Thankyou for your very timely substack. The data being seen repeatedly is downright scary for the humanity as a whole and tragic for the families involved.
May I ask the source of the graphs please? or the data sets used to vcreate the graphs please? . It is good to know this to be able to to reference your work in papers currently going through the system.
The power of the machine to suppress scientific debate and reason such as this still amazes me, despite snippets of truth bubbling up every now and then from you and others. The way the MSM remain, at best, economical with their impartiality, sickens me still.
The last sentence of the first paragraph under the Race Differences heading is “The excess amounts to 1700 white female excess deaths and 1988 white female excess deaths.”
Should one of these numbers be white male excess deaths?
As a retired GP, I pray you continue to have the strength to keep up the good fight.
What we would have expected to see with a dangerous virus is excess deaths increase in the infection period and then an inversion as susceptible persons die off. And that we keep seeing higher or even the same levels post vaccine is alarming . Know and expected mortality and morbidity is an important consideration . All analysis is important to ensure nothing gets missed .
Are you saying there is some clue here as to causation re. C19 vaccine efficacy or safety? What is the point of splitting out Male/female, Black/White? There may be slight but significant differences but there are significant differences in decades before Covid; causation before or after is hypothesized I'm sure by others.
Also re. the top "US mortality rate with different baseline chart" I do not see an inflection point at c. 2015/2016; I don't believe a stats package indicated that. You can always generate a new trend line by starting at a different date but the 1999-2019 trend line is clearly valid until c. 2021 imo.
Why would the 1999-2019 become invalid in 2021 having been valid for so long before then?
That sounds an awful lot like post rationalising.
The reason for looking at male and female is that it shows these extra deaths are not simply more of the usual causes of death. There is a discrepancy.
Yes I am saying that the M/F ratio and W/B ration changing in 2021 points to a real new pathology from then.
The virus claims are backed up with data where deaths that were incidental to a positive test or due to bad protocols activated by a positive test were due to a virus. They were not.
For pregnant women in UK if you had a 100% effective miracle vaccine and all covid labelled deaths were preventable you would need to inject 63,000 pregnant women to prevent one death. ICU admissions and deaths increased with the vaccines.
For babies their covid risk in 2020 was similarly very low and it only increased in 2021 onwards with the vaccines.
And yes - injecting mRNA bypasses most our natural defences.
Viral infection is confined to the respiratory tract where cells are designed for such attack and die off and are replaced. There is no evidence of whole virus circulating in viral illness. Here's is Fauci saying as much: https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(22)00572-8#%20
The percentage of infant deaths in females out of total infant deaths has been increasing since 1968, and the increase in the 2020s is roughly consistent with the long-term trend since 1968: https://x.com/henjin512/status/1960523827961647453.
The percentage was above the long-term trend in 1999-2002 and below the long-term trend in 2017-2019, which makes the increase in the 2020s seem rather impressive if you only see data going back to 1999.
Clare, your title "Battle of the Baselines" is very apt. In Australia the government agency responsible for the official excess changed from the conventional 2015-2019 baseline to one starting in 2013. 2013, 2014 happened to be lower mortality than normal years in Australia, 2019 was a high influenza season, hence tipping the baseline up and minimising the excess, especially in 2021, a year with little covid in Australia. I've come to the conclusion that a simple linear fit to whatever years chosen is too simplistic to estimate an excess.
Brilliant idea about looking at the sex ratio or race ratio. It gives an extra dimension to observe the data. The fact is that we never know what the true value of a mortality or birth rate would have been, had there been no interventions. We can only estimate it.
It seems every many western countries decided to shift baselines in 2023 - hiding excess mortality. In lockstep yet again.
And - yes - frustratingly we cannot know what would have been. But we can have reasonable guesses and the new gov baselines are clearly highly unreasonable. Amusingly deaths in England and Wales have been below "expected" levels ever since. Unsurprising when you realise that their expected levels based on 2018 predictions were 72,000 deaths lower for 2024-2025 than their 2023 "expected" levels. It is quite shocking how many deaths they are willing to ignore.
Australia has an increasing trend in the yearly number of deaths because of the aging population, so the old 5-year average baseline was way too low in Australia: https://x.com/henjin256/status/1951495974242664451. It's crazy that the ABS kept using the old baseline for so long.
One wonders why it was necessary to use a different scale in the chart of male mortality for black and white babies, making it appear without scrutiny that there are more deaths of white male babies?! More wokery presumably?
Yes understood, I assumed you had simply reproduced the chart from the original. My point was that given the absolute numbers, there is absolutely no reason to use a different scale for the two cohorts, a simple legend for each color would have sufficed and then the differences between the two cohorts would have been immediately visually obvious.
The vaxxholes literally say the risk was worth it. Clinging to the delusion that death from Covid was basically certain.
So they took the vaxxes instead.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/progression-of-vaccine-injury-denial
thankyou Claire, I apologise I didnt pick that up!
Dear Claire,
Thankyou for your very timely substack. The data being seen repeatedly is downright scary for the humanity as a whole and tragic for the families involved.
May I ask the source of the graphs please? or the data sets used to vcreate the graphs please? . It is good to know this to be able to to reference your work in papers currently going through the system.
Many thanks..
Yes - I linked only once at beginning of article but the data is from here: https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd.html
The power of the machine to suppress scientific debate and reason such as this still amazes me, despite snippets of truth bubbling up every now and then from you and others. The way the MSM remain, at best, economical with their impartiality, sickens me still.
100% I was feeling very frustrated about that as I wrote this.
The last sentence of the first paragraph under the Race Differences heading is “The excess amounts to 1700 white female excess deaths and 1988 white female excess deaths.”
Should one of these numbers be white male excess deaths?
As a retired GP, I pray you continue to have the strength to keep up the good fight.
What we would have expected to see with a dangerous virus is excess deaths increase in the infection period and then an inversion as susceptible persons die off. And that we keep seeing higher or even the same levels post vaccine is alarming . Know and expected mortality and morbidity is an important consideration . All analysis is important to ensure nothing gets missed .
🇦🇺💉Senator Alex, Australia - just in (Facebook screenshot), 28 August 2025: https://substack.com/@meshwork3232/note/c-149858907?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Are you saying there is some clue here as to causation re. C19 vaccine efficacy or safety? What is the point of splitting out Male/female, Black/White? There may be slight but significant differences but there are significant differences in decades before Covid; causation before or after is hypothesized I'm sure by others.
Also re. the top "US mortality rate with different baseline chart" I do not see an inflection point at c. 2015/2016; I don't believe a stats package indicated that. You can always generate a new trend line by starting at a different date but the 1999-2019 trend line is clearly valid until c. 2021 imo.
Why would the 1999-2019 become invalid in 2021 having been valid for so long before then?
That sounds an awful lot like post rationalising.
The reason for looking at male and female is that it shows these extra deaths are not simply more of the usual causes of death. There is a discrepancy.
Same for black/white.
I agree, the inflection is at 2021/22, not 2015: supporting a change in signal at the later date which is when Covid/Vaccine enters the equation.
On M/F & W/B you are saying there is a change in the discrepancy between the groups, before and after Covid/Vaccine?
That is cause for some curiosity but we are still needing to puncture the CW that the vaccine did less harm than the virus.
Some followers are saying there is a significant difference between the nRNA inp vs the Virus vector system. Where are you on that proposition?
Yes I am saying that the M/F ratio and W/B ration changing in 2021 points to a real new pathology from then.
The virus claims are backed up with data where deaths that were incidental to a positive test or due to bad protocols activated by a positive test were due to a virus. They were not.
For pregnant women in UK if you had a 100% effective miracle vaccine and all covid labelled deaths were preventable you would need to inject 63,000 pregnant women to prevent one death. ICU admissions and deaths increased with the vaccines.
For babies their covid risk in 2020 was similarly very low and it only increased in 2021 onwards with the vaccines.
https://drclarecraig.substack.com/p/usa-your-babies-are-dying
And yes - injecting mRNA bypasses most our natural defences.
Viral infection is confined to the respiratory tract where cells are designed for such attack and die off and are replaced. There is no evidence of whole virus circulating in viral illness. Here's is Fauci saying as much: https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(22)00572-8#%20
I meant mRNA via lipid nano particles like Pfizer versus Viral vector systems introducing DNA into cell nuclei, like A-Z (Oxford) and J&J .
Do you think and have you seen data that there is a significant safety or efficacy difference between these two routes/methods?
You can download data going back to 1968 from here: https://wonder.cdc.gov/mortsql.html.
The percentage of infant deaths in females out of total infant deaths has been increasing since 1968, and the increase in the 2020s is roughly consistent with the long-term trend since 1968: https://x.com/henjin512/status/1960523827961647453.
The percentage was above the long-term trend in 1999-2002 and below the long-term trend in 2017-2019, which makes the increase in the 2020s seem rather impressive if you only see data going back to 1999.
You are hilarious.
You have literally proved my point about picking your baselines.
Even with your 1968 baseline there is still clearly a massive uptick from 2021.
Clare, your title "Battle of the Baselines" is very apt. In Australia the government agency responsible for the official excess changed from the conventional 2015-2019 baseline to one starting in 2013. 2013, 2014 happened to be lower mortality than normal years in Australia, 2019 was a high influenza season, hence tipping the baseline up and minimising the excess, especially in 2021, a year with little covid in Australia. I've come to the conclusion that a simple linear fit to whatever years chosen is too simplistic to estimate an excess.
Brilliant idea about looking at the sex ratio or race ratio. It gives an extra dimension to observe the data. The fact is that we never know what the true value of a mortality or birth rate would have been, had there been no interventions. We can only estimate it.
Thanks Andrew. It wasn't just Australia.
It seems every many western countries decided to shift baselines in 2023 - hiding excess mortality. In lockstep yet again.
And - yes - frustratingly we cannot know what would have been. But we can have reasonable guesses and the new gov baselines are clearly highly unreasonable. Amusingly deaths in England and Wales have been below "expected" levels ever since. Unsurprising when you realise that their expected levels based on 2018 predictions were 72,000 deaths lower for 2024-2025 than their 2023 "expected" levels. It is quite shocking how many deaths they are willing to ignore.
Australia has an increasing trend in the yearly number of deaths because of the aging population, so the old 5-year average baseline was way too low in Australia: https://x.com/henjin256/status/1951495974242664451. It's crazy that the ABS kept using the old baseline for so long.
The new ONS method of quasi-Poisson regression is otherwise good, except they should've excluded 2020-2022 entirely from the fitting period, and not only the couple of months in 2020 and 2021 with the highest excess deaths. When I modified the ONS R code to always use a fixed 2010-2019 fitting period, it produced reasonable results: https://sars2.net/uk.html#David_Dickson_Cumulative_excess_deaths_in_England_and_Wales_with_a_2010_2019_average_baseline.
One wonders why it was necessary to use a different scale in the chart of male mortality for black and white babies, making it appear without scrutiny that there are more deaths of white male babies?! More wokery presumably?
Because I was comparing trends.
Black babies die at nearly twice the rate. I made that clear in the text.
Yes understood, I assumed you had simply reproduced the chart from the original. My point was that given the absolute numbers, there is absolutely no reason to use a different scale for the two cohorts, a simple legend for each color would have sufficed and then the differences between the two cohorts would have been immediately visually obvious.
I did that and it wasn't.
Zealots don't do trends...