This is the result of the most in depth research of my entire life- regarding the core of the deceptions of the last years / decades / millenia, the covert weaving of a cyber physical backbone- falsely labelled as a biological disease called COVID.... the biggest crime against humanity ever commited : https://telestai.substack.com/p/approaching-truth
I got a community note on X saying that there is no proof for 50 people after getting jabbed on the same day. Is there any way you could show deaths per day per site maybe?
You are correct. My intention was did this person die? Yes, but on next shot! Or yes, but on some future shot. Some people (mrn#) has as many as five or six lines (rows) of vax dates, but they died on their last shot. Some people might only have 1 line (vax date) but dose 5 and they died.... Every combination you can think of was captured. It's the same in VAERS unfortunately. So anybody I marked as "Yes-Next Shot" means they died but on some future shot.
Thats a very interesting presentation. Took a bit to wrap my brain around, but once I got it - its super clear that a LOT of older people have been killed by the shot. "Died Suddenly" gave me the wrong impression. Turns out, these shots kill Grandma.
Alberto! You recently took a deep dive with Michael N. on a CHD morning show, yes? So looking forward to your analysis of the NZ data, to hear your take on this. Clearly can see the "increasing curve" that Steve Kirsch hammered on a few nights ago, the death rate increase in your final chart. One thing, do you know if covid arrived in NZ prior to the shots? Or were these leaky shots administered before any illness or "cases" were reported? Would be interesting to know that tidbit, as my guess is the shots "shedding" along with lockdowns and masking caused more illness and deaths than doing absolutely nothing to "fight the virus". Simply allowing it to pass through or pass over the population without suppressing human immune systems, especially of the elderly and those already compromised. Looking forward to your take and thanks again!
It was very interesting witnessing so-called "truthers" IMMEDIATELY warning people off of the whistleblower's record-level data, urging people to be "wary." Some were even saying the whistleblower must be working for the bad guys. Okay, so the scenario would be:
Government setup with fake "leak":
1. Leak damning record-level data that everyone KNOWS the government has been hiding, and which shows the jabs are extremely dangerous.
2. Arrest the leaker.
3. Go back and discredit everyone who reported on the leaked government data, assuming the public will trust the government's own soon-to-come "fact-checker" efforts, because everyone will trust the government to tell the truth, and this will cause people to disregard all those nasty "truthers" out there, i.e., the ones who warned others that the jabs are deadly.
As absurd as this sounds, it is literally what MANY trolls online are presently trying to sell.
His data is inline with other releases. Eighty to ninety percent of Adverse Events comes from the top 1/3 of lots.
This should be seen as a good thing, that means 2/3rds of lots were not as dangerous and potentially a protocol could be created to help the 1/3rd to some various degrees of success. If the VAEs were dispersed more widely, every shot, the task would be way more difficult.
There appears nothing of value in negative risk benefit shots that possess not a jot of individual generalisability and come with potentially immediately lethal or delayed lethal consequences. This running uncontrolled pilot "experiment" has a long time yet to run and they're still jabbing for all they're worth.
I agree, the speed with which suddenly voices are shouting, "be wary!" to me is very odd, and they all use the same language to discredit the guy. Funny how that happens...
I will wait to hear from voices I know I can trust, like Dr. Martin, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Campbell and several others.
In addition, consider the voices that tell you Pfizer can't be sued, who say that the Pfizer contract says criminal behavior is totally ok. Really, since when?
For if that were true Nuremburg would have resulted in total dismissals. After all they were just "following orders". When I hear from these voices, I often find they have connections back to big Pharm. On the issue of if Pfizer can be sued, my go to source is Barnes. Period.
Pfizer can't be sued because the old rules/laws no longer apply. There is a framework of pseudo laws that have been put in place over decades to facilitate the slaughter of citizens by their government. Consequently, the legal counsel is using the wrong tactic by calling the shots "experimental". According to the pseudo regulations in place they are not experimental.
Besides, Pfizer is only fronting for the US DOD which is the agency responsible for the development (through its DARPA arm) of the bioweapons masquerading as "vaccines". The DOD is to be protected at all costs and its mission, depopulation, will proceed. In the unlikely event that Pfizer is "shut down", it will reappear with a new name and continue to produce the bioweapons it has been tasked to manufacture. The "new" Pfizer and the DOD will roll on with the medical holocaust.
The one world government agenda we are witnessing in real time has been many years in the making. It's far more nefarious than most people think. All legal angles for any recourse against pharma have long ago been "war gamed" so that any law suits will hit a brick wall.
Read Katherine Watts "Bailiwick News" and Sasha Latypova's "Due Diligence and Art" Substacks. They have done tremendous and detailed research into how the "kill box" for humanity has been engineered.
Sounds like you believe that murder is totally ok if you have a piece of paper to back you up. They tried that defense at Nuremburg, it doesn't work. Some legalize from a coconspirator is meaningless when there is clear, substantiated intent to defraud the recipients of the drugs. Do you not realize that the labyrinth of get out of jail language is damning proof of their clear foreknowledge of their wrongdoing??
Fundamental rule of law: fraud negates all contracts.
I say that those who wrote those laughable docs, those who signed them, as well as those who knowingly manufactured and distributed the products are all equally guilty of mass genocide. They are subject to military trials and the punishment for genocide is death. I personally am looking forward to the hangings.
Where did you get the idea that I "believe that murder is totally ok if you have a piece of paper to back you up"???
I believe no such thing. The point, which you missed, is that much of our legal system, is completely compromised and is on board with this PSEUDO legal structure that has been built over years. Very few in the judiciary have the backbone to fight what you refer to as" laughable documents". Laughable they may be, but people have been threatened and bribed to accept their "legality" .
Of course there is "clear foreknowledge of their wrongdoing". That's obvious. And the framework that's been set up is indeed fraudulent and wrong. But so were the mandates, the lockdowns and the coercion to get jabbed. Did that
stop them?
Don't you understand that the old rules no longer apply? Don't you realize that our federal government has been overthrown form within without a shot being fired? And that every government agency is run by people on board with the globalist agenda?
Did you not notice that the US Constitution barely exists, if it even does at all?
Have you seen one elected official, anywhere in the US, get on national TV, or write a column in a major newspaper telling the truth about the jabs?
Of course, pharma, CDC, FDA, DOD, Congress and Presidents past and present all played a part and are all guilty of the current mass genocide.
Tell me, who will bring them to justice?
By the way, Nuremburg was, sadly, just a show to placate the masses. There is no legal mandate to obey the "Nuremburg Code". Even if there were, it would be ignored, like the rest of our laws.
Without massive pushback from the American people and rebuilding our government using the blueprints of the founders, there will be no hangings.
We'll be too busy just trying to survive the brave new world they're building for us.
All of what you say are "truths" of this moment in time. They are no more solid, no more sound than were the claims of the Germans at Nuremburg is my point. You are giving these absurd legally torturous documents, the people who wrote them, and the people who signed them far too much credit. So they have control in this moment, so what?
All empires fall. Right now many, many thousands worldwide are working against these people, they are putting their lives, their jobs, their futures on the line. When you ask who will bring these people to justice, the answer is WE will.
You may wish to put your considerable gifts to work savaging those documents rather than viewing them as evidence of a criminality against which we can do nothing.
The data represents a cross sectional incomplete view, that remains nonetheless damning.
It is astonishing that people expect to receive a complete fair copy ready for formal publication of the entire dataset to the present day (yes the NZ Ministry of "Health" is still imposing the shots on the population). What we see here is demonstrable evil. Note that 11,005 New Zealand health professionals dodged mandated shots asserting exemptions. They got it right.
Since "Winston Smith" was no doubt well aware of the risks he was taking by sharing this data, I assumed the choice of this particular pseudonym (the main character in Orwell's novel 1984) was the whistleblower's way of framing not only the data release, but also whatever consequences might befall him afterward . . . .
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
As Steve Kirsch seems to be saying, the best vaccine adverse mortality effect signal is based on time lag since vaccination. Steve’s explanations are a bit convoluted (for me anyway), but here’s a way you can see this for yourself. I have done this for vaccinated individuals in this dashboard data aged 74. There are still some issues that I’ll highlight later, but you can use the dashboard to get some intuition about the problem signaled by the data:
1. With the rest of the fields set to All, select age 70-74 in “Age Category”. Then select age 74 in the “Age” field. The dashboard shows the total number of individuals vaccinated at this age is 30,478.
2. Next, in the “Died?” field, select YES. The dashboard indicates that out of these 30,478 vaccinated 74 year old individuals, 874 individuals died. However, if you look at the “Death Lag by Days” graph, you will see that a significant number died more than 365 days since their last vaccination. For a proper mortality investigation based on a single age (like age 74 here), it is best to limit deaths to within 365 days.
3. So in the “Death Lag Days” field a little further down in the dashboard (but before the “Death Lag by Days” graph), I excluded deaths with a lag more than 365 days, and the dashboard shows that 721 deaths occurred within a year of last vaccination for these 74 year olds. Dividing the 721 deaths by the 30,478 vaccinated individuals at this age gives a mortality rate of around 2.4%. For reference, NZ average male mortality at this age is around 2.5%, female is around 1.8%, and other groups (e.g. Māori mortality), is significantly higher (3.9% to 4.5% for Māori). Given the large variation in mortality rates at this age for different groups, locations, etc, this statistic on its own is not a signal of adverse mortality among the vaccinated.
4. However, if the vaccine has no mortality effect, you would expect a roughly even distribution of deaths over the year since last vaccination, say roughly half of the 721 deaths would be expected to occur within 6 months of last vaccination, and then half in the latter 6 months of the year since last vaccination, i.e. roughly 360 in each half year. (Steve Kirsch says that you would even expect a downward trend - that’s some sort of reasoning that epidemiologists use which does not feel very sound actuarially, but it’s not particularly important here).
5. So, expanding on step 3 above, I further excluded deaths with a lag more than 182 days as well (in addition to those over 365 days that I already excluded in step 3). The dashboard then shows that 468 of of the 721 deaths occurred in the first six months following last vaccination, and therefore only 253 of these deaths occurred in the second 6 months after last vaccination. That is significantly different from the expectations set out in paragraph 4 for a vaccine with no mortality effect, i.e. this is a STRONG signal for adverse mortality effects related to the date of last vaccination (for the 74 year olds in this data), which necessitates further investigation. Many more die closer to the last vaccination date than you would expect if the vaccine had no adverse mortality effect. You do not need a degree in statistics to understand this.
If you have access to the underlying data, it is easy to conduct this analysis across each individual age, and look for similar signals, and this is far more preferable than working in 5 year age groups. This is also a far more compelling indication of potential adverse mortality effects of the vaccine than anything else mentioned elsewhere regarding evidence of excess mortality from the whistleblower data (although I ’m not saying that none of it deserves investigation - however, I think that the above time lag results are a lot less easier to explain away).
There are some issues that do impact the above conclusions, though:
-the age of a vaccinated person appears to be age (at the nearest birthday, probably), where the nearest birthday is determined at the date of last vaccination. For all those 30,478 vaccinated individuals that did not die, we need to ensure that they are the appropriate “denominator” in our mortality calculation
-we need a clear explanation of how the date of death was determined, and we need to identify cases where a full year of “exposure” to mortality was not available in the data for those that did not die
-it may be better to recalculate the age on a different basis from the underlying data, and then redo the analysis
-where calendar dates have been changed to help anonymize data, we need to ensure that exposure calculations are adjusted appropriately
-the 253 deaths in the second 6 month period after vaccination seems a bit low. It could be that the vaccination kills off those who were most at risk from other causes anyway, and that “improves” the later post-vaccine mortality, but this needs more investigation
-we need to understand the interaction between this data set (I.e. the pay-per-dose (PPD) data) and the non-PPD program. For example, if an individual got their 3rd dose in the PPD program and appears in this data, and then they went to a public hospital 6 months later and got a 4th dose and died 2 months after that, would that death reflect on this PPD data set, and if so, will the time lag from last vaccination be over-estimated as 8 months rather than 2 months?
-for 74 year olds as an example, the date of vaccination could have some (minor?) relationship with lockdown dates, particularly in the the earlier periods, and potential lockdown-related mortality effects (maybe loneliness for example???) could contribute to post-vaccine excess mortality???
Fair conclusions, there are some other related points made by William Briggs that may be of interest you, seems you understand why it’s not as simple as some seem to be suggesting. I don’t think this is the slam dunk that Steve Kirsch thinks it is. Like you said you’d need a degree in statistics to understand it fully. https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/new-zealand-vaccine-data-possible
This was posted today in substack. Links within the post have additional information including an audio link to a very recent (friday Dec 1) British MP Andrew Bridgen interview - https://open.substack.com/pub/celiafarber/p/new-shtshow-nz-whistleblower-raided?r=14opcj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
In the shadow of war: Ukraine as the great reset laboratory of the global tech elite . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/135302021/in-the-shadow-of-war-ukraine-as-the-great-reset-laboratory-of-the-global-tech-elite
"I’m planning a response to Igor’s article". I look forward to your response.
Thanks, WelcometheEagle, I look forward to your post.
Im Schatten des Krieges: Ukraine als Great-Reset-Labor der globalen Tech-Eliten . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/135302021/im-schatten-des-krieges-ukraine-als-great-reset-labor-der-globalen-tech-eliten
Amazing accomplishment! Looking forward to reviewing in more detail.
Thank you for your dedicated effort to make this data accessible.
In the shadow of war: Ukraine as the great reset laboratory of the global tech elite . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/135302021/in-the-shadow-of-war-ukraine-as-the-great-reset-laboratory-of-the-global-tech-elite
This is the result of the most in depth research of my entire life- regarding the core of the deceptions of the last years / decades / millenia, the covert weaving of a cyber physical backbone- falsely labelled as a biological disease called COVID.... the biggest crime against humanity ever commited : https://telestai.substack.com/p/approaching-truth
Awesome job, hat off!
I got a community note on X saying that there is no proof for 50 people after getting jabbed on the same day. Is there any way you could show deaths per day per site maybe?
I'd like to shove that in their faces!!
Not by site, but you can see deaths by vaxx date.
https://imgur.com/gallery/taf3iwn
There’s a problem with the “Death Lag by Days” graph. It works where “Died?” field is equal to YES, but not when it’s equal to YES-NEXT SHOT
You are correct. My intention was did this person die? Yes, but on next shot! Or yes, but on some future shot. Some people (mrn#) has as many as five or six lines (rows) of vax dates, but they died on their last shot. Some people might only have 1 line (vax date) but dose 5 and they died.... Every combination you can think of was captured. It's the same in VAERS unfortunately. So anybody I marked as "Yes-Next Shot" means they died but on some future shot.
Sorry, that was clear from the video, but I just forgot when analyzing the results!
Did they take it down from your dashboard on Vaersaware.com? When I go and click I get a blank page?
It's up! Just checked again at 9:23am PST today. https://www.vaersaware.com/new-zealand
Thats a very interesting presentation. Took a bit to wrap my brain around, but once I got it - its super clear that a LOT of older people have been killed by the shot. "Died Suddenly" gave me the wrong impression. Turns out, these shots kill Grandma.
Alberto! You recently took a deep dive with Michael N. on a CHD morning show, yes? So looking forward to your analysis of the NZ data, to hear your take on this. Clearly can see the "increasing curve" that Steve Kirsch hammered on a few nights ago, the death rate increase in your final chart. One thing, do you know if covid arrived in NZ prior to the shots? Or were these leaky shots administered before any illness or "cases" were reported? Would be interesting to know that tidbit, as my guess is the shots "shedding" along with lockdowns and masking caused more illness and deaths than doing absolutely nothing to "fight the virus". Simply allowing it to pass through or pass over the population without suppressing human immune systems, especially of the elderly and those already compromised. Looking forward to your take and thanks again!
Very cool.
It was very interesting witnessing so-called "truthers" IMMEDIATELY warning people off of the whistleblower's record-level data, urging people to be "wary." Some were even saying the whistleblower must be working for the bad guys. Okay, so the scenario would be:
Government setup with fake "leak":
1. Leak damning record-level data that everyone KNOWS the government has been hiding, and which shows the jabs are extremely dangerous.
2. Arrest the leaker.
3. Go back and discredit everyone who reported on the leaked government data, assuming the public will trust the government's own soon-to-come "fact-checker" efforts, because everyone will trust the government to tell the truth, and this will cause people to disregard all those nasty "truthers" out there, i.e., the ones who warned others that the jabs are deadly.
As absurd as this sounds, it is literally what MANY trolls online are presently trying to sell.
His data is inline with other releases. Eighty to ninety percent of Adverse Events comes from the top 1/3 of lots.
This should be seen as a good thing, that means 2/3rds of lots were not as dangerous and potentially a protocol could be created to help the 1/3rd to some various degrees of success. If the VAEs were dispersed more widely, every shot, the task would be way more difficult.
There appears nothing of value in negative risk benefit shots that possess not a jot of individual generalisability and come with potentially immediately lethal or delayed lethal consequences. This running uncontrolled pilot "experiment" has a long time yet to run and they're still jabbing for all they're worth.
I agree, unless the strategy was to have dud lots allowing for stories saying well, I'm fine...
I agree, the speed with which suddenly voices are shouting, "be wary!" to me is very odd, and they all use the same language to discredit the guy. Funny how that happens...
I will wait to hear from voices I know I can trust, like Dr. Martin, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Campbell and several others.
In addition, consider the voices that tell you Pfizer can't be sued, who say that the Pfizer contract says criminal behavior is totally ok. Really, since when?
For if that were true Nuremburg would have resulted in total dismissals. After all they were just "following orders". When I hear from these voices, I often find they have connections back to big Pharm. On the issue of if Pfizer can be sued, my go to source is Barnes. Period.
Pfizer can't be sued because the old rules/laws no longer apply. There is a framework of pseudo laws that have been put in place over decades to facilitate the slaughter of citizens by their government. Consequently, the legal counsel is using the wrong tactic by calling the shots "experimental". According to the pseudo regulations in place they are not experimental.
Besides, Pfizer is only fronting for the US DOD which is the agency responsible for the development (through its DARPA arm) of the bioweapons masquerading as "vaccines". The DOD is to be protected at all costs and its mission, depopulation, will proceed. In the unlikely event that Pfizer is "shut down", it will reappear with a new name and continue to produce the bioweapons it has been tasked to manufacture. The "new" Pfizer and the DOD will roll on with the medical holocaust.
The one world government agenda we are witnessing in real time has been many years in the making. It's far more nefarious than most people think. All legal angles for any recourse against pharma have long ago been "war gamed" so that any law suits will hit a brick wall.
Read Katherine Watts "Bailiwick News" and Sasha Latypova's "Due Diligence and Art" Substacks. They have done tremendous and detailed research into how the "kill box" for humanity has been engineered.
Sounds like you believe that murder is totally ok if you have a piece of paper to back you up. They tried that defense at Nuremburg, it doesn't work. Some legalize from a coconspirator is meaningless when there is clear, substantiated intent to defraud the recipients of the drugs. Do you not realize that the labyrinth of get out of jail language is damning proof of their clear foreknowledge of their wrongdoing??
Fundamental rule of law: fraud negates all contracts.
I say that those who wrote those laughable docs, those who signed them, as well as those who knowingly manufactured and distributed the products are all equally guilty of mass genocide. They are subject to military trials and the punishment for genocide is death. I personally am looking forward to the hangings.
Where did you get the idea that I "believe that murder is totally ok if you have a piece of paper to back you up"???
I believe no such thing. The point, which you missed, is that much of our legal system, is completely compromised and is on board with this PSEUDO legal structure that has been built over years. Very few in the judiciary have the backbone to fight what you refer to as" laughable documents". Laughable they may be, but people have been threatened and bribed to accept their "legality" .
Of course there is "clear foreknowledge of their wrongdoing". That's obvious. And the framework that's been set up is indeed fraudulent and wrong. But so were the mandates, the lockdowns and the coercion to get jabbed. Did that
stop them?
Don't you understand that the old rules no longer apply? Don't you realize that our federal government has been overthrown form within without a shot being fired? And that every government agency is run by people on board with the globalist agenda?
Did you not notice that the US Constitution barely exists, if it even does at all?
Have you seen one elected official, anywhere in the US, get on national TV, or write a column in a major newspaper telling the truth about the jabs?
Of course, pharma, CDC, FDA, DOD, Congress and Presidents past and present all played a part and are all guilty of the current mass genocide.
Tell me, who will bring them to justice?
By the way, Nuremburg was, sadly, just a show to placate the masses. There is no legal mandate to obey the "Nuremburg Code". Even if there were, it would be ignored, like the rest of our laws.
Without massive pushback from the American people and rebuilding our government using the blueprints of the founders, there will be no hangings.
We'll be too busy just trying to survive the brave new world they're building for us.
Apologies, I had no intention of disparaging you.
All of what you say are "truths" of this moment in time. They are no more solid, no more sound than were the claims of the Germans at Nuremburg is my point. You are giving these absurd legally torturous documents, the people who wrote them, and the people who signed them far too much credit. So they have control in this moment, so what?
All empires fall. Right now many, many thousands worldwide are working against these people, they are putting their lives, their jobs, their futures on the line. When you ask who will bring these people to justice, the answer is WE will.
You may wish to put your considerable gifts to work savaging those documents rather than viewing them as evidence of a criminality against which we can do nothing.
The data represents a cross sectional incomplete view, that remains nonetheless damning.
It is astonishing that people expect to receive a complete fair copy ready for formal publication of the entire dataset to the present day (yes the NZ Ministry of "Health" is still imposing the shots on the population). What we see here is demonstrable evil. Note that 11,005 New Zealand health professionals dodged mandated shots asserting exemptions. They got it right.
Arrested???
martydom
Since "Winston Smith" was no doubt well aware of the risks he was taking by sharing this data, I assumed the choice of this particular pseudonym (the main character in Orwell's novel 1984) was the whistleblower's way of framing not only the data release, but also whatever consequences might befall him afterward . . . .
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/i-analyzed-the-leaked-nz-whistleblower/comment/44685068
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-x-preparing-for-power-sars
As Steve Kirsch seems to be saying, the best vaccine adverse mortality effect signal is based on time lag since vaccination. Steve’s explanations are a bit convoluted (for me anyway), but here’s a way you can see this for yourself. I have done this for vaccinated individuals in this dashboard data aged 74. There are still some issues that I’ll highlight later, but you can use the dashboard to get some intuition about the problem signaled by the data:
1. With the rest of the fields set to All, select age 70-74 in “Age Category”. Then select age 74 in the “Age” field. The dashboard shows the total number of individuals vaccinated at this age is 30,478.
2. Next, in the “Died?” field, select YES. The dashboard indicates that out of these 30,478 vaccinated 74 year old individuals, 874 individuals died. However, if you look at the “Death Lag by Days” graph, you will see that a significant number died more than 365 days since their last vaccination. For a proper mortality investigation based on a single age (like age 74 here), it is best to limit deaths to within 365 days.
3. So in the “Death Lag Days” field a little further down in the dashboard (but before the “Death Lag by Days” graph), I excluded deaths with a lag more than 365 days, and the dashboard shows that 721 deaths occurred within a year of last vaccination for these 74 year olds. Dividing the 721 deaths by the 30,478 vaccinated individuals at this age gives a mortality rate of around 2.4%. For reference, NZ average male mortality at this age is around 2.5%, female is around 1.8%, and other groups (e.g. Māori mortality), is significantly higher (3.9% to 4.5% for Māori). Given the large variation in mortality rates at this age for different groups, locations, etc, this statistic on its own is not a signal of adverse mortality among the vaccinated.
4. However, if the vaccine has no mortality effect, you would expect a roughly even distribution of deaths over the year since last vaccination, say roughly half of the 721 deaths would be expected to occur within 6 months of last vaccination, and then half in the latter 6 months of the year since last vaccination, i.e. roughly 360 in each half year. (Steve Kirsch says that you would even expect a downward trend - that’s some sort of reasoning that epidemiologists use which does not feel very sound actuarially, but it’s not particularly important here).
5. So, expanding on step 3 above, I further excluded deaths with a lag more than 182 days as well (in addition to those over 365 days that I already excluded in step 3). The dashboard then shows that 468 of of the 721 deaths occurred in the first six months following last vaccination, and therefore only 253 of these deaths occurred in the second 6 months after last vaccination. That is significantly different from the expectations set out in paragraph 4 for a vaccine with no mortality effect, i.e. this is a STRONG signal for adverse mortality effects related to the date of last vaccination (for the 74 year olds in this data), which necessitates further investigation. Many more die closer to the last vaccination date than you would expect if the vaccine had no adverse mortality effect. You do not need a degree in statistics to understand this.
If you have access to the underlying data, it is easy to conduct this analysis across each individual age, and look for similar signals, and this is far more preferable than working in 5 year age groups. This is also a far more compelling indication of potential adverse mortality effects of the vaccine than anything else mentioned elsewhere regarding evidence of excess mortality from the whistleblower data (although I ’m not saying that none of it deserves investigation - however, I think that the above time lag results are a lot less easier to explain away).
There are some issues that do impact the above conclusions, though:
-the age of a vaccinated person appears to be age (at the nearest birthday, probably), where the nearest birthday is determined at the date of last vaccination. For all those 30,478 vaccinated individuals that did not die, we need to ensure that they are the appropriate “denominator” in our mortality calculation
-we need a clear explanation of how the date of death was determined, and we need to identify cases where a full year of “exposure” to mortality was not available in the data for those that did not die
-it may be better to recalculate the age on a different basis from the underlying data, and then redo the analysis
-where calendar dates have been changed to help anonymize data, we need to ensure that exposure calculations are adjusted appropriately
-the 253 deaths in the second 6 month period after vaccination seems a bit low. It could be that the vaccination kills off those who were most at risk from other causes anyway, and that “improves” the later post-vaccine mortality, but this needs more investigation
-we need to understand the interaction between this data set (I.e. the pay-per-dose (PPD) data) and the non-PPD program. For example, if an individual got their 3rd dose in the PPD program and appears in this data, and then they went to a public hospital 6 months later and got a 4th dose and died 2 months after that, would that death reflect on this PPD data set, and if so, will the time lag from last vaccination be over-estimated as 8 months rather than 2 months?
-for 74 year olds as an example, the date of vaccination could have some (minor?) relationship with lockdown dates, particularly in the the earlier periods, and potential lockdown-related mortality effects (maybe loneliness for example???) could contribute to post-vaccine excess mortality???
Fair conclusions, there are some other related points made by William Briggs that may be of interest you, seems you understand why it’s not as simple as some seem to be suggesting. I don’t think this is the slam dunk that Steve Kirsch thinks it is. Like you said you’d need a degree in statistics to understand it fully. https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/new-zealand-vaccine-data-possible
Awesome presentation of the data.