Excess deaths and COVID vaccines: interpretation of medical data
I’m really tired of feeling the need to write this sort of thing, having dealt with it over and over again over the last few years. It is my observation that many people have no idea how to interpret medical data – and some of them are even doctors and science reporters. I’m not an expert either, but I learned long ago how to read data of that sort, and I think I’m generally not bad at it.
As for me, I don’t have a dog in the vaccine versus anti-vaccine race. I’m certainly not eager to believe that tons of vaccinated people are dropping like flies from the aftereffects of the vaccine, but if the data is there the data is there and I would acknowledge it. But I’ve read literally hundreds of studies that someone or other says proves it, and I have yet to find one study that actually indicates it strongly, much less proves it.
I’ve written many posts about this in the past, and it would take me a long time to gather them. This post is going to take me long enough without doing that, but here’s one, for example.
So now we have this:
First six months of 2023, 26,000 excess deaths particularly in young and middle aged males. And the main cause of it? Heart conditions: 47% inexplicable heart conditions. 50-64 age group just in the 13 month period after Covid, 44% higher. …
But even the bold Katie’s challenge to the MSM did not mention that all too obvious elephant in the room of explanation – vaccine injury.
The Lancent piece is here. The blog post is entitled “How will they explain away these latest excess death figures?” I’ll oblige with ideas that immediately came to mind before I even read the Lancet study: isolation and depression and lack of exercise and healthful eating due to lockdowns and other stresses; fewer doctors and much longer waits for health care, including people being unable to find doctors (it’s extremely difficult where I live, for example); lack of mental health care; and COVID infection itself, which is known to more commonly cause more heart problems than the small and generally mild and transient problems sometimes caused in young men by COVID shots.
And then when I found the Lancet article and looked at it, I saw that the researchers had indeed covered a lot of that – so I’m not sure why the author of the blog post would wonder what they would say to “explain away” the figures (or just perhaps explain them?). If you read the study report, you’ll see what they actually said:
The causes of these excess deaths are likely to be multiple and could include the direct effects of Covid-19 infection, 1 acute pressure son NHS acute services resulting in poorer outcomes from episodes of acute illness,4 and disruption to chronic disease detection and management.5 Further analysis by cause and by age-and-sex-group may help quantify the relative contributions of these causes.
The article goes on to say the following:
…[T]here were 22% more deaths in private homes than expected compared with 10% more in hospitals, but there was no excess in deaths in care homes and 12% fewer deaths than expected in hospices. For deaths involving cardiovascular diseases the relative excess in private homes was higher than all causes at 27%. Deaths in hospital were 8% higher and deaths in care homes only 3% higher.
That doesn’t seem to track with vaccines being the cause, because the vaccination rates in care homes and hospices would be very likely to be higher than the vaccination rates in the well population.
The Lancet article is a short one and tells us little else about causes. My belief is that fallout from the lockdown – including greater difficulty in getting health care and/or reluctance to get it – is much to blame, in addition to depression and stress and perhaps the after-effects of COVID infection itself.
Excess death numbers are only one aspect of the anti-vaccine data that I’ve discussed at length. Another is cardiomyopathy and another is the VAERS data (see this, for example). As I said, I detest writing about this at this point, but every now and then I revisit it. I think people’s minds are made up, though.
I also haven’t bought a lot of what the government did regarding COVID and I consider the lockdowns to have been a terrible mistake. If you look at my early writings on COVID, you’ll see that I have been quite consistent about that.
NOTE: On cardiomyopathy and COVID vaccines, I had an exchange in the comments today in which I presented a great deal of data. Please see this for what I wrote, which basically amounts to an entire post on the subject.
I’ve been following this fairly closely and with all the scrutiny of medical research done so far there doesn’t appear to be a smoking gun. Therefore the cause is likely multi-factorial.
Like you said Neo, the CV19 infection itself, the vaccines, the isolation, the lack of medical care, depression, etc may all play a part.
I’m still of the opinion that the mostly untested vaccine should have been given to only our most vulnerable.
Why do Panic Whores keep doing this? Clicks, eyeballs, and self interest ($).
I haven’t read the studies or articles you link, not because I’m lazy, but because I would have no ability to evaluate the precision or accuracy of any numbers or data that might be cited.
What I do know, is that the approximate number of excess deaths is known. Another known thing is the vaccination status of essentially every person that dies. When nobody does a regression analysis to determine the effect of vaccination status on the all-causes risk of premature death, it’s a big dog that doesn’t bark. There are tremendous profits to be made and promotions to be had if a beneficial correlation can be proven. If it’s out there, I have not seen it.
I believe that the vaccine did save a lot of lives in 2021, especially among the elderly and obese. The virus subsequently mutated, as predicted, to less lethal more virulent strains, and the vaccines transitioned to being primarily of benefit to Pfizer and Moderna shareholders, with steadily diminishing medical benefits.
I had a moderately severe case of the original Wuhan strain in mid 2020, and took the 2 shot original vaccine in 2021. Nothing since and I have no plans to take any more. My only risk factor is being of Medicare age. I do continue to take annual flu shots every fall.
Had a follow-up appointment last week with my cardiologist to assess my condition since the late unpleasantness in November. I asked how he felt about COVID vaccines and should I get one.
He sort of shrugged and declined to give an opinion, saying that he doesn’t know enough about them one way or the other.
Which means no.
Neo,
Did you watch the Tucker interview with Brett Weinstein I linked to? Weinstein certainly understands the data. I know your mind is made up, but I think we are only now starting to get a more complete picture.
Dr. John Campbell is a retired medical professional from England whose YouTube videos (prior to Covid) contained general health information/FAQ answers intended to share his expertise and experience with the average interested viewer.
Initially, he took and advocated the taking of the Covid-19 vaccines…Then, urged by viewers, he began doing his own research and has since become quite dismayed by his findings.
Dr. Campbell is very data driven, and makes no claim without laying the data out for the viewers very precisely. It is well worth anyone’s time to go back through his video history to get a feel for his commitment to “following the evidence wherever it leads”.
Here’s a link to recent video on “Excess deaths” breaking down world wide statistics reported by the “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7vTqEmlkvw
Keep in mind, Youtube does censor valid information and videos by certain keywords and phrases, so if viewing Dr. Campbell’s videos out of context, it is necessary to follow the data he presents, while listening/watching carefully, as there are some instances wherein he is making a particular point but cannot explicitly ‘say’ it for fear of having his entire channel deplatformed by YouTube’s censors.
Just fyi – my family all had the Johnson&Johnson vaccines, mainly for the convenience of the ‘one & done’ aspect. It was not until I came across and began viewing Dr. Campbell’s videos that I questioned the safety of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, as well as many other dismaying facts coming to light about the entire Covid-19 debacle.
Being somewhat disabled, I probably read a hundred or more pages of internet information per day – much of it easily ‘debunkable’ due to cherry picking of data…..
I’ve never come across anyone – who honestly watched Dr. Campbell’s videos – that could dispute the validity of his conclusions.
Cae:
One of the problems with discussing COVID vaccines, as I’ve done so many times in the past, is that people always ask me: What about what this person says? What about what that person says? What about this study? What about that study? Watch this video. Watch that video.
In the nearly 4 years since COVID began (amazing that it’s been that long, isn’t it?) I’ve followed hundreds of such suggestions. They are VERY time-consuming. First, one has to read or listen – listening takes even longer. Then, one has to look up the studies, which are sometimes very long indeed, and very involved and complex. Then, one has to analyze what the study is saying, compare it to the way the YouTuber is presenting it, and write about that.
And then on to the next. And the next. It’s very labor intensive, and I can’t even estimate how much time I’ve put in doing this over and over except to say it’s an awful lot. I have yet to find any anti-vaxxer to be credible or to be representing the study properly and understanding what it’s saying, and that includes doctor-spokespeople and other professionals. I don’t have the time to do it again and again and again in much depth, although every now and then I do (like with the above post).
As for Dr. Campbell, a brief bit of research led me to this list of articles (with links to the articles) analyzing some of Campbell’s claims and saying why those claims aren’t correct. I clicked on the first one, and the criticism of Campbell’s assertions was very much in line with criticisms I’ve made in the past of similar assertions. So you might want to click on some of them and take a look. It seems quite easy to “dispute the validity of his conclusions.” But at this point I’m not going to take 5 hours or more to do it myself.
About the vaccines, I’ll add that they were quite effective with the initial COVID strain and less effective with later ones. By “effective” I mean they reduced the severity of the illness. The original hope and expectation was that they would do more than that – prevent transmission – but they didn’t. As with all vaccines, they cause some problems in a small number of people. I have never thought they should be given to people under 40 unless the person has a special vulnerability, because most people under 40 don’t get severe cases of COVID in the first place.
physicsguy:
Please see my reply to “Cae” above this comment.
And about Weinstein, I’ve watched interviews in the past and I am singularly unimpressed about certain of his COVID vaccine views, although I agree that lockdowns did a lot of damage and that the vaccines were hyped too much (as I wrote in the last paragraph of my comment to “Cae” above), and also that Fauci was a liar and that the lab origin theory was wrongly suppressed and that WHO has been awful.
Weinstein’s training was as an evolutionary biologist, and I don’t know how much he actually knows about epidemiology or vaccines. But his assertions on some of the medical science of COVID and vaccine effects haven’t held up well.
Again, I’m not going to do a whole in-depth study here that would take a long long time, but I refer you to the this as one small example (I’m not familiar with the guy speaking or his credentials, but his critique of what Weinstein said is very similar to my critiques of similar assertions I’ve previously researched).
As I’ve said, I’m not going to spend tons of time on Weinstein because I watched him many times in the past and found that he often made assertions that weren’t justified. His credentials as an evolutionary biologist don’t mean he is correct about any of this – although as I already said, I agree with him on some general policy issues regarding COVID and particularly the governmental reaction to it.
And yet, there ARE excess deaths.
First off never got a Fake Covid shot nor booster, nor ever a flu Vax.
Second sure I had a super mild case, maybe because since beginning take Vitamin A and Zinc as well as fresh vitamin C daily and have been much healthier since.
Saw that Suddenly Dead movie and lots articles on it as it has me convinced so that wonder if every sudden death especially with heart problems that’s what did it.
JackWayne:
Of course there are excess deaths, at least in some countries. That was true in some years before COVID and COVID vaccines, as well.
As for explanations, etc., see this, this, this, this, and plenty more.
Physicsguy,I enjoyed the Carlson interview with Weinstein. The critique of the Pharma industry and our public health officials rang pretty true.
I don’t know enough about the MRNa vax to know if the claims are true. His explanation seemed plausible but in my small world no one I know has had any problems from the vax. 🙂
What really got my attention was what he said about the moves by the WHO to devise a plan allowing public health officials to mandate things and shut down opposition when they declare a health emergency. Particularly if they can shoehorn climate change into that box. A recipe for disaster if true.
I don’t know Weinstein. Is he a conspiracy theorist? The idea of a tyrannical framework being built on a worldwide basis looks plausible to me. Especially in light of the way the far left has allied itself with Palestine, and the other Marxist moves against the West that are afoot. Maybe I’m becoming a conspiracy theorist. 🙁
Thanks for all your work, Neo. Watching excess deaths seems likely to lead, in the next few years, to more true knowledge about ratios than we have now.
In 2020, there were hospitals in Italy that had many people dying. Lockdowns and masks, and infection tests, were being used to try to reduce the deaths, knowing we didn’t know, tho a pandemic itself has long been a known unknown, like Jew Hate terrorism. How long before production of a vaccine was also an unknown, as was how good it would be at reducing COVID death rates, or disability rates, and its/ their side effects.
Now I’m most interested in facts about the decisions made.
I’d love to see a link to your Diamond Princess analysis, with your own analysis about what we knew then, didn’t know then, and what to do. Feb, Mar 2020?
Attributing excess deaths to the shots alone seems unreasonable, when there were so many other factors involved. The social and economic disruption of the shutdowns was massive. People lost jobs, livelihoods, social and religious connections.
The cat is so far out of the bag, that a proper study into how dangerous the vaccines are is now impossible (which was possibly the plan).
One of the first issues is that the pro-Covid crowd can immediately counter any claim by the anti-vaccine crowd by claiming the excess deaths and morbidity are related to the virus itself and not the vaccine. There is truth in that as the overproduction of viral components that occurs after receiving the vaccine also occurs during actual infection, and thus puts someone at risk for developing heart disease, thrombotic strokes, etc.
To do an accurate evaluation to attribute excess death blame now, you’d have to know that patients were only exposed to the vaccine and never infected with the virus or vice versa, which is impossible for multiple reasons.
Might take some “reverse engineering” to try to prove some of it though.
That is, we know there were coverups by the drug companies.
Trying to figure out what they tried to cover up—and also which coverups they ALSO tried to cover up—and when, might enable one to establish some circumstantial patterns….
Would take some sleuthing.
May already have been done, at least in part.
(Might also get lucky if there are some whistleblowers who can, as it were, no longer live with themselves…)
” I have never thought they should be given to people under 40 unless the person has a special vulnerability, because most people under 40 don’t get severe cases of COVID in the first place.”
8 month old neighbor just got the vax. Like most, Mom simply believes that Dr. knows best.
Kind of makes me sad.
Same Mom is talking about taking te baby to the dentist.
All right, that kinda makes me laugh, kid only has six or eight little teeth.
“Now I’m most interested in facts about the decisions made.” – Tom Grey
It seems that the public health bureaucracy and Big Pharm are trying to ensure that that won’t happen. AFAIK, there has been no review by TPTB of the decisions made and how they could improve. It has destroyed their credibility, IMO.
fullmoon:
The baby will probably be fine. Complications from the shot are very rare. But COVID is also very rarely serious in someone that young, so that’s why I don’t think the shots need to be given to that population.
I appreciate you keeping attention on this subject and speaking out against the “party line”, if you will. Like so many other issues, this one has been hijacked by the fringes of the conservative movement and then made more or less mainstream on the Right. But some things are true even if it’s the establishment stating them.
theprods
It is my understanding that the vaccine evaluations used smaller than normal assessment groups, but also that after the 2021 rollout the members of the control group who were not given the vaccine were in turn vaccinated. Thus less chance to compare before and after results in a meaningful way.
I suppose if the disease under consideration is really killing a lot of people, then vaccinating that nonvaccinated group later on is still the moral thing to do. But really, isn’t signing up to participate in such a study really an agreement to be exposed to the disease (if you draw the wrong straw) so the long term impacts of the vaccine can be assessed?
Get’s morally tricky when participants are parents of young children, or providing approvals for putting young children into test groups.
Most of us only get snatches of “true facts” so I appreciate, Neo, that you make multiple efforts to do the deep dive investigations and report back your findings.
Regardless of the vaccines and other questions, this is something I can support.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2795684/rand-paul-fauci-should-prison-covid-dishonesty/
“Rand Paul claims Fauci ‘should be in prison’ over COVID ‘dishonesty’”
neo on January 14, 2024 at 4:02 pm said:
fullmoon:
The baby will probably be fine. Complications from the shot are very rare. But COVID is also very rarely serious in someone that young, so that’s why I don’t think the shots need to be given to that population.
It is the “probably” that is concerning. And, the idea that medical establishment is pushing the vax, and that so many people are not aware that, generally, seniors, and prior conditions, are at risk.
fullmoon:
By “probably” I mean very close to 100% likely.
neo on January 15, 2024 at 5:57 pm said:
fullmoon:
By “probably” I mean very close to 100% likely.
Understood, and agreed. . Honestly, I am more concerned about Drs recommending an unnecessary shot, as well as potential long term effects. I acknowledge being entirely ignorant regarding future problems and assume it is too soon to know?
It is NOT possible to consider the question of this post WITHOUT pointing out the GROSS MALPRACTICE on the part of the powers that be WRT the disparagement of other (non-vax) treatments such as Ivermectin and HCQ+zinc/Z-Pak.
It is all part of a piece.
Part of a pattern.
Part of a grotesque conspiracy against the citizenry and against medical practitioners (and others) who smelled a rat and WANTED to fulfill their role as healers.
Who wanted to restore SANITY to the government power grab
Related:
“FDA Launches Fresh Bid To Toss Out High-Profile Ivermectin Case”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/fda-launches-fresh-bid-toss-out-high-profile-ivermectin-case
“Dissecting A Modern Vaccine Propaganda Piece”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/dissecting-modern-vaccine-propaganda-piece
…In which Peter Hotez once again rears his ugly head (and general ugliness).
“ One of the first issues is that the pro-Covid crowd can immediately counter any claim by the anti-vaccine crowd by claiming the excess deaths and morbidity are related to the virus itself and not the vaccine. There is truth in that as the overproduction of viral components that occurs after receiving the vaccine also occurs during actual infection, and thus puts someone at risk for developing heart disease, thrombotic strokes, etc.”
The first problem there is that there are two different curves, one for the viral infection, and one for the vaccinations. The viral infection curve peaked earlier, and then the vaccination curve peaked a bit later. Which correlates better with the Excess Deaths? My understanding is that it is the vaccinations, which makes sense, because the vaccination naive very often build fairly effective natural immunities. Not clear though for those vaccinated first. We do know that reinfection can happen, and indeed, is somewhat common, with the vaccinated, and does happen with the (few) unvaccinated. Of course, the vaccinated getting reinfected shouldn’t be surprising, since the vaccines, until recently, produced the Wuhan (original) spike proteins, and Omicron mutated around those vaccines by changing their spike proteins sufficiently not to be recognized as antigens by Wuhan spike imprinted immune systems.
Which brings up a brief corollary – if the vaccines prevented, or at least significantly impaired, natural immunity imprinting, allowing reinfection by later variants, shouldn’t the viral caused complications and excess deaths be counted towards the Excess Deaths caused by the vaccines? I expect that would be harder to disaggregate.
Secondly, researchers can tell the difference between vaccine damage and virus caused damage. The residue is different. Most importantly, the spike proteins are different. But also, those having recently had the virus will have genetic residue of the whole virus, instead of just the spike proteins, while the recently vaccinated will have residue from the capsid, and other artifacts from the manufacturing process. One thing that has occurred over the last year or so are dyes that fluoresce with the detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, and now can differentiate between variants. Esp striking are the photos of myocarditis, long unique blood clots, and cancers fluorescing strongly from the presence of vaccine generated spike proteins. The problem is the intersection of these two things – Excess Deaths and that some people appear to have died from the vaccines. So far, it appears impossible to generalize, in a statistically significant way, from the specific to the general.
Compounding the problem here is that the government should have, and probably does have, the vaccinated status of many, if not most, of the Excess Deaths. This is not publicly available. With this information, the debate would be much easier to resolve. So, a conspiracy theorist would probably ask why is it not publicly available?
Oh, and the study results from Pfizer, for the post approval myocarditis and pericarditis study ordered by the FDA that ended in 6/2022, and was due in 12/2022, still hasn’t been submitted to them. 13 months late and counting.
Bruce Hayden:
Excess deaths and vaccinations are not in sync. And much of the anti-vaccine research cherry-picks the countries in which the stats fit what they are trying to prove and ignore the countries that don’t fit. As I’ve said before, I’ve read about these sorts of issues (and related ones) a lot and written about them as well many times. I have seen NO convincing data that vaccines caused significant problems other than the elevated myocarditis problems in young men, and even those were rarely fatal or permanent, and exceeded by the myocarditis problems caused by the virus itself, and this was admitted by health authorities quite early on.