I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would believe ANY official data from a nation, especially a small nation. Why would it be reliable?
Imagine you’re in the camp of the perpetrators. Wouldn’t you want to distort the evidence in order to hide the deaths your policies have caused?
I do think things may be different in the US. There is no “federal data” except that which results from accumulating data collected by the individual 50 states. Because there are so many contributors to the US totals, I am ready to find it plausible that committing data fraud in the US is risky & might as a consequence be correct.
Public records isn’t a topic I know anything about at all, so if what I’ve written turns out to be complete nonsense, it’ll be a classic case of you don’t know what you don’t know.
"They're lying about everything except all cause mortality" is a bold stance indeed -- one I used to implicitly hold, until it became untenable, given the data I continue to gather and review. (I understand you're not taking that stance in your comment.)
"Things may be different in the US" - hahaha! Are you kidding? I live in Chicagoland, where dead people have voted for decades. Illinois had two former governors in jail AT ONCE, not too long ago. Things are NOT different here. We simply know how to cover things up a little better.
Our players are among ringleaders of this charade, via WHO on the practical side, along with perps from CCP, Australia/NZ, the UK, and Germany, at least.
"so many contributors to the US total" is exactly why I've repeatedly told people to NOT focus on state, provincial, and country data.
Counties and cities are what is needed. I've said the same about the UK. Where's the daily data for NHS hospitals? Missing in action, I'm guessing?
You do not need a whole country to stage a pandemic/sudden spread. This was all too easy.
Low Covid infection rates and masks / quarantines reduced other airborne infections. I noticed my chronic runny nose went away about 3 days after I started wearing masks March 2020. Of course I had a horrible chest cold Nov 2019 - Jan 2020.
"NZ effects are clearer when death rates by age are checked (actuarial best practice)- There was 1 in a century drop in mortality when NZ closed up and had the lab confirmed eradication of multiple diseases, and an expected rise back up to normal when reopening reintroduced them
We know that there was a massive reduction in viruses then reintroduction, because the ESR coordinates monitoring for viruses, and produces annual reports of the virus landscape of New Zealand.
When you artificially keep 65+ death rates lower in 2020 & 2021 by removing one of the main causes of death (infections such as influenza) & then re-introduce those causes of death AND add Covid as a novel virus with no prior immunity in the population (when they opened borders in 2022) you were always going to see a bump up and return to baseline. But since they vaccinated the vulnerable BEFORE the virus entered most of the population, their death rates were lower then countries who didn't (see Hong Kong.)
With the release of NZ 2023 annual death rates by age, the age standardised death rate for the pandemic is somewhere around nett -4% excess (extra lives saved). But as important, like high vax Denmark (also with 2023 annual out) 2023 within precovid ranges from trend.
Acute respiratory illnesses are not contagious. There’s a century f published failures to demonstrate contagion. It’s sparse evidence for sure, but no positive evidence either, even when it’s looked for.
The corollary is that respiratory virus either don’t exist or don’t cause illnesses.
When those illnesses were held out of the country it led to a reduction in deaths from those illnesses in the exact ages that normally die from those illnesses which led to negative excess which returned to baseline when those illnesses returned and the exact ages that normally die from those illnesses caught those infections AND Covid.
If you want to believe this was just coincidence then you're free to do so!
Hi Clare, Thanks so much for speaking to Dr John Campbell and for writing your book. Your real expertise and analysis is much appreciated in these days of smoke and mirrors. I am an artist and have written on various issues, with a particular concern around big pharma and 'the drug connections', to health and social issues. I hope that you will find some time to wander over to my substack to see some of my paintings and photos and to read some of my 'rhyme and reason'.
Much love to you and your family & Happy Christmas! xxx
In case you haven't seen this yet, Excess Death Stats is an interesting site. It's a global campaign to bring public awareness to excess deaths.
So far they have covered Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, and Sweden. They are asking for volunteers from any country to help them collect the data.
'Retired engineer, Terry Anderson, who is a volunteer for this project, has signed an affidavit as an expert witness for a NZ court case, in which he examined this issue of cumulative excess deaths over the pandemic.
He believes that the Ministry of Health cherry-picked the approach used.
Furthermore, he says they selected a method that was fundamentally flawed, because it overestimated the number of expected deaths for a variety of reasons, including assuming immigration would continue as normal (despite borders being closed!)
“They have selected a method that gives a flattering result for cumulative excess mortality in New Zealand”, Terry says. When the Ministry of Health compared the actual numbers of deaths over the pandemic with their inflated expectation of normal deaths, it made their pandemic management look good.'
And
'To account for changes in population size, we’ve used the Stats NZ figures for death rates (deaths per thousand population) rather than the simple number of deaths.
Using this approach, the death rate in 2022 is 10.6% higher than the average death rate over the five years immediately preceding the pandemic (2015-2019).'
You hit the nail on the head. As I've been reporting for some time, NZ isolated its borders and the elderly were trapped in homes, where even a sniffle would prevent visitations. This eliminated the usual winter challenge to the vulnerable. If you use 2020 as a baseline you will see the dramatic increase in mortality rates, among the elderly vaccinated, beginning week 17 of 2021. I regard the OWID measurement as a poor indicator of excess death. The Economist method method, which is the chart you present, is a little more realistic than the Karlinsky and Kobac model, but it still relies on regression fitting of pre-pandemic years, when winter challenge led to 1200-1500 additional deaths per annum. Regression modeling is a crude method, as it fails to account for the harvest effect, plateauing of population growth and the slope and intercept of the line depends on which years you include, or exclude. The STMF model, used at the HMD is better because it allows for negative slopes in summer weeks. I actually prefer using regression based on mortality rates rather that crude death counts; OWID methods use the latter.
According to Prof Bhakdi et al, we're about to get a commercial spike detector vor artificial (modrna vax) and "natural" (infection with bioweapon), which will also hugely aid the differentiation of long covid/post vax syndrome (artificial distinction invented to gaslight vax victims!). Good luck
'New Zealand's public health community has seized upon an excess deaths series that seemingly shows negative cumulative excess mortality in the first three years of COVID-19 - in other words, fewer deaths than expected. This is a flawed measure because it ignores changes in population growth. There was a rapid rise in deaths in New Zealand in the 2015-19 period, due to immigration-driven population growth rates of two percent per annum. This growth came almost to a standstill after the border closed in March 2020 so methods of extrapolating from the past to predict future deaths, to ascertain if actual deaths exceed the projection, must take account of this sharp change in population growth rates. Rather than New Zealand being unique, in having negative cumulative excess deaths in the COVID-19 era, as claimed by public health commentators, cumulative deaths are about four percent above expected deaths once population changes are accounted for.'
Another interesting paper by Prof. John Gibson.
From the paper:
“The age groups most likely to use boosters had 7-10 percentage point rises in excess mortality rates as boosters were rolled out while the age group that is mostly too young for boosters saw no rise in excess mortality.” See here https://www.nzcpr.com/best-in-show/
This is an interesting 9 minute video on excess deaths NZ.
The Kabunsky and Kobac method, used for the OWID in one of their presentations, is completely inappropriate for NZ . I did my own take down of it in a court case submission, which was used by Professor John Gibson to produce the following.
"is it really bucking the trend?" seems to imply that increased excess mortality is a recognized trend.
but then the argument is made that excess mortality is subjective, so maybe nz isn't really bucking the trend. however, doesn't that also call into question the entire basis of the assumed "trend"?
if excess death calculations are subjective, then take them ALL with a grain of salt, not just the ones that don't fit how you expect things to be.
"How the German Federal Statistical Office has distorted excess mortality figures"
Destatis identified conspicuous excess mortality early in the pandemic but after the vaccination campaign saw nothing unusual. However, a look at the raw data shows the opposite: historically low mortality in 2020 and significantly increased deaths figures in the following two years. Particularly controversial are the high number of deaths among younger and middle-aged groups since 2021 - about which the authorities have remained silent to this day.
One remark. If the long-term trend has a different slope than the short-term trend, this can also mean a true trend along a curved line. This can be observed in many countries, probably because people cannot increase their life expectancy indefinitely due to their biological conditions. In actuarial projections, it is therefore common to fit the long-term development of mortality risks with exp() or atan() functions.
I completely agree with you that the assumption of any linear development is subjective and prone to error. Theoretically, a short-term reference epoch would achieve the lowest error for smooth trends, but mortality rates are not suitable for this because they fluctuate too much.
For Germany, it can be said that mortality trends in 2023 have so far been fairly normal overall. Only people under the age of 60 showed slightly higher mortality risks in the first half of the year.
Is this the leaked data that SK touted as bombshell, presented at MIT Nov 30, even quoting Dr. Fenton as agreeing with him in some fashion? I was there and wasn't impressed with what he showed.
“The big question is why deaths were so low in 2020 and 2021.”
Data fraud
I’m totally at a loss to understand why anyone would believe ANY official data from a nation, especially a small nation. Why would it be reliable?
Imagine you’re in the camp of the perpetrators. Wouldn’t you want to distort the evidence in order to hide the deaths your policies have caused?
I do think things may be different in the US. There is no “federal data” except that which results from accumulating data collected by the individual 50 states. Because there are so many contributors to the US totals, I am ready to find it plausible that committing data fraud in the US is risky & might as a consequence be correct.
Public records isn’t a topic I know anything about at all, so if what I’ve written turns out to be complete nonsense, it’ll be a classic case of you don’t know what you don’t know.
"They're lying about everything except all cause mortality" is a bold stance indeed -- one I used to implicitly hold, until it became untenable, given the data I continue to gather and review. (I understand you're not taking that stance in your comment.)
"Things may be different in the US" - hahaha! Are you kidding? I live in Chicagoland, where dead people have voted for decades. Illinois had two former governors in jail AT ONCE, not too long ago. Things are NOT different here. We simply know how to cover things up a little better.
Our players are among ringleaders of this charade, via WHO on the practical side, along with perps from CCP, Australia/NZ, the UK, and Germany, at least.
"so many contributors to the US total" is exactly why I've repeatedly told people to NOT focus on state, provincial, and country data.
Counties and cities are what is needed. I've said the same about the UK. Where's the daily data for NHS hospitals? Missing in action, I'm guessing?
You do not need a whole country to stage a pandemic/sudden spread. This was all too easy.
https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1721714019961028994?s=20
All excellent points.
The data are not to be trusted until we get clues that suggests otherwise!
I respect your evolving stance. Mine does too. It has to.
I dare say that changing our minds when and as evidence compels us to do so is part of...science. :)
Hindsight is 2020.
Literally.
There's zero evidence of all-cause data fraud. Occam's razor.
Low Covid infection rates and masks / quarantines reduced other airborne infections. I noticed my chronic runny nose went away about 3 days after I started wearing masks March 2020. Of course I had a horrible chest cold Nov 2019 - Jan 2020.
No evidence of data fraud.
As David Hood has stated
"NZ effects are clearer when death rates by age are checked (actuarial best practice)- There was 1 in a century drop in mortality when NZ closed up and had the lab confirmed eradication of multiple diseases, and an expected rise back up to normal when reopening reintroduced them
We know that there was a massive reduction in viruses then reintroduction, because the ESR coordinates monitoring for viruses, and produces annual reports of the virus landscape of New Zealand.
When you artificially keep 65+ death rates lower in 2020 & 2021 by removing one of the main causes of death (infections such as influenza) & then re-introduce those causes of death AND add Covid as a novel virus with no prior immunity in the population (when they opened borders in 2022) you were always going to see a bump up and return to baseline. But since they vaccinated the vulnerable BEFORE the virus entered most of the population, their death rates were lower then countries who didn't (see Hong Kong.)
https://github.com/thoughtfulbloke/sk23
https://www.esr.cri.nz/expertise/public-health/infectious-disease-intelligence-surveillance/
With the release of NZ 2023 annual death rates by age, the age standardised death rate for the pandemic is somewhere around nett -4% excess (extra lives saved). But as important, like high vax Denmark (also with 2023 annual out) 2023 within precovid ranges from trend.
Acute respiratory illnesses are not contagious. There’s a century f published failures to demonstrate contagion. It’s sparse evidence for sure, but no positive evidence either, even when it’s looked for.
The corollary is that respiratory virus either don’t exist or don’t cause illnesses.
100% non-subjectively false.
When those illnesses were held out of the country it led to a reduction in deaths from those illnesses in the exact ages that normally die from those illnesses which led to negative excess which returned to baseline when those illnesses returned and the exact ages that normally die from those illnesses caught those infections AND Covid.
If you want to believe this was just coincidence then you're free to do so!
Hi Clare, Thanks so much for speaking to Dr John Campbell and for writing your book. Your real expertise and analysis is much appreciated in these days of smoke and mirrors. I am an artist and have written on various issues, with a particular concern around big pharma and 'the drug connections', to health and social issues. I hope that you will find some time to wander over to my substack to see some of my paintings and photos and to read some of my 'rhyme and reason'.
Much love to you and your family & Happy Christmas! xxx
In case you haven't seen this yet, Excess Death Stats is an interesting site. It's a global campaign to bring public awareness to excess deaths.
So far they have covered Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, and Sweden. They are asking for volunteers from any country to help them collect the data.
Here is their NZ page. https://www.excessdeathstats.com/nz/
From that page:
'Retired engineer, Terry Anderson, who is a volunteer for this project, has signed an affidavit as an expert witness for a NZ court case, in which he examined this issue of cumulative excess deaths over the pandemic.
He believes that the Ministry of Health cherry-picked the approach used.
Furthermore, he says they selected a method that was fundamentally flawed, because it overestimated the number of expected deaths for a variety of reasons, including assuming immigration would continue as normal (despite borders being closed!)
“They have selected a method that gives a flattering result for cumulative excess mortality in New Zealand”, Terry says. When the Ministry of Health compared the actual numbers of deaths over the pandemic with their inflated expectation of normal deaths, it made their pandemic management look good.'
And
'To account for changes in population size, we’ve used the Stats NZ figures for death rates (deaths per thousand population) rather than the simple number of deaths.
Using this approach, the death rate in 2022 is 10.6% higher than the average death rate over the five years immediately preceding the pandemic (2015-2019).'
I've listed the following links for convenience:
For NZ Crude Death Rates: https://infoshare.stats.govt.nz/
NZ Deaths: https://www.stats.govt.nz/topics/births-and-deaths/
Clare, please investigate the variable "E-Cigarettes.”
🚨🚨ONE OF THE BIGGEST BOMBSHELLS 🚨🚨
https://manuherold.substack.com/p/bombshell-the-recent-uptick-in-vaping
You hit the nail on the head. As I've been reporting for some time, NZ isolated its borders and the elderly were trapped in homes, where even a sniffle would prevent visitations. This eliminated the usual winter challenge to the vulnerable. If you use 2020 as a baseline you will see the dramatic increase in mortality rates, among the elderly vaccinated, beginning week 17 of 2021. I regard the OWID measurement as a poor indicator of excess death. The Economist method method, which is the chart you present, is a little more realistic than the Karlinsky and Kobac model, but it still relies on regression fitting of pre-pandemic years, when winter challenge led to 1200-1500 additional deaths per annum. Regression modeling is a crude method, as it fails to account for the harvest effect, plateauing of population growth and the slope and intercept of the line depends on which years you include, or exclude. The STMF model, used at the HMD is better because it allows for negative slopes in summer weeks. I actually prefer using regression based on mortality rates rather that crude death counts; OWID methods use the latter.
I have had 4 Pfizer jabs . The last on 13 April 2022 Comirnaty COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine 30micrograms/0.3ml dose concentrate .
What I am trying to find out is the damnable stuff now gone from my cells / body?
According to Prof Bhakdi et al, we're about to get a commercial spike detector vor artificial (modrna vax) and "natural" (infection with bioweapon), which will also hugely aid the differentiation of long covid/post vax syndrome (artificial distinction invented to gaslight vax victims!). Good luck
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/covid-vaccines-integrate-into-human?sort=new
In NZ, deaths were low in 2020/2021 because of lockdowns. We had no flu season, next to no covid, and no jabs during 2020 & early 2021. (Jabs for elderly began in March 21). See these articles: https://flagnfix.substack.com/p/excess-deaths-and-the-who and https://hatchardreport.com/when-worlds-collide/ Also watch this video by Grant Dixon https://www.bitchute.com/video/dASUoQ92PTbD/ 'Government and university data combine to show a strong co-relation between New Zealand's vaccine roll-out and excess all causes deaths.'
Yes, I am aware of that excuse.
What reason do you have for why non-covid deaths are still so far below baseline more recently even with flu around?
You may find this paper helpful. Professor John Gibson of Economics, Waikato University, (https://profiles.waikato.ac.nz/john.gibson) has a working paper on excess deaths titled Cumulative Excess Deaths in New Zealand in the COVID-19 Era: Biases from Ignoring Changes in Population Growth Rates. See here https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/23-02.html and the PDF here https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/2302.pdf
From the abstract:
'New Zealand's public health community has seized upon an excess deaths series that seemingly shows negative cumulative excess mortality in the first three years of COVID-19 - in other words, fewer deaths than expected. This is a flawed measure because it ignores changes in population growth. There was a rapid rise in deaths in New Zealand in the 2015-19 period, due to immigration-driven population growth rates of two percent per annum. This growth came almost to a standstill after the border closed in March 2020 so methods of extrapolating from the past to predict future deaths, to ascertain if actual deaths exceed the projection, must take account of this sharp change in population growth rates. Rather than New Zealand being unique, in having negative cumulative excess deaths in the COVID-19 era, as claimed by public health commentators, cumulative deaths are about four percent above expected deaths once population changes are accounted for.'
Another interesting paper by Prof. John Gibson.
From the paper:
“The age groups most likely to use boosters had 7-10 percentage point rises in excess mortality rates as boosters were rolled out while the age group that is mostly too young for boosters saw no rise in excess mortality.” See here https://www.nzcpr.com/best-in-show/
This is an interesting 9 minute video on excess deaths NZ.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VEmwCs8hYhSJ/
Carie.
Thank you so much Carie. That is all really helpful.
The Kabunsky and Kobac method, used for the OWID in one of their presentations, is completely inappropriate for NZ . I did my own take down of it in a court case submission, which was used by Professor John Gibson to produce the following.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00779954.2024.2314770
"is it really bucking the trend?" seems to imply that increased excess mortality is a recognized trend.
but then the argument is made that excess mortality is subjective, so maybe nz isn't really bucking the trend. however, doesn't that also call into question the entire basis of the assumed "trend"?
if excess death calculations are subjective, then take them ALL with a grain of salt, not just the ones that don't fit how you expect things to be.
I've translated a good piece by German data analyst Marcel Barz on German excess deaths:
https://lostintranslations.substack.com/p/statistical-distortions
"How the German Federal Statistical Office has distorted excess mortality figures"
Destatis identified conspicuous excess mortality early in the pandemic but after the vaccination campaign saw nothing unusual. However, a look at the raw data shows the opposite: historically low mortality in 2020 and significantly increased deaths figures in the following two years. Particularly controversial are the high number of deaths among younger and middle-aged groups since 2021 - about which the authorities have remained silent to this day.
One remark. If the long-term trend has a different slope than the short-term trend, this can also mean a true trend along a curved line. This can be observed in many countries, probably because people cannot increase their life expectancy indefinitely due to their biological conditions. In actuarial projections, it is therefore common to fit the long-term development of mortality risks with exp() or atan() functions.
I completely agree with you that the assumption of any linear development is subjective and prone to error. Theoretically, a short-term reference epoch would achieve the lowest error for smooth trends, but mortality rates are not suitable for this because they fluctuate too much.
For Germany, it can be said that mortality trends in 2023 have so far been fairly normal overall. Only people under the age of 60 showed slightly higher mortality risks in the first half of the year.
Is this the leaked data that SK touted as bombshell, presented at MIT Nov 30, even quoting Dr. Fenton as agreeing with him in some fashion? I was there and wasn't impressed with what he showed.
Clare check out this substack from 'Aussie17' - https://www.aussie17.com/p/startling-surge-in-deaths-of-new. There appears to be some evidence of data tampering by the NZ authorities.