1) Great analysis in today's daily Sceptic shows faulty reasoning in Denmark ACM baseline expectation. Recalculating it gives an excess mortality that exceeds 16k - consistent with the 1:1,000 figure.
2) Question - I looked at your age breakdown plots for Peru. It's interesting you can see an obvious surge in ACM with jabs 1 and 2, and a massive spike on jab 4. But you don't see much with jab 3 which occurs as the initial ACM surge (following 1 and 2) is dropping off. Any thoughts on why this might be?
I think this a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. And also the Dunning-Kruger effect, you can be careful and work from many research lines but still have a basic error in logic.
Thank for your permission to 'speculate' ie debate and look at the science and repeately try to explain what 'excess' deaths are and what they are not. I am not naysaying. This is the language used by those convinced they are right against 'anit- vaxxers'. I didn't question anyone's integrity, that's not the same as questioning interpretation.
Denis was appealing to Mike for confirmation, both have overestimated their competence in this subject as evidenced by their failure to emphasise the important of excess deaths being relative and the fact that they are being compared to 2019, which as you may know is one of the lowest death years recorded.
I think this is a valuable and important point to make.
Denis' 'paper' has not been peer reviewed, it is published on his website. A peer reviewer would want to see the 'excess deaths' adjusted for age and population before any interpretation of cause.
Yea I'm not arguing in the weeds it was just a observation .. particularly focused on the use of Dunning Kruger in this context because 'normal' life usage is usually at a silly college student that's read the communist manifesto and blathers on about changing the world.
I'm sure your critique has value but I'm not drilling into that (not enough time in the day for all these subjects) ... one comment though ... peer review is often as corrupt as hell and no guarantee of quality ..
I don't know what's truly happening - happy to admit it - but the lack of transparency from gov/authorities regards data always should make one extremely sceptical that something unpleasant is being kept from view.
Hi Denis: As dpl and others have stated on other threads, all the contention could be cleared up very quickly if you weighed in on the missing virus issue...looked into the fraud of how virologists claim to isolate viruses. Your data already showed spreading contagion to not be a thing, yet you waffle on coming right out and stating you have no evidence viruses exist. You said it in your interview with Kirsch and then in the next breath said that is not what you are saying. I understood that you were stating that no one can prove a negative...cannot prove that viruses do not exist, but many are now claiming you are firm believer in contagious viruses, just not that covid was a virulent one. Please respond and share where you thinking is today on this matter. Also, many of us think you should now turn your attention to showing how viruses have never been isolated using scientifically valid studies. We think once people realize there is no contagious viruses they can stop living in fear and look toward healthy ways of living.
Tracy and I are both not perfectly objective communicators and evaluators.
I think Tracy was bothered that the "17M" was getting so much traction in social media, and with professionals such as Bret, and genuinely believes the number must be much smaller.
I also think Tracy did not read our paper objectively, and made some (not all) thoughtless assumptions and criticisms.
Tracy's criticisms do not invalidate our work, calculations and interpretations.
Tracy may well be correct (although not stated this way) that actual vaccine fatal toxicity is much smaller than vaccine-rollout-correlated-inferred fatal toxicity.
Only more vaccine-status-mortality data and time will tell.
However, we should all be very concerned that "vaccine-rollout-correlated-inferred fatal toxicity" is so large and try to figure out why.
In the end, "actual toxicity" may not be the main reason, even if its value is certainly larger than the "underestimate" Pharma-friendly values put forth by Tracy.
🌏⚰️ Thank you, Dr Rancourt. The mortality data have indeed gained traction in social media. In Instagram, for example, we have an organiser of Australia’s Forest of the Fallen displays of those affected by these injections quoting a figure of 18m. Even if the figures were out by several million, the carnage is of course still unacceptable.
it is not just mortality but serious adverse events which are debilitating and in hundreds of millions. tracy has a medical pedigree and is obviously biased in disbelief and making strawman args
"Tracy states: “the peaks of all-cause excess mortality do not clearly correspond to the vaccine rollout nor is any association that does exist consistent in appearance/timing from country to country.”"
Tracy obviously hasn't looked at when the mortality rates started peaking, and at this point is just screaming 'there's no way the vaccines could have caused all these deaths' in a circular argument fashion, the classic appeal to ignorance of 'I haven't seen the evidence, therefore it does not exist'.
No, no, Tracy, the evidence exist. Your refusal to read it does not invalidate that claim.
Excess mortality goes up after 2020.
"Tracy states that many factors occur (school closures, lockdowns, increases crime, depression, drug abuse, decreased sports participation, delayed medical care, job loss, and increasing poverty), therefore one cannot attribute all excess deaths to the vaccines"
All of these existed pre-2021, and yet, the excess deaths only occurred after the vaccine rollout.
Tracy's argument is an appeal to commonality and an appeal to possibility (prosecutor's fallacy): 'all these things *can* kill, so all these things must kill'. Tracy has a knife in her house, all knives can stab, so Tracy's knife must have been responsible for some of the stabbings in London! Bad logic.
The problem is she fails to explain why the deaths were not spiking *before* vaccine rollout under the exact same conditions. If anything, all of those scenarios occurred during 2020, and yet, after 2020, during the lockdown phaseout after medical access is no longer delayed, we see mortality get worse.
I notice Tracy wisely omitted COVID-19 (as that's a self-own of proving the vaccines don't work), but has not proven any of the 'throw mud until something sticks' fallacies. I've love to see the evidence that denial of access to sports facilities (which ones?) in 2022 caused excess mortality. Generalist fallacy is generalist.
I expected a more sophisticated methodological critique from Hoeg. Her points are either trivial or cherry picked exceptions that were themselves misinterpreted. “Sanity tests” are no such thing. The pandemic itself defied sanity and yet it happened. It’s a shame that was considered an argument.
Sadly, the estimate of 17 million deaths worldwide from the holy jabs is probably a significant underestimate. The signal-processing analysis that captured the temporal association inherently cannot capture the long tail of vaccine-induced death and carnage.
As a thought experiment, imagine a vaccine that, with 1% probability, kills you within a few months; but that, if you survive the first few months, damages your health in such a way that, with a 1% probability, you die at a random time in the next 30 years. Such a vaccine, which may well represent the Convid vaccine, would show an all-cause-mortality curve with a peak a few months after a vaccine rollout and a long but small tail that lasts 30 years. Although the long tail would have the same area as the peak (due to the 1% probability in both branches), it would be invisible to the signal-processing analysis that captured the big peak.
And the death certificates for the people dying in the long tail would show heart disease, strokes, cancer, etc. -- with no connection to the vaccine taken decades earlier. So, it would be hard to spot the real cause.
Unfortunately, we probably are living in this thought experiment. How much of Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, etc. that are considered "normal" parts of old age now are due to the vaccines administered in childhood (and then throughout life)?
Indeed, Sanjoy. Rancourt’s paper is (necessarily) based on data so far available, and it is not possible (yet) to know the longer-term consequences of the mRNA injections. In that sense, the estimate of 17 million is a lower bound.
Very important point. While I’m not a quantitative analyst, I have identified & spoken about multiple, distinct mechanisms of toxicity which I believe are intentionally designed into these injections.
The multiple mechanisms are highly likely to injure & kill, if & when they do that, at different times after injection.
Hiya Mike, yes we cannot know the long term toxicity of the jabs (so should we speculate?) however we do know that relative to 2020 and 2008 in E and W and 2021 and 2000 in the States- the age and population adjusted death rate in both 22 and 23 has decreased.
Therefore mortality is back on a downward trend, starting at the level of the 2000s. This was before the decrease in deaths in the 2010s (with 2019 the lowest death year in like forever) followed by the increase in deaths of the covid murders, which took us back to the 2000s level. Now deaths are falling again.
There's no evidence that low fat diets contribute to premature death- observational studies on the under 50s show low cholesterol has protective effect and in the over 50s the association with lower cholesterol and death is due to frailty causing low cholersterol (some cancers fed on it) not the other way around. Studies crucially don't adjust for low cholesterol being due to harmful statins not diet.
At no point have Westerns had a low fat whole food diet to compare with, only 'lower' fat processed products with added sugar or skinless chicken; still high in saturated fat.
Actual low fat plant based diets show a 17 times lower CVD risk and 5 times lower breast cancer risk when compared to Western diets.
Hi Sanjoy, do doubt that fluoride, statins and the jabs contribute to a number of the (now declining) deaths but the biggest cause of morbidity and millions of premature deaths in the US and UK remains what it was before the hoax, the epidemic of loneliness, obesity as well as diets high in processed food and animal products.
I think you spent more time in your rebuttal of the critique than Hoeg spent reading and understanding the paper you presented!
The cynic in me thinks that Bhattacharya and his team used you to generate paid subscribers. Hoeg is a "straw woman" who read a few social media posts criticizing you.
Why did Bhattacharya not moderate the revuttal!
I saw the astro-turf moderator cut you off immediately the interview started - he paused, allowed you to volunteer then snubbed you and went to Hoeg. Blatant alpha male move!
I ownder if your reply to the Hoeg critiuq will get posted on Bhattacharya's stack.
It would have been good to get Hoeg's extiamte of deaths from C19 injections over the three years of rolling them out.
As an aside, oit of 13 billion C19 doses, 3 billion are in China - not mRNA but then no "crowing" about being safer than mRNA doses - plus India did ot use mRNA, rather the AZN shots licensed to the Serum Institute - another 2 billion there. Viral vector injections globally may have been a billion before withdrawal - Russia used AZN tech as well I think.
Point is, EMA data showed AZN 3-4 times deadlier than mRNA. (other formal studies show no difference)
Is Bhattacharya still advocating the shots for the elderly? If so, that would be a very uncomfortable position for him to be in as Denis has shown the danger of death with the jabs increases with age.
I know most people out there will never consider that the jabs had anything to do with their loved one's deaths/cancer, but anyone advocating for them must absolutely consider it and face the consequences of their advocacy.
I am not a medic, but it always struck me as odd that you could stimulate a fully (or almost fully) depleted immune system - not as is you can "inject" an entire immune system - that's why we die of something or other because our imune systems have decayed..
I wholeheartedly endorse Denis Rancourt's conclusions in his study.
There is little necessity to reiterate the shortcomings in Hoeg's critique, as these have been sufficiently addressed elsewhere. To do so again would not only be redundant but also could be perceived as disrespectful to Rancourt's comprehensive work. He articulated his points with clarity and brevity. The crux of this issue lies not in the minutiae of the study, but in the inherent weaknesses of Hoeg's epidemiological arguments, which appear irreparably flawed.
Rancourt astutely highlighted the inappropriateness of the Nafilyan et al. study's comparison. I liken this to using a bungalow as a real estate comparable for a five-bedroom house. This analogy serves to dismiss the study without further discussion. Moreover, a term I have coined, the COVID-19 'disruption', underscores a more subtle and systemic issue: conflict of interest.
Central to this debate is the evident conflict of interest, as previously discussed by Rancourt in his rebuttal. It has become all too common to see agendas in many published articles, editorials, and other pieces that attempt to discredit sound data analysis due to unpalatable outcomes. Some common sense combined with a wee bit of scientific logic illuminates the problem. While I staunchly support open scientific discourse and the principle of agreeing to disagree, this situation calls for a return to academic rigour and accountability. Rancourt and Hoeg maintain a professional tone in their scientific debate, demonstrating respect for each other’s work. I appreciate their decorum. However, there exists an unspoken code in academia: when publicly critiquing another's work, you bring your A-game – out of respect. Hoeg's critique, while initially seeming meritorious, in fact, seems to me to present more as if inclined towards obfuscating the public with academic jargon rather than presenting a robust scientific counterargument.
The whole discourse around causality was ridiculous – yet kudos for a 'hot' bit of language that would have many go and tout the mistake Rancourt made from the rooftops – I wondered if perhaps the objective. For many, as soon as we see this, it is clear that we may have a bait-and-hook situation to 'get' Rancourt's word focused on one of the most basic flaws of scientific analysis – the dreaded causal inference with only statistically significant correlation results! Good thing it isn't Rancourt and team's first rodeo, and thus they never even approached crossing this line. As stated, the statement was taken from a press piece – my question is, did Hoeg read all the documentation? It appears as an extremely bold mistake to make. Such an error, in this context, appears remarkably out of place and warrants a closer examination to glean any underlying causes. Please post exactly where in Rancourt's work he states causality. I may be mistaken, but I have never seen that statement in his work.
A word of advice to others: Rancourt will burn the midnight oil sorting out the details; if he makes a mistake, he will own it; if his team member makes a mistake, he will show leadership. In this piece of his work, he has not made any mistakes. In fact, he is over the target; the conclusion is scientifically sound, and this go-around simply demonstrates the desperation to discredit the work because we all know this was a significant contribution to the literature. Instead of using the tool of confirmation bias to cherry-pick evidence in order to support a possibly undisclosed agenda to discredit the work of Rancourt and team, I ask anyone now who disagrees with Rancourt's conclusion and step into integrity and re-do the analysis. Incremental replication is still alive and kicking as a gold-standard process for evaluating other people's work and to demonstrate if their conclusions have merit. It is a bit sticky, though, as it needs an advanced level of skill and a commitment to scientific logic, along with precious time so it's not for everyone.
Thank you, Professor Rancourt, for your work, your unwavering commitment, and your never-ending spirit of bringing the truth forward.
“We agree that linked vaccine-status-mortality national databases will impose strong constraints on causal interpretations of synchronicity between rapid vaccine rollouts and sudden all-cause mortality peaks. We look forward to those studies and encourage governments to release the data.”
Too many people focus on simply defending their position or believes, instead of refuting the other's position/hypothesis. While I'm personally inconclusive about the causation, I think your paper has presented some very detailed and solid evidence, yet even causal relationship, as defined by Ioannidis, that your hypothesis (vDFR 0.02-0.2%) is true. I've checked numbers for Denmark and Sweden, and their excess deaths since vaccination are well within these ranges, thus not allowing any rejection.
You mention a very important point, which is classification of COVID-19 deaths. There are two hidden causal factors, which could be:
1) misattributing of vaccine deaths
2) increase in deaths by iatrogenesis, that were somewhat caused by vaccination/testing.
An indication for 2) could be, that Pfizer themselves discouraged testing <7d after each dose, but in practice many people reported positive tests directly after vaccination, and the Cleveland study showed an increase in case rates for each dose of the vaccine!
It is fascinating that we seem to be entering an era where the obsession with "correlation is not necessarily causation" as an argument against any form of scientific curiosity seems to have become "there is no such thing as a signal I care to acknowledge"
Hi Denis, don't know if this will assist you; however, the full Massachusetts State hearing was held earlier this week and a tear-jerker Here's a link to the Kevin McKernan segment and to the entire presentation below on the page: https://anandamide.substack.com/p/massachusetts-legislature-and-public - - you may not be exactly correct, however the Dr James Thorp segment in the middle, starting around 47 min into the video, shows a comparison chart of injuries and deaths per drug, per thalidomide, per A-bomb over Nagasaki, and more. Appears to an untrained but discerning eye, difficult to refute. Immediately following, John Beaudoin reviews the death data he obtained, showing many deaths attributed in coroners' reports to covid and not to the shots. Nevermind the births not happening leave quite a few "aging" countries in a precarious place, nobody wants to talk about that mess. Not recommended to watch before sleep. Wait 'til morning!
Bear for some people. Tracy knows that something isn’t right. She simply cannot accept the amount of evil that has been deployed with these injections. You showed lots of reason and control in this discussion, professor. Congrats.
Dr Mike Yeadon reacted to my response this way on Telegram:
"In case you’ve read somewhere that Professor Denis Rancourt’s analyses are faulty.
That’s not my opinion either.
I think he’s just like me, careful & working off multiple, convergent lines of evidence.
Best wishes
Mike"
1) Great analysis in today's daily Sceptic shows faulty reasoning in Denmark ACM baseline expectation. Recalculating it gives an excess mortality that exceeds 16k - consistent with the 1:1,000 figure.
2) Question - I looked at your age breakdown plots for Peru. It's interesting you can see an obvious surge in ACM with jabs 1 and 2, and a massive spike on jab 4. But you don't see much with jab 3 which occurs as the initial ACM surge (following 1 and 2) is dropping off. Any thoughts on why this might be?
I think this a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. And also the Dunning-Kruger effect, you can be careful and work from many research lines but still have a basic error in logic.
You can naysay and speculate all you want.
IMO, both Denis and Mike, have acted with intelligence and integrity and suffer NO BIAS I can see.
While it seems that YOU suffer this
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities."
Thank for your permission to 'speculate' ie debate and look at the science and repeately try to explain what 'excess' deaths are and what they are not. I am not naysaying. This is the language used by those convinced they are right against 'anit- vaxxers'. I didn't question anyone's integrity, that's not the same as questioning interpretation.
If we can't see that there's no hope for us.
Well done for being able to google.
Here is what you said:
"I think this a logical fallacy of appealing to authority."
"And also the Dunning-Kruger effect, you can be careful and work from many research lines but still have a basic error in logic."
both were opinionated speculative bullshit that contain NOTHING of value.
While you do exactly what you accuse others of doing.
Do I really need to explain this, perhaps you should learn how to use google, or maybe you could get chat gtp to think for you as well ? ?
Denis was appealing to Mike for confirmation, both have overestimated their competence in this subject as evidenced by their failure to emphasise the important of excess deaths being relative and the fact that they are being compared to 2019, which as you may know is one of the lowest death years recorded.
I think this is a valuable and important point to make.
your original post came over as demeaning
Denis' 'paper' has not been peer reviewed, it is published on his website. A peer reviewer would want to see the 'excess deaths' adjusted for age and population before any interpretation of cause.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/excess-mortality-what-does-it-show
Yea I'm not arguing in the weeds it was just a observation .. particularly focused on the use of Dunning Kruger in this context because 'normal' life usage is usually at a silly college student that's read the communist manifesto and blathers on about changing the world.
I'm sure your critique has value but I'm not drilling into that (not enough time in the day for all these subjects) ... one comment though ... peer review is often as corrupt as hell and no guarantee of quality ..
I don't know what's truly happening - happy to admit it - but the lack of transparency from gov/authorities regards data always should make one extremely sceptical that something unpleasant is being kept from view.
Hi Denis: As dpl and others have stated on other threads, all the contention could be cleared up very quickly if you weighed in on the missing virus issue...looked into the fraud of how virologists claim to isolate viruses. Your data already showed spreading contagion to not be a thing, yet you waffle on coming right out and stating you have no evidence viruses exist. You said it in your interview with Kirsch and then in the next breath said that is not what you are saying. I understood that you were stating that no one can prove a negative...cannot prove that viruses do not exist, but many are now claiming you are firm believer in contagious viruses, just not that covid was a virulent one. Please respond and share where you thinking is today on this matter. Also, many of us think you should now turn your attention to showing how viruses have never been isolated using scientifically valid studies. We think once people realize there is no contagious viruses they can stop living in fear and look toward healthy ways of living.
I just want to comment about comments:
Tracy and I are both not perfectly objective communicators and evaluators.
I think Tracy was bothered that the "17M" was getting so much traction in social media, and with professionals such as Bret, and genuinely believes the number must be much smaller.
I also think Tracy did not read our paper objectively, and made some (not all) thoughtless assumptions and criticisms.
Tracy's criticisms do not invalidate our work, calculations and interpretations.
Tracy may well be correct (although not stated this way) that actual vaccine fatal toxicity is much smaller than vaccine-rollout-correlated-inferred fatal toxicity.
Only more vaccine-status-mortality data and time will tell.
However, we should all be very concerned that "vaccine-rollout-correlated-inferred fatal toxicity" is so large and try to figure out why.
In the end, "actual toxicity" may not be the main reason, even if its value is certainly larger than the "underestimate" Pharma-friendly values put forth by Tracy.
Research continues, as does gov malfeasance.
Also, and most importantly, there is a reason that data is being hidden, and it is not because deaths and adverse events are very limited.
BIAS comes in many forms.
🌏⚰️ Thank you, Dr Rancourt. The mortality data have indeed gained traction in social media. In Instagram, for example, we have an organiser of Australia’s Forest of the Fallen displays of those affected by these injections quoting a figure of 18m. Even if the figures were out by several million, the carnage is of course still unacceptable.
Forest of the Fallen, a South Australia display: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0-OBrGpheu/?igsh=MXU4bGFxYXFpYXk3Nw==
it is not just mortality but serious adverse events which are debilitating and in hundreds of millions. tracy has a medical pedigree and is obviously biased in disbelief and making strawman args
"Tracy states: “the peaks of all-cause excess mortality do not clearly correspond to the vaccine rollout nor is any association that does exist consistent in appearance/timing from country to country.”"
Tracy obviously hasn't looked at when the mortality rates started peaking, and at this point is just screaming 'there's no way the vaccines could have caused all these deaths' in a circular argument fashion, the classic appeal to ignorance of 'I haven't seen the evidence, therefore it does not exist'.
No, no, Tracy, the evidence exist. Your refusal to read it does not invalidate that claim.
Excess mortality goes up after 2020.
"Tracy states that many factors occur (school closures, lockdowns, increases crime, depression, drug abuse, decreased sports participation, delayed medical care, job loss, and increasing poverty), therefore one cannot attribute all excess deaths to the vaccines"
All of these existed pre-2021, and yet, the excess deaths only occurred after the vaccine rollout.
Tracy's argument is an appeal to commonality and an appeal to possibility (prosecutor's fallacy): 'all these things *can* kill, so all these things must kill'. Tracy has a knife in her house, all knives can stab, so Tracy's knife must have been responsible for some of the stabbings in London! Bad logic.
The problem is she fails to explain why the deaths were not spiking *before* vaccine rollout under the exact same conditions. If anything, all of those scenarios occurred during 2020, and yet, after 2020, during the lockdown phaseout after medical access is no longer delayed, we see mortality get worse.
I notice Tracy wisely omitted COVID-19 (as that's a self-own of proving the vaccines don't work), but has not proven any of the 'throw mud until something sticks' fallacies. I've love to see the evidence that denial of access to sports facilities (which ones?) in 2022 caused excess mortality. Generalist fallacy is generalist.
Nicely done. Thanks.
I expected a more sophisticated methodological critique from Hoeg. Her points are either trivial or cherry picked exceptions that were themselves misinterpreted. “Sanity tests” are no such thing. The pandemic itself defied sanity and yet it happened. It’s a shame that was considered an argument.
Bigtree calls this "garbage picking"
Professor, you’re winning. A moment of clarity and public horror is near.
Read this updated content policy very carefully:
https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/14199870
They know. And they know the clock is ticking and they cannot contain what is coming.
Have you ppl not ditched Google products yet??
An excellent rebuttal!
Sadly, the estimate of 17 million deaths worldwide from the holy jabs is probably a significant underestimate. The signal-processing analysis that captured the temporal association inherently cannot capture the long tail of vaccine-induced death and carnage.
As a thought experiment, imagine a vaccine that, with 1% probability, kills you within a few months; but that, if you survive the first few months, damages your health in such a way that, with a 1% probability, you die at a random time in the next 30 years. Such a vaccine, which may well represent the Convid vaccine, would show an all-cause-mortality curve with a peak a few months after a vaccine rollout and a long but small tail that lasts 30 years. Although the long tail would have the same area as the peak (due to the 1% probability in both branches), it would be invisible to the signal-processing analysis that captured the big peak.
And the death certificates for the people dying in the long tail would show heart disease, strokes, cancer, etc. -- with no connection to the vaccine taken decades earlier. So, it would be hard to spot the real cause.
Unfortunately, we probably are living in this thought experiment. How much of Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, etc. that are considered "normal" parts of old age now are due to the vaccines administered in childhood (and then throughout life)?
Indeed, Sanjoy. Rancourt’s paper is (necessarily) based on data so far available, and it is not possible (yet) to know the longer-term consequences of the mRNA injections. In that sense, the estimate of 17 million is a lower bound.
Yes, I was not criticizing the approach, which I think was very thoughtful and insightful.
Very important point. While I’m not a quantitative analyst, I have identified & spoken about multiple, distinct mechanisms of toxicity which I believe are intentionally designed into these injections.
The multiple mechanisms are highly likely to injure & kill, if & when they do that, at different times after injection.
Hiya Mike, yes we cannot know the long term toxicity of the jabs (so should we speculate?) however we do know that relative to 2020 and 2008 in E and W and 2021 and 2000 in the States- the age and population adjusted death rate in both 22 and 23 has decreased.
Therefore mortality is back on a downward trend, starting at the level of the 2000s. This was before the decrease in deaths in the 2010s (with 2019 the lowest death year in like forever) followed by the increase in deaths of the covid murders, which took us back to the 2000s level. Now deaths are falling again.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-continued-manipulation-of-health
Jo
Excellent point about the long term consequences!
I blame all our ailments on those prior "safe" vaccines now lol
I do too, though with a time out also to blame fluoride, statins, low-fat diets, and everything else beloved of the medical profession.
There's no evidence that low fat diets contribute to premature death- observational studies on the under 50s show low cholesterol has protective effect and in the over 50s the association with lower cholesterol and death is due to frailty causing low cholersterol (some cancers fed on it) not the other way around. Studies crucially don't adjust for low cholesterol being due to harmful statins not diet.
At no point have Westerns had a low fat whole food diet to compare with, only 'lower' fat processed products with added sugar or skinless chicken; still high in saturated fat.
Actual low fat plant based diets show a 17 times lower CVD risk and 5 times lower breast cancer risk when compared to Western diets.
Hi Sanjoy, do doubt that fluoride, statins and the jabs contribute to a number of the (now declining) deaths but the biggest cause of morbidity and millions of premature deaths in the US and UK remains what it was before the hoax, the epidemic of loneliness, obesity as well as diets high in processed food and animal products.
Obviously I disagree with you about low-fat diets and plant-based diets, but I don't think that it's important enough to argue about.
Yeah why bother with debating the evidence for what we write?🙏🏽
Denis and Mike aren't getting back to me either.
🐒
I just don't think that it's the most important issue and thus not worth spending a lot of energy in a huge citation argument.
We can’t thank you enough Denis, continuing to fight the good fight with strong data and brilliant interpretation.
A lot of respect for you and your work mate, paid in scorn but also respect. I know which out values which.
Personally I believe there is a world wide coup happening in real time and the roots of treason run deep(like stupidity I guess)
Please keep up the good work and know that you're helping make a difference.
I think you spent more time in your rebuttal of the critique than Hoeg spent reading and understanding the paper you presented!
The cynic in me thinks that Bhattacharya and his team used you to generate paid subscribers. Hoeg is a "straw woman" who read a few social media posts criticizing you.
Why did Bhattacharya not moderate the revuttal!
I saw the astro-turf moderator cut you off immediately the interview started - he paused, allowed you to volunteer then snubbed you and went to Hoeg. Blatant alpha male move!
I ownder if your reply to the Hoeg critiuq will get posted on Bhattacharya's stack.
It would have been good to get Hoeg's extiamte of deaths from C19 injections over the three years of rolling them out.
As an aside, oit of 13 billion C19 doses, 3 billion are in China - not mRNA but then no "crowing" about being safer than mRNA doses - plus India did ot use mRNA, rather the AZN shots licensed to the Serum Institute - another 2 billion there. Viral vector injections globally may have been a billion before withdrawal - Russia used AZN tech as well I think.
Point is, EMA data showed AZN 3-4 times deadlier than mRNA. (other formal studies show no difference)
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/eudra-shows-4-5-times-more-deaths
Anyway, well done for seeking to engage in healthy debate (Bradford/Hill would be proud! And well done for putting up with sophists!
I won't hold m y breath.
Is Bhattacharya still advocating the shots for the elderly? If so, that would be a very uncomfortable position for him to be in as Denis has shown the danger of death with the jabs increases with age.
I know most people out there will never consider that the jabs had anything to do with their loved one's deaths/cancer, but anyone advocating for them must absolutely consider it and face the consequences of their advocacy.
I am not a medic, but it always struck me as odd that you could stimulate a fully (or almost fully) depleted immune system - not as is you can "inject" an entire immune system - that's why we die of something or other because our imune systems have decayed..
I wholeheartedly endorse Denis Rancourt's conclusions in his study.
There is little necessity to reiterate the shortcomings in Hoeg's critique, as these have been sufficiently addressed elsewhere. To do so again would not only be redundant but also could be perceived as disrespectful to Rancourt's comprehensive work. He articulated his points with clarity and brevity. The crux of this issue lies not in the minutiae of the study, but in the inherent weaknesses of Hoeg's epidemiological arguments, which appear irreparably flawed.
Rancourt astutely highlighted the inappropriateness of the Nafilyan et al. study's comparison. I liken this to using a bungalow as a real estate comparable for a five-bedroom house. This analogy serves to dismiss the study without further discussion. Moreover, a term I have coined, the COVID-19 'disruption', underscores a more subtle and systemic issue: conflict of interest.
Central to this debate is the evident conflict of interest, as previously discussed by Rancourt in his rebuttal. It has become all too common to see agendas in many published articles, editorials, and other pieces that attempt to discredit sound data analysis due to unpalatable outcomes. Some common sense combined with a wee bit of scientific logic illuminates the problem. While I staunchly support open scientific discourse and the principle of agreeing to disagree, this situation calls for a return to academic rigour and accountability. Rancourt and Hoeg maintain a professional tone in their scientific debate, demonstrating respect for each other’s work. I appreciate their decorum. However, there exists an unspoken code in academia: when publicly critiquing another's work, you bring your A-game – out of respect. Hoeg's critique, while initially seeming meritorious, in fact, seems to me to present more as if inclined towards obfuscating the public with academic jargon rather than presenting a robust scientific counterargument.
The whole discourse around causality was ridiculous – yet kudos for a 'hot' bit of language that would have many go and tout the mistake Rancourt made from the rooftops – I wondered if perhaps the objective. For many, as soon as we see this, it is clear that we may have a bait-and-hook situation to 'get' Rancourt's word focused on one of the most basic flaws of scientific analysis – the dreaded causal inference with only statistically significant correlation results! Good thing it isn't Rancourt and team's first rodeo, and thus they never even approached crossing this line. As stated, the statement was taken from a press piece – my question is, did Hoeg read all the documentation? It appears as an extremely bold mistake to make. Such an error, in this context, appears remarkably out of place and warrants a closer examination to glean any underlying causes. Please post exactly where in Rancourt's work he states causality. I may be mistaken, but I have never seen that statement in his work.
A word of advice to others: Rancourt will burn the midnight oil sorting out the details; if he makes a mistake, he will own it; if his team member makes a mistake, he will show leadership. In this piece of his work, he has not made any mistakes. In fact, he is over the target; the conclusion is scientifically sound, and this go-around simply demonstrates the desperation to discredit the work because we all know this was a significant contribution to the literature. Instead of using the tool of confirmation bias to cherry-pick evidence in order to support a possibly undisclosed agenda to discredit the work of Rancourt and team, I ask anyone now who disagrees with Rancourt's conclusion and step into integrity and re-do the analysis. Incremental replication is still alive and kicking as a gold-standard process for evaluating other people's work and to demonstrate if their conclusions have merit. It is a bit sticky, though, as it needs an advanced level of skill and a commitment to scientific logic, along with precious time so it's not for everyone.
Thank you, Professor Rancourt, for your work, your unwavering commitment, and your never-ending spirit of bringing the truth forward.
“We agree that linked vaccine-status-mortality national databases will impose strong constraints on causal interpretations of synchronicity between rapid vaccine rollouts and sudden all-cause mortality peaks. We look forward to those studies and encourage governments to release the data.”
Flu shot same.
Release all related records going back decades
yep, flu shot had already brought more claims to Vaers than all others combined....three guesses why, first two don't count!
Solid explanations!
Too many people focus on simply defending their position or believes, instead of refuting the other's position/hypothesis. While I'm personally inconclusive about the causation, I think your paper has presented some very detailed and solid evidence, yet even causal relationship, as defined by Ioannidis, that your hypothesis (vDFR 0.02-0.2%) is true. I've checked numbers for Denmark and Sweden, and their excess deaths since vaccination are well within these ranges, thus not allowing any rejection.
You mention a very important point, which is classification of COVID-19 deaths. There are two hidden causal factors, which could be:
1) misattributing of vaccine deaths
2) increase in deaths by iatrogenesis, that were somewhat caused by vaccination/testing.
An indication for 2) could be, that Pfizer themselves discouraged testing <7d after each dose, but in practice many people reported positive tests directly after vaccination, and the Cleveland study showed an increase in case rates for each dose of the vaccine!
Lastly, I encourage readers to look at the excess mortality of Qatar, which is massive: https://www.mortality.watch/explorer/?c=QAT&t=cmr&ct=monthly&df=2015+Jan&v=2
it might have to do with Qatar's high numbers of foreign workers - https://borgenproject.org/five-things-about-migrant-workers-in-qatar/ who might have been vaxx'd in their respective home-lands in order to travel abroad.
It is fascinating that we seem to be entering an era where the obsession with "correlation is not necessarily causation" as an argument against any form of scientific curiosity seems to have become "there is no such thing as a signal I care to acknowledge"
right up there with "stay in your lane"
?
This is why
https://open.substack.com/pub/claudiofabinguevara/p/covid-as-trauma-monarch-programming
Nostr. It really is that simple. It’s there. It’s available now. Use it
Nostr. It really is that simple. It’s there. It’s available now. Use it
Why is she twisting data so hard to make it like the jabs aren't as toxic as they are?
I don't know her, so I can't tell.
Anybody know her reasoning beneath this mental masturbation she did about Denis's work?
Hi Denis, don't know if this will assist you; however, the full Massachusetts State hearing was held earlier this week and a tear-jerker Here's a link to the Kevin McKernan segment and to the entire presentation below on the page: https://anandamide.substack.com/p/massachusetts-legislature-and-public - - you may not be exactly correct, however the Dr James Thorp segment in the middle, starting around 47 min into the video, shows a comparison chart of injuries and deaths per drug, per thalidomide, per A-bomb over Nagasaki, and more. Appears to an untrained but discerning eye, difficult to refute. Immediately following, John Beaudoin reviews the death data he obtained, showing many deaths attributed in coroners' reports to covid and not to the shots. Nevermind the births not happening leave quite a few "aging" countries in a precarious place, nobody wants to talk about that mess. Not recommended to watch before sleep. Wait 'til morning!
The truth takes a little bit more
Time to be able to
Bear for some people. Tracy knows that something isn’t right. She simply cannot accept the amount of evil that has been deployed with these injections. You showed lots of reason and control in this discussion, professor. Congrats.
she is a medic and has a vested interest in not accepting the crimes of her profession