official Covid recommendations and policies—on everything from lockdowns to masking to vaccine mandates—have often been demonized and sometimes silenced.

And so healthy debate about scientifically complicated and morally complex subjects has been shut down, both by censors and by self-censorship.

David Zweig has been one of those rare journalists who, from the start, has challenged the accepted narrative on Covid. He has published a stream of investigations for New York Magazine, the Atlantic, and Wired—from questioning the wisdom of closing schools, to hospitalization metrics, to masking children—that initially were maligned or ignored, only to be accepted by legacy media and acknowledged by health officials months later.

This particular article, which tackles the knotty subject of boosters and myocarditis, is written with his characteristic nuance and rigor.


We have been exceptionally lucky that Covid-19 largely spares the young. This isn’t to say that the virus hasn’t brought tragedy to some families. But we should keep perspective: More children have died or been hospitalized from the flu in many seasons, than have from Covid in each of the past two years.

And yet, for those two years, many young Americans have been robbed of normal schooling and normal interactions with their peers. We have demanded that young people bear the heaviest burden of our policies for the sake of those who are more vulnerable.

Now we risk asking them to sacrifice even more.

Earlier this month, the CDC and the FDA approved Covid vaccine boosters for children as young as 12. (Until recently, only those 16 and older were eligible for a third dose.) Federal officials celebrated this as excellent news. They insist that the key to children’s safety, and being able to resume normal life, is near-universal and, apparently, repeated vaccination. Young people are not merely able to get a third dose. The CDC obliges them to do so with its language “should receive a booster.”

It’s not just the CDC.

There are signs that state and local governments are mandating a third Covid shot for kids as a condition to participate in society. New York state has already upped its guidance, saying that if kids are 12 or older and exposed to a positive individual, only those who are boosted will be allowed to play sports and participate in extracurricular activities; all other kids will be quarantined. Hawaii’s governor said he is planning to require boosters for visitors. Other states are likely to follow suit.

This is unwise—and likely to further diminish the already degraded trust in our governmental institutions and public health authorities.

Before I go any further, let me say the following: The Covid vaccines are remarkably beneficial tools. They’ve saved innumerable lives. And the evidence shows they’ve helped reduce the incidence of severe disease in untold numbers of people.

It is also the case that the mRNA vaccines carry a small but very real risk of a serious side effect—myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart—for young people, particularly males.

Prior to 2021, few had heard of this disease, for which athletic males from puberty through their early 30s are the highest risk group. (Its prognosis ranges from mild and transient to potentially fatal.) Now, everyone is talking about it.

I have been investigating and writing about this topic since June, when I spoke with the lead scientist who produced the seminal Israeli report, which confirmed an alarming rate of the condition of as high as one in 3,000 in young males following vaccination. (The finding buttressed a number of earlier disparate reports in the United States.)

Since then I have reviewed dozens of datasets and studies, and I’ve spoken with epidemiologists, pediatric immunologists, and infectious diseases specialists. If you listen to what these experts say, if you read the largely overlooked documents, and if you actually look closely at the primary data from the CDC and Pfizer, you will find a story of American health agencies’ misleading communications and a myopic policy agenda sometimes at odds with science.
America is an outlier regarding its vaccine policy for young people. Numerous other countries have taken a far more conservative approach. The UK allows a third dose only for 12 to 15-year-olds who have serious medical conditions that put them at high risk or who live with a vulnerable person. Finland has a similar policy for 12 to 17-year-olds. In Ireland no one under 16 can receive a booster. Denmark, Sweden, Japan, and Spain, are among the countries that have approved boosters for adults only. Some countries don’t recommend Covid vaccines for healthy children at all, or just one dose. Norway’s Institute of Public Health, for example, states: “12-15-year-olds already have high protection against a severe disease course after the first vaccine dose.”

Many countries also recognize previous Covid infection—what’s sometimes referred to as “natural immunity”—as the equivalent of at least one dose of vaccine. The U.S. does not. This is significant because the CDC estimates that as of September, well before the Omicron wave, more than 35% of children already had Covid.

Just as official U.S. policy is out of step with much of the West on the cadence of the first two doses for children and on the question of natural immunity, our country is also out of step when it comes to pediatric boosters. That’s why a number of American experts, including some on the FDA’s own advisory committee, have challenged the wisdom of our policy. They have cited both a lack of evidence of boosters’ effectiveness in children and their potential—even if low—for harm.

Monica Gandhi, a doctor and an infectious-disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, was blunt in her assessment. “I am not giving my 12 and 14-year-old boys boosters,” she told me.

Dr. Gandhi is not the only expert to publicly state an intention to not comply with the CDC’s recommendation. Dr. Paul Offit is the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, and is considered one the country’s top authorities on pediatric vaccine policy. He recently said that getting boosted would not be worth the risk for the average healthy 17-year-old boy, and he advised his son, who is in his 20s, not to get a third dose.

Just last week, the WHO’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, said: ​​“There is no evidence that healthy children or healthy adolescents need boosters. No evidence at all.”

And yet, despite the fact that so many other countries are taking a more cautious path; despite the fact that leading American experts are warning against this policy; and despite the recent comments by the WHO’s chief scientist, the CDC and FDA have ignored all of this and gone full steam ahead.

When it comes to green-lighting new vaccines and drugs, there is a way things typically go.

The CDC and FDA each convene a panel of independent experts who vote on vaccine policy. In September 2021, both committees were convened. And both voted against wide-ranging proposals from the agencies for boosters, instead approving the third dose only for limited groups. Notably, these votes were at odds with the Biden administration’s public push for boosters for all.

Only rarely does the head of the CDC act in opposition to its advisory committee. But Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the agency’s director, did just that, overruling her committee, which had defended its vote saying there was insufficient data to recommend boosters for the general population.

Within the FDA, the topic was so contentious that not only did a member of the FDA’s advisory committee publicly campaign against it, but two top FDA vaccine officials—30-year veterans of the agency—resigned over the issue. Those who objected argued that healthy, vaccinated people are already protected against serious illness if they get a breakthrough Covid infection, so a third dose provided little additional advantage.

The most salient concern discussed at several FDA and CDC advisory committee meetings since the summer has been the incidence of myocarditis following vaccination, particularly among young males. Recent data from the Israeli Ministry of Health, the Canadian government, models and trial data from Pfizer, and studies published in various peer reviewed journals—all of which have been almost entirely overlooked by the legacy press—suggest that the CDC has downplayed both the prevalence and severity of this adverse event for this cohort.

Just before the new year, researchers from Kaiser Permanente released a preprint study, which concluded: “the true incidence of myopericarditis is markedly higher than the incidence reported to U.S. advisory committees.” The authors found the equivalent of a 1 in 2,650 chance of myocarditis per second dose for males between the ages of 12 to 17. (This rate was starkly higher than what the CDC had been telling the public: a rate of roughly 1 in 30,000 for 12 to 17-year-old boys and girls. By combining the results for both sexes—girls are at far lower risk—the CDC's findings obscured the real risk to boys.)

These findings from Kaiser echo those from Hong Kong, Ontario, and Israel. By contrast, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was “paused” on April 13, after just six cases of blood clots. (Subsequent data on J&J associated blood clots showed a rate of 1 in 314,815.)

The CDC, numerous public health authorities, and the mainstream media have resolutely contended that myocarditis in young people is far more common from Covid than it is from the vaccines. Yet a study by researchers at the University of Oxford, published in the journal Nature Medicine in December, shows otherwise. The researchers concluded that 16 to 29-year-olds have the same or potentially higher risk of myocarditis from the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine as from Covid. (A subsequent more detailed analysis by the authors, currently in preprint, estimates males under age 40 could potentially have more than three times the incidence of myocarditis following a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine as they would from Covid)

That’s not all. Astonishingly, an FDA memo released on December 8, based on Pfizer’s own models, shows that for every 1 million booster doses for 16 and 17-year-olds, 29 to 69 hospitalizations would be averted, but there would also be 23 to 69 cases of myocarditis for the males in that age group. In other words, according to Pfizer, for teenage boys getting a booster is—at best—a wash.

The CDC has continually referred to vaccine-associated myocarditis as mild. Yet, as the cardiologist Anish Koka noted, “There is no such thing as mild symptomatic myocarditis that puts a young person in the hospital.” Of specific concern are the findings from a study published in December in the journal Circulation. The researchers found that 76% of pediatric patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis had something called “late gadolinium enhancement,” a signal that typically indicates scarring on the heart. Of the patients tested more than a month later, 40% of them still had LGE. Dr. Mark Gorelik, a pediatric immunologist at Columbia University who studies myocardial inflammation, explained that this condition can indicate a risk of developing long-term and potentially serious heart problems. Dr. Gorelik noted that this frightening outcome is not certain for these patients, but rather that the issue demands more study and must be taken seriously.

Most surprisingly, data presented during the CDC’s advisory committee meeting where the members voted to recommend boosters for 12 to 17-year-olds show a negative cost benefit for males in this group. The booster safety data for young people, which comes from Israel, showed what equates to a 10 in 100,000 rate of myocarditis in young males. But, later in that same meeting, another slide showed that vaccinated 12 to 17-year-olds had approximately 0.3 Covid hospitalizations per 100,000 population.

In other words, if you are a young male who is vaccinated you have two choices. Option A: don’t get a booster and run a 0.3 in 100,000 risk of ending up in the hospital with Covid. Option B: get the booster and run a 10 in 100,000 risk of getting myocarditis.

The risk/reward calculation seemed so crazy that I thought I was misunderstanding it. Did the CDC notice what I was seeing in their slides? I contacted Dr. Sarah Long, a member of the CDC advisory committee and a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Drexel University. “Your numbers are correct,” she told me in an email. But she said that, in her view, the sample size, with just two incidences of myocarditis out of 20,000 doses to males, was too small to make projections.

According to several epidemiologists who I discussed these data with, extrapolating a 10 in 100,000 incidence of myocarditis from two cases produces what’s known as a “noisy” estimate—meaning the ultimate numbers could be higher or lower. Another factor to consider is that the risk of hospitalization from Covid continues month after month, while the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis is a one-time potential event. Still, they all said that the central comparison was correct.

The cost benefit is even more problematic when you consider that at least forty percent of pediatric “Covid hospitalizations” are for kids hospitalized “with” Covid, not “because of” Covid.

Dr. Long told me this: “We made the decision, in my opinion, without any data on safety.” (What she meant is that she disregarded the Israeli data that showed the two cases of myocarditis in 12 to 15-year-old males because she felt it wasn’t a big enough sample to make an accurate prediction.) Taken aback, I asked her: In the absence of safety data on the children in this age group, why move ahead? She said that data on boosters in the next older age group, 16 to 19-year-olds, suggested to her that myocarditis was not a matter of concern.

But there’s a problem with that assertion: the data from Israel presented in the meeting for 16 to 19-year-old males showed that out of 123,355 booster doses, there was a rate of 6.5 cases per 100,000. This rate still would yield an unfavorable outcome against the fewer than one Covid hospitalization per 100,000 vaccinated 12 to 15-year-olds. According to several experts, the only other booster data for teens is from a Pfizer trial that included just 78 16 and 17-year-olds. And even that small sample yielded a case of myocarditis in a male.

Dr. Long voted to approve boosters anyway. Why?

First, because she said the presumed reduction in infections would permit teachers and students to be in school and not have to quarantine—which, given how mild Covid typically is for this age group, seems to be a matter primarily of bureaucratic policy, not health.

Second, because she said we are in an upsurge of Omicron, and she predicted “many more deaths in children.” Yet since Omicron’s arrival, the rough number of pediatric deaths each week has not increased.

None of this is to say that the initial doses of the vaccine, and, in some circumstances, boosters, aren’t beneficial for many kids and adolescents—especially for those with underlying health conditions. But the FDA’s approval, and CDC’s recommendations, do not allow for an appropriate degree of agency on the part of parents. This is because recommendations often translate into mandates. And this is especially likely in the case of boosters, since the CDC committee members spent the better part of an hour debating whether to use the word “may” or “should” in their booster recommendation—and voted in favor of “should.”

Recently, students at universities across the country have looked at the data themselves. And they have raised serious concerns about what they are being forced to do. Petitions to repeal booster mandates at Stanford, Cornell, George Mason, UMass, Arizona State, Boston College, and Yeshiva attest to this. Their pleas are not rooted in ignorance and obstinance, as even the most minor opposition to any number of pandemic policies has so often been portrayed, but are impassioned and educated. They’re not asking for much, just for our institutions to catch up with the knowledge that regular citizens already have.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,694
Location: Michigan

09 Feb 2022, 10:54 pm

Mikah wrote:
Myocardial Infarction / Heart Attack heart rose 269% from 612 annual cases to YTD 1,650.
Pericarditis rose 175% from 589 annual cases to YTD 1,029.
Myocarditis rose 285% from 127 annual cases to YTD 363.
Pulmonary embolisms 467% from 746 annual cases to YTD 3,489,
Cerebral infarction rose 393% with current YTD 3,438.
Bell’s Palsy rose 319% with current YTD 1,470.
Guillain-Barre Syndrome rose 250% with current YTD 3,635.
Immunodeficiencies rose 275% with current YTD 3,172.
Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura rose 322% with current YTD 564.
Menstrual Irregularity rose 476% with current YTD 22,938.
Multiple Schlerosis / Demyelinating Diagnosis rose 487% with current YTD 3,444 .
Neoplasms (tissue growth, often cancer precursor) rose 296% with current YTD 114,645.
Nontraumatic Subarchnoid Hemorrhage/ICH rose 312% with current YTD 1,858.
Spontaneous Abortion / Miscarriage rose 306% with current YTD 4,602.
Disseminate Intravascular Condition rose 1,175% from 7 annual cases to YTD 87.
HIV rose 590% from 454 annual cases to YTD 2,681.
Chest pain rose 1,529% from 4,892 annual cases to YTD 74,813 individuals.
Dyspnea / Difficult or labored breathing rose 905% from 4,968 annual cases to YTD 44,990.

That's the increase in incidence January through November 2021 compared to the 5 year average. Military data collection is usually slightly more reliable than their civilian counterparts. If true, these are the conditions to look out for in the civilian population in the months and years to come.

So basically they're saying that a record year for COVID infections is also a record year for COVID symptoms?


_________________
I'm looking for Someone to change my life. I'm looking for a Miracle in my life.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

10 Feb 2022, 5:42 am

SabbraCadabra wrote:
So basically they're saying that a record year for COVID infections is also a record year for COVID symptoms?


But barely a blip in 2020? When practically no one was vaccinated? A bit of a stretch I think.

Also, if this is just Covid symptoms, why are the DoD crapping themselves and trying (badly) to cover it up?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,694
Location: Michigan

10 Feb 2022, 9:54 pm

Mikah wrote:
But barely a blip in 2020? When practically no one was vaccinated?

Correct. Despite the presence of multiple vaccines, Covid cases were much higher in 2021 than they were in 2020.


_________________
I'm looking for Someone to change my life. I'm looking for a Miracle in my life.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Feb 2022, 4:24 am

SabbraCadabra wrote:
Mikah wrote:
But barely a blip in 2020? When practically no one was vaccinated?

Correct. Despite the presence of multiple vaccines, Covid cases were much higher in 2021 than they were in 2020.


The blip I am referring to is in the leaked DMED data. There were still 20 million (compared to 31m in 2021) cases in the U.S. in 2020, but there is barely any change in most of the medical conditions tracked or "covid symptoms" as you dismissed them in 2020. It's 2021, Year of the Vax, when you see the explosion in these diagnoses.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

12 Feb 2022, 6:31 am

Another German paper.

German pdf: https://osf.io/5gu8a/

Translated in part here: https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p ... ity-part-8

New Analysis From Germany Confirms Our Calculations

My friend Max from Germany sent me some recent analyses. You may need a translator to read the 28-page analysis by Dr. Christof Kuhbandner. I'll cut to the chase. Forgive any slight variation in translation:

When the number of vaccinations increases, the number of deaths or excess mortality also increases shortly thereafter, when the number of vaccinations decreases, the number of deaths or excess mortality also decreases shortly afterwards. The empirical picture that has emerged so far is as follows:

The correlation is very strong: This is shown, for example, by a daily correlation analysis (7-day moving average) of the German data. For example, the course of excess mortality (increase in deaths in 2021 compared to the average of the five previous years) in the period from early March to late May correlates with the first vaccinations at a level of r = 0.95. The connection pattern is currently being analyzed using more complex statistical methods, and the first results confirm the strong connections. The connection is observed despite different vaccination patterns: An analysis at the level of the individual federal states shows that excess mortality varies depending on the federal state, depending on the specific vaccination pattern of a federal state.


Damning, if true.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

12 Feb 2022, 7:01 am

Image

He did indeed nuke it: https://twitter.com/sbancel

Always a good sign.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!