You are doing a fantastic job, uncovering this. Exactly, why can't someone read the free text and fill in the ages? Answer is obvious when its children. Would be interesting to check if its always children where age is not filled in.
This is about the New Zealand database, not the VAERS info. I just wanted to post in your most recent substack.
I just spent over 10 hours slicing and dicing the New Zealand data. Caveat - I did NOT look at the hot lots angle, or the bad vaccinators angle. So there may be some real evidence of problems there.
However, I wasn't able to find evidence of death caused by the clots shots as whole in the data. Believe me, I wanted to find it, and I KNOW the clot shots kill people. I just didn't find it in that data.
I looked at the data by age groups: 1-4, 5-11, 12-15, 16-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, by 5s up through 85-89 and then age 90 and up. I then looked at each shot given separately, i.e. 1st shot, 2nd shot, etc.
After all this, I calculated the number of deaths in the next 6 months for each age group and shot number. (You have to do this, or else you are looking at the distinct number of people that took "vaccines" instead of the number of "vaccines" given).
I looked for patterns from one shot to the next, noticed very few people died within the first 7 days after a shot, and relatively few in the next 7 days, which I found suspicious. I also noticed that the "vaccines" given early on in the campaign seem underreported in this data.
So I found the number of deaths in the first 182 days exposure times two, divided by number of shots, for each age group and shot number. I then got the mortality rate for each age group by adding up the number of shots and number of deaths across the age group.
Guess what? The mortality rate that I found this way was less than New Zealand's mortality rate tables from 2010-2012. It was even less when I only looked at the rates from shots 2, 3 and 4, figuring that shot 1 shouldn't be used since most people would be getting another shot in a few weeks, so there wouldn't BE 182 days exposure after that shot. The mortality was STILL less than expected, for every age group.
If anyone wants to look at what I did and find something wrong, let me know. I am an Associate in the Society of Actuaries (ASA) - this is what I do professionally, but I can make mistakes.
Kirsch is having a live Twitter debate on "Spaces" in about 8.5hrs from now (Dec 9 9am PST). Maybe you could check in and listen, ask a question if you get lucky. Out of curiosity you said you found few people that died in the first 7 days after the shot (0-7days). How many did you find? I found 371 deaths. The next 7 days (8-14) I found 592.
so we match with 1022 0-14. It's definitely not the curve that would resemble VAERS or other accepted analysis stating the majority of deaths (in VAERS) and presumably in general happen within the first week?
Right. I REALLY don't believe the "healthy vaccinee" effect several people in the sphere are talking about. These shots were given in nursing homes, there's no "healthy vaccinee" effect there.
When we see few deaths within the first 14 or 21 days, that's people not reported as having gotten the shot for 14 or 21 days.
Ok yes 37,315 agreed and 430 for 0-7 agreed, I went back and 2x checked myself, I must have had a box unselected. You must have noticed the 4 deaths with a negative lag days. I also excluded those because those are technically not 0-7, but they are in the data as is.
487,352 doses given, 1627 deaths in a time frame of 0-182 days from each of those shots (382+632+613). Divide the 1627 by 487K then multiply by 2 to account for the half year and get 6.677 deaths per 1000. I took the New Zealand 2010-2012 tables averaged between male and female, ages 60 to 69 and got 9.404. Actual to expected: 71.0%. No way do I believe those numbers represent reality, but that's what they show.
As long as I'm adding too many posts, here's the summary of the actual to expected mortality for shots 2-4, looking at 6 months exposure:
Ages 0-4: no deaths, but not enough shots to expect any
5-11: 106%, but there were only 2 deaths so there's a lot of uncertainty there.
12-15: 62%, 4 deaths, so there's also a lot of uncertainty.
16-19: 85% (22 deaths)
20-24: 69% (33 deaths)
25-29: 97% (40 deaths)
30-39: 75% (110 deaths)
40-49: 73% (222 deaths)
50-59 78% (665 deaths)
60-69 71% (1627 deaths)
70-74 65% (1405 deaths)
75-79 64% (2033 deaths)
80-84 66% (2611 deaths)
85-89 62% (2668 deaths)
90+ 69% (3600 deaths)
These actual to expected results make me think nowhere near all the deaths are being reported. Otherwise these shots would be the fountain of youth!
The main technical caveat is whether people ACTUALLY had 182 days of exposure captured in the database - all I can say is that from all the graphs I saw (quite a few of them) it sure looked that way. These people were getting shots every six months or so. The peaks between shots 2 and 3 were a little closer than 6 months, but the mortality for shot 2 was about the same as for shots 3 and 4 for ages less than 80. It would have only made a significant difference for ages 80 and up, and even then it wouldn't have made a large difference.
1814 x ages 60-69 took a dose 6 with a total 19 deaths recorded in 184 days.
You estimated 9.4 deaths per 1000 person years for NZ ages 60-69, which translates to 0.33 deaths per 7 days or just under 1 per 21 days among 1814 people.
So 19 deaths against about 9 expected in the same period: poisson P(x>=19) = 0.0024.
While the first dose 6 was given on 21 may 2022, most doses were between the last week of March 2023 and early July. Not many recipients have had the dose more than 6 or 7 months.
I should have added 71% of expected mortality is pretty strong evidence that not all the deaths are being recorded.
If this data was being used in a study, it would be touted as proving that the shots were improving mortality by 29%. At which point, we'd all say "yea, right, these shots are curing cancer and heart disease, and (fill in the blank) ????
I wasn't impugning you. I've zero medical training whatsoever, but have spent 42 year with my brain marinating in Pubmed. All through the 80's and 90's, every medical "expert" who came up against me on radio and TV deeply regretted it to the point where the MoH's game plan was never to come up against me in public, and ignore me in private.
Just because you are an accredited actuary, doesn't mean you are not an "expert" in reality in areas where you have no accreditation. Same for Steve.
The question was asked since I would have assumed that you would have used the tools and his methods in order to work out where he went wrong, and be able to tell him that.
You are doing a fantastic job, uncovering this. Exactly, why can't someone read the free text and fill in the ages? Answer is obvious when its children. Would be interesting to check if its always children where age is not filled in.
Quietly following the Kirsch NZ data shit storm?
Kuntz.
The lot of them.
Apparently, Ticketec have issued a pre-release of seats for Judgement Day.
I've ordered front row.....
Bring it on.
What's this "no follow up attempts are POSSIBLE"???
Dead people are famously hard to follow up on;-)
This is about the New Zealand database, not the VAERS info. I just wanted to post in your most recent substack.
I just spent over 10 hours slicing and dicing the New Zealand data. Caveat - I did NOT look at the hot lots angle, or the bad vaccinators angle. So there may be some real evidence of problems there.
However, I wasn't able to find evidence of death caused by the clots shots as whole in the data. Believe me, I wanted to find it, and I KNOW the clot shots kill people. I just didn't find it in that data.
I looked at the data by age groups: 1-4, 5-11, 12-15, 16-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, by 5s up through 85-89 and then age 90 and up. I then looked at each shot given separately, i.e. 1st shot, 2nd shot, etc.
After all this, I calculated the number of deaths in the next 6 months for each age group and shot number. (You have to do this, or else you are looking at the distinct number of people that took "vaccines" instead of the number of "vaccines" given).
I looked for patterns from one shot to the next, noticed very few people died within the first 7 days after a shot, and relatively few in the next 7 days, which I found suspicious. I also noticed that the "vaccines" given early on in the campaign seem underreported in this data.
So I found the number of deaths in the first 182 days exposure times two, divided by number of shots, for each age group and shot number. I then got the mortality rate for each age group by adding up the number of shots and number of deaths across the age group.
Guess what? The mortality rate that I found this way was less than New Zealand's mortality rate tables from 2010-2012. It was even less when I only looked at the rates from shots 2, 3 and 4, figuring that shot 1 shouldn't be used since most people would be getting another shot in a few weeks, so there wouldn't BE 182 days exposure after that shot. The mortality was STILL less than expected, for every age group.
If anyone wants to look at what I did and find something wrong, let me know. I am an Associate in the Society of Actuaries (ASA) - this is what I do professionally, but I can make mistakes.
Kirsch is having a live Twitter debate on "Spaces" in about 8.5hrs from now (Dec 9 9am PST). Maybe you could check in and listen, ask a question if you get lucky. Out of curiosity you said you found few people that died in the first 7 days after the shot (0-7days). How many did you find? I found 371 deaths. The next 7 days (8-14) I found 592.
My Spreadsheet is showing 1022 for day 0-14. 430 for 0-7 and 592 for 8-14. Those last two numbers I just got by searching your dashboard.
are you showing 37,315 deaths for the entire database?
Yes, both by an overall query and by the sum of all the sliced and diced categories.
so we match with 1022 0-14. It's definitely not the curve that would resemble VAERS or other accepted analysis stating the majority of deaths (in VAERS) and presumably in general happen within the first week?
Right. I REALLY don't believe the "healthy vaccinee" effect several people in the sphere are talking about. These shots were given in nursing homes, there's no "healthy vaccinee" effect there.
When we see few deaths within the first 14 or 21 days, that's people not reported as having gotten the shot for 14 or 21 days.
Ok yes 37,315 agreed and 430 for 0-7 agreed, I went back and 2x checked myself, I must have had a box unselected. You must have noticed the 4 deaths with a negative lag days. I also excluded those because those are technically not 0-7, but they are in the data as is.
I'll see I can get in on the debate, but I don't do mornings very well.
Here's a sample of what I was talking about:
Ages 60-69, shots 2-4.
487,352 doses given, 1627 deaths in a time frame of 0-182 days from each of those shots (382+632+613). Divide the 1627 by 487K then multiply by 2 to account for the half year and get 6.677 deaths per 1000. I took the New Zealand 2010-2012 tables averaged between male and female, ages 60 to 69 and got 9.404. Actual to expected: 71.0%. No way do I believe those numbers represent reality, but that's what they show.
As long as I'm adding too many posts, here's the summary of the actual to expected mortality for shots 2-4, looking at 6 months exposure:
Ages 0-4: no deaths, but not enough shots to expect any
5-11: 106%, but there were only 2 deaths so there's a lot of uncertainty there.
12-15: 62%, 4 deaths, so there's also a lot of uncertainty.
16-19: 85% (22 deaths)
20-24: 69% (33 deaths)
25-29: 97% (40 deaths)
30-39: 75% (110 deaths)
40-49: 73% (222 deaths)
50-59 78% (665 deaths)
60-69 71% (1627 deaths)
70-74 65% (1405 deaths)
75-79 64% (2033 deaths)
80-84 66% (2611 deaths)
85-89 62% (2668 deaths)
90+ 69% (3600 deaths)
These actual to expected results make me think nowhere near all the deaths are being reported. Otherwise these shots would be the fountain of youth!
The main technical caveat is whether people ACTUALLY had 182 days of exposure captured in the database - all I can say is that from all the graphs I saw (quite a few of them) it sure looked that way. These people were getting shots every six months or so. The peaks between shots 2 and 3 were a little closer than 6 months, but the mortality for shot 2 was about the same as for shots 3 and 4 for ages less than 80. It would have only made a significant difference for ages 80 and up, and even then it wouldn't have made a large difference.
I am wondering if dose 6 shows a signal?
1814 x ages 60-69 took a dose 6 with a total 19 deaths recorded in 184 days.
You estimated 9.4 deaths per 1000 person years for NZ ages 60-69, which translates to 0.33 deaths per 7 days or just under 1 per 21 days among 1814 people.
So 19 deaths against about 9 expected in the same period: poisson P(x>=19) = 0.0024.
While the first dose 6 was given on 21 may 2022, most doses were between the last week of March 2023 and early July. Not many recipients have had the dose more than 6 or 7 months.
For dose 6 (expected deaths < 1 per 21 days):
Days 0-21: 0 deaths
Days 22-42: 5 deaths
Days 43-63: 4 deaths
Days 64-84: 2 deaths
Days 85-105: 4 deaths
Days 106-126: 0 deaths
Days 127-147: 2 deaths
Days 148-168: 1 death
Days 169-189: 1 death
Yes, that seems accurate.
I'm not sure of the expected mortality, but the other age groups seem to have high dose 6 death: person ratios, e.g.:
70-74: 16 deaths, 1271 jabs
75-79: 16 deaths, 1189 jabs
80-84: 19 deaths, 683 jabs
85-89: 14 deaths, 270 jabs
90-94: 2 deaths, 70 people
I should have added 71% of expected mortality is pretty strong evidence that not all the deaths are being recorded.
If this data was being used in a study, it would be touted as proving that the shots were improving mortality by 29%. At which point, we'd all say "yea, right, these shots are curing cancer and heart disease, and (fill in the blank) ????
Did you use the same tools and methods that Steve used?
No, not the same methods. That doesn't mean he's right, and I'm wrong. I'm an accredited actuary, he invented the optical mouse.
I wasn't impugning you. I've zero medical training whatsoever, but have spent 42 year with my brain marinating in Pubmed. All through the 80's and 90's, every medical "expert" who came up against me on radio and TV deeply regretted it to the point where the MoH's game plan was never to come up against me in public, and ignore me in private.
Just because you are an accredited actuary, doesn't mean you are not an "expert" in reality in areas where you have no accreditation. Same for Steve.
The question was asked since I would have assumed that you would have used the tools and his methods in order to work out where he went wrong, and be able to tell him that.
No worries.
Would you be able to use his tools and his methods to work out how and why he came to the conclusions he did? Is that of interest to you?
Excellent work, WelcometheEagle88.
Thank you, Mike.
'.....heroes.....'
david bowie live aid 1985
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=JFHC6t13hi0&si=pUEq8Kdn3ENYoQGK
I hope you see this.
darrensimmproductions11@gmail.com