Thank you for sharing this - as a Nutrition Scientists I have not seen any evidence for the need of 98% of the vaccine and no need for COVID vaccine either. Optimal food and the right supplements work for me.
The CIA and DOD is behind gain of function research on coronaviruses. It was a covered operation to develop bioweapons and possible countermeasures to bioweapon attacks. The reason why statistics are manipulated, and narratives are continued to be fabricated to make people believe that mRNA-“vaccines” where a success is mainly because they have to cover up why they pushed so hard for everybody to be “vaccinated”. What they actually did was to perform a 1:1 experiment in the population to find out, if the mRNA-technology could be a viable defense against a viral bioweapon attack, because this is the only counter measure that can be rolled-out within such a short time. In order for the results to be meaningful enough, the largest possible number of people had to be “vaccinated”. Now they know it didn't work, (fortunately)! But they can’t admit that this was the reason why they had to push so hard, so they continue to push the lies.
One thing to keep in mind is Phillip is must likely correct it is both. My thinking is this shit show wouldn't exist if it weren't for the vaccines, so they should get the blame. If I dropped a wrench in an engine and broke a piston and bent valves the cause would be the dropping of the wrench.
It’s not Rocket science. Two columns. Death rate per capita before . Death rate per capita after, the introduction of the clot shot. When they start writing mathematical novels,we know they’re trying to save the narrative
I commented on that and other papers in the Norwegian Medical Journal (link at the bottom). Please read below.
Young people who refused the corona vaccine made the best choice
In some population groups, fewer young people got vaccinated against COVID-19 than in the rest of the population (1), but did those who abstained make a poor choice? No. Peer-reviewed longitudinal analyses of young people in England show significantly increased mortality in 10 out of 11 weeks after vaccination compared with the first week, and at least doubled mortality in three weeks (2).
The findings may seem to contradict Norwegian data showing a 30% lower mortality rate among young corona vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people, and where the difference was as much as 58% when control variables were included (3). However, the figures say little about the vaccine effect since corona-related deaths were close to zero in the relevant age group (4). What they do tell us, however, is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people initially have very different health profiles, known from England (5), and which makes direct comparisons problematic. Furthermore, the figures show that the inclusion of control variables can make results more, not less, unreliable, which is also known (for relevant references, see 5). The figures should therefore be thought-provoking when considering much of the research literature on corona vaccination.
If we study the Norwegian data in more detail, they show a relative increase in mortality among fully vaccinated young people of 13% from 2022 to 2023 (3). For the oldest age group, where the populations of fully vaccinated and unvaccinated were more stable and therefore more comparable in the two years, the increase was 41%. This is in line with English data that also show a marked relative increase in mortality among vaccinated people over time without any other explanation than fatal undesirable consequences of the corona vaccine (5).
Unvaccinated people, especially young unvaccinated people, have therefore made a good choice. A very good choice.
Literature:
1. Skogheim TS, Hussaini L. Corona vaccination among young people with an immigrant background. Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. 2024;144(5). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.24.0158
2. Aarstad J. Deaths among young people in England increased significantly in 10 of 11 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination and doubled in three. Excli j. 2024;23:908-11. doi: 10.17179/excli2024-7498
3. Dahl J, Tapia G, Boas H, Landsjoasen Bakken IJ, Lovdal Gulseth H. COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and all-cause mortality in the adult population in Norway during 2021-2023: a population-based cohort study. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058
5. Aarstad J. The Temporal Protection and Declining Health of the COVID-19 Vaccinated in England: A 26-Month Comparison of the Mortality Involving and Not Involving COVID-19 Among Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated. Preprints: Preprints; 2024. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202412.1874/v1 Accessed 24.01.2025.
And yet you both seem to completely ignore two very important and highly relevant sets of statistics - that those developed nations with high RATES of vaccinations against SARS COV 2 had LOWER RATES of all cause deaths than those with lower RATES of vaccinations! And that the WAVES of those all cause deaths occurred in temporally associated waves immediately AFTER the waves of infections with newer variants! Neither of these FACTS seem to appear in any of your messaging. Is it just ignorance, or worse, your own versions of cherrypicking data? Since the latter has been a recurring pattern in your many attempts to undermine the efficacy of these vaccines, and imply far worse outcomes than actually exist, I’ll go with your attempts at deflection from the actual evidence!
The contrast in total all cause death rates between high jab countries and low jab countries is simple to explain: the high jab countries have higher income and better medical systems. Those are big differences in general health and susceptibility, so the groups are different as the statistician explained.
That's why it is important to look at excess deaths, ie expected vs actual for each demographic.
All well and good - on the surface Krishna, but that does NOT explain the waves of excess OR all cause deaths that followed each wave of new variants! And is the healthcare system in USA so much less effective than that in UK? Low vax rates across the USA in comparison to other similar nations match the high rates of overall, all cause AND excess deaths there in this scenario - your attempt to support a poor statistical analysis does you no credit. Had America achieved the vaccination rates of countries like Israel, UK and Australia, hundreds of thousands more would have survived. And the rate of Long COVID there, and its effects would be less too.
You didn't mention excess deaths in your first comment. There are significant and continuing excess deaths across the jabbed countries, including the UK, and jab rates in the US were in fact high. And as with other highly jabbed countries, covid continues to circulate there, whereas in places like Africa covid rates are now very low. Finally, you are just accepting the claim, which is still without basis, that jabs save lies.
Actually, those “excess deaths” have largely disappeared back within the expected bounds, including here in Australia. Sadly it’s not the case in USA, where uptake of boosters has been abysmal. The ongoing loss of around 600 people every week there is now demonstrating the benefits of boosting especially in vulnerable cohorts. This latest research sums it up nicely, and covers longer term consequences of infection too.
The second column "Unvaccinated" shows they were older, had a higher comorbidity index, and almost every type of pre-existing condition that would make them more vulnerable to severe disease if they caught it.
Interesting to see how many of HongKong's population never caught Covid19 at all, or at least never reported symptoms. Another source of confounding is that people in this "control group" were matched by age and sex to those in the study groups but not by whether they got the jab or not. As 2 of the reviewers noted the matching and selection criteria arent clear given the difference in size of the groups. Also, the resulting propensity score seems to have nerfed their comorbidity index which seems like an opaque way to bias the study. More likely i didnt understand this aspect - feel free to enlighten us exactly how that worked and didnt bias it.
Not sure I can help you with that, but the propensity score may have been used that way to try to match the groups more closely by reducing the propensity if the smaller group to match it tom hat of the larger group . And may I go back to your first comment? The reason for addressing all cause, rather than only excess deaths, is because doing so removes the distinction between direct/indirect infection deaths and those caused by missed opportunity deaths due to the effects of the pandemic on healthcare systems. I think you will find that most research now looks at all cause deaths to cover all lives lost as a result of the pandemic, UNLESS the paper is assessing the efficacy of vaccines, therapies or public health interventions on the rates of disease and complications.
Write a book if you have all this data and proof. I sure haven't seen anything near what you're talking about and I have been following this data very closely. Go to Steve Kirsch's substack. He has a lot of data dumps analyzed from numerous sources worldwide and they sure don't support your hypothesis or claims.
If you actually believe Steve Kirsch then this conversation is going nowhere! His “data dumps” are often from unreliable sources, rarely direct from national databases, and their interpretations are so wildly inaccurate as to be laughable! Do better please.
Where’s your data? What constitutes a ‘reliable source’ now? I’ve seen a plethora misinformation coming from the establishment so that’s not even a relevant argument any more.
The bottom line is this… Do you really believe that it is acceptable to have potentially millions dead or damaged from the C19 vaccine worldwide?
FOIA released data shows the Pfizer trials had a 1 in 800 serious adverse reaction or death (short term AE’s too). (That was only those who had both initial shots! Those who died or had serious reactions after only one shot were removed from the study and so not included in the final data analysis!). Multiply that across the billions of vaccine doses given worldwide and you have a heck of a lot of people suffering!
So we should accept that these poor human beings are simply collateral damage in order to theoretically save millions of lives from Covid, of which there is zero proof other than data plucked from thin air and not based on anything truly scientific. I wonder how you’d feel if it was your loved one! The bottom line is that we knew very early on the high and low risk groups. Top scientists and great doctors have been ignored, discredited and censored all along in order to protect the vaccine rollout. Why???? It’s beyond obvious that there was an agenda here and wilful blindness is not an excuse I’m afraid. Everyone still trying to cover this up, they are all culpable.
I started my research back in mid 2021 when I was under pressure to get the jabs, I really wanted to see that they were safe so I could get it and just get on with my life. Yet I have seen literally zero hard evidence that is not full of holes and misrepresented data. I have, however, seen a huge effort to obfuscate and protect the ‘safe and effective’ narrative at all costs. Alarm bells were and still are ringing loud and clear.
I remain unvaccinated to this day, PROUD AND VERY RELIEVED!
In the USA during COVID, everything respiratory was labeled COVID including vaccine injuries...stats can not be trusted.
excellent analysis
Thank you for sharing this - as a Nutrition Scientists I have not seen any evidence for the need of 98% of the vaccine and no need for COVID vaccine either. Optimal food and the right supplements work for me.
Thank you Regina and Phillip!!
The CIA and DOD is behind gain of function research on coronaviruses. It was a covered operation to develop bioweapons and possible countermeasures to bioweapon attacks. The reason why statistics are manipulated, and narratives are continued to be fabricated to make people believe that mRNA-“vaccines” where a success is mainly because they have to cover up why they pushed so hard for everybody to be “vaccinated”. What they actually did was to perform a 1:1 experiment in the population to find out, if the mRNA-technology could be a viable defense against a viral bioweapon attack, because this is the only counter measure that can be rolled-out within such a short time. In order for the results to be meaningful enough, the largest possible number of people had to be “vaccinated”. Now they know it didn't work, (fortunately)! But they can’t admit that this was the reason why they had to push so hard, so they continue to push the lies.
Hi Dr. Phillip McMillian,
Regina has spoken truth.
Truth is Light. Critical thinking has taken back seat. God gave us brain to use.
Regards,
Thanks for sharing this Dr McMillian
Thank you and God bless you both.
One thing to keep in mind is Phillip is must likely correct it is both. My thinking is this shit show wouldn't exist if it weren't for the vaccines, so they should get the blame. If I dropped a wrench in an engine and broke a piston and bent valves the cause would be the dropping of the wrench.
And the fault would lay with the person who dropped the wrench!
It’s not Rocket science. Two columns. Death rate per capita before . Death rate per capita after, the introduction of the clot shot. When they start writing mathematical novels,we know they’re trying to save the narrative
This is complete nonsense!
“Correlation doesn’t mean causation.“
But there is no causation without correlation!
I would say anytime you hear that irrelevant statement somebody is lying!
I commented on that and other papers in the Norwegian Medical Journal (link at the bottom). Please read below.
Young people who refused the corona vaccine made the best choice
In some population groups, fewer young people got vaccinated against COVID-19 than in the rest of the population (1), but did those who abstained make a poor choice? No. Peer-reviewed longitudinal analyses of young people in England show significantly increased mortality in 10 out of 11 weeks after vaccination compared with the first week, and at least doubled mortality in three weeks (2).
The findings may seem to contradict Norwegian data showing a 30% lower mortality rate among young corona vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people, and where the difference was as much as 58% when control variables were included (3). However, the figures say little about the vaccine effect since corona-related deaths were close to zero in the relevant age group (4). What they do tell us, however, is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people initially have very different health profiles, known from England (5), and which makes direct comparisons problematic. Furthermore, the figures show that the inclusion of control variables can make results more, not less, unreliable, which is also known (for relevant references, see 5). The figures should therefore be thought-provoking when considering much of the research literature on corona vaccination.
If we study the Norwegian data in more detail, they show a relative increase in mortality among fully vaccinated young people of 13% from 2022 to 2023 (3). For the oldest age group, where the populations of fully vaccinated and unvaccinated were more stable and therefore more comparable in the two years, the increase was 41%. This is in line with English data that also show a marked relative increase in mortality among vaccinated people over time without any other explanation than fatal undesirable consequences of the corona vaccine (5).
Unvaccinated people, especially young unvaccinated people, have therefore made a good choice. A very good choice.
Literature:
1. Skogheim TS, Hussaini L. Corona vaccination among young people with an immigrant background. Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. 2024;144(5). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.24.0158
2. Aarstad J. Deaths among young people in England increased significantly in 10 of 11 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination and doubled in three. Excli j. 2024;23:908-11. doi: 10.17179/excli2024-7498
3. Dahl J, Tapia G, Boas H, Landsjoasen Bakken IJ, Lovdal Gulseth H. COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and all-cause mortality in the adult population in Norway during 2021-2023: a population-based cohort study. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058
4. Norwegian Institute of Public Health. FHI Statistics. Deaths by gender, age and cause of death, number 2024. https://statistikk.fhi.no/daar/4WsXdiMduftCsG6aAND9Yg?MEASURE_TYPE=Freq… . Accessed 24.01.2025 .
5. Aarstad J. The Temporal Protection and Declining Health of the COVID-19 Vaccinated in England: A 26-Month Comparison of the Mortality Involving and Not Involving COVID-19 Among Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated. Preprints: Preprints; 2024. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202412.1874/v1 Accessed 24.01.2025.
https://tidsskriftet-no.translate.goog/2025/01/kommentar/unge-som-avsto-koronavaksinen-tok-det-beste-valget?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Great post! Thank you 🙏🏻
And yet you both seem to completely ignore two very important and highly relevant sets of statistics - that those developed nations with high RATES of vaccinations against SARS COV 2 had LOWER RATES of all cause deaths than those with lower RATES of vaccinations! And that the WAVES of those all cause deaths occurred in temporally associated waves immediately AFTER the waves of infections with newer variants! Neither of these FACTS seem to appear in any of your messaging. Is it just ignorance, or worse, your own versions of cherrypicking data? Since the latter has been a recurring pattern in your many attempts to undermine the efficacy of these vaccines, and imply far worse outcomes than actually exist, I’ll go with your attempts at deflection from the actual evidence!
The contrast in total all cause death rates between high jab countries and low jab countries is simple to explain: the high jab countries have higher income and better medical systems. Those are big differences in general health and susceptibility, so the groups are different as the statistician explained.
That's why it is important to look at excess deaths, ie expected vs actual for each demographic.
All well and good - on the surface Krishna, but that does NOT explain the waves of excess OR all cause deaths that followed each wave of new variants! And is the healthcare system in USA so much less effective than that in UK? Low vax rates across the USA in comparison to other similar nations match the high rates of overall, all cause AND excess deaths there in this scenario - your attempt to support a poor statistical analysis does you no credit. Had America achieved the vaccination rates of countries like Israel, UK and Australia, hundreds of thousands more would have survived. And the rate of Long COVID there, and its effects would be less too.
You didn't mention excess deaths in your first comment. There are significant and continuing excess deaths across the jabbed countries, including the UK, and jab rates in the US were in fact high. And as with other highly jabbed countries, covid continues to circulate there, whereas in places like Africa covid rates are now very low. Finally, you are just accepting the claim, which is still without basis, that jabs save lies.
Actually, those “excess deaths” have largely disappeared back within the expected bounds, including here in Australia. Sadly it’s not the case in USA, where uptake of boosters has been abysmal. The ongoing loss of around 600 people every week there is now demonstrating the benefits of boosting especially in vulnerable cohorts. This latest research sums it up nicely, and covers longer term consequences of infection too.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45953-1
That HongKong study illustrates the demographic point. Look at Table 1 (baseline characteristics of the study groups) : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45953-1/tables/1
The second column "Unvaccinated" shows they were older, had a higher comorbidity index, and almost every type of pre-existing condition that would make them more vulnerable to severe disease if they caught it.
Interesting to see how many of HongKong's population never caught Covid19 at all, or at least never reported symptoms. Another source of confounding is that people in this "control group" were matched by age and sex to those in the study groups but not by whether they got the jab or not. As 2 of the reviewers noted the matching and selection criteria arent clear given the difference in size of the groups. Also, the resulting propensity score seems to have nerfed their comorbidity index which seems like an opaque way to bias the study. More likely i didnt understand this aspect - feel free to enlighten us exactly how that worked and didnt bias it.
Not sure I can help you with that, but the propensity score may have been used that way to try to match the groups more closely by reducing the propensity if the smaller group to match it tom hat of the larger group . And may I go back to your first comment? The reason for addressing all cause, rather than only excess deaths, is because doing so removes the distinction between direct/indirect infection deaths and those caused by missed opportunity deaths due to the effects of the pandemic on healthcare systems. I think you will find that most research now looks at all cause deaths to cover all lives lost as a result of the pandemic, UNLESS the paper is assessing the efficacy of vaccines, therapies or public health interventions on the rates of disease and complications.
These are not facts, just more propaganda. If they are facts please post the studies or datasets in which you found them.
Write a book if you have all this data and proof. I sure haven't seen anything near what you're talking about and I have been following this data very closely. Go to Steve Kirsch's substack. He has a lot of data dumps analyzed from numerous sources worldwide and they sure don't support your hypothesis or claims.
If you actually believe Steve Kirsch then this conversation is going nowhere! His “data dumps” are often from unreliable sources, rarely direct from national databases, and their interpretations are so wildly inaccurate as to be laughable! Do better please.
Where’s your data? What constitutes a ‘reliable source’ now? I’ve seen a plethora misinformation coming from the establishment so that’s not even a relevant argument any more.
The bottom line is this… Do you really believe that it is acceptable to have potentially millions dead or damaged from the C19 vaccine worldwide?
FOIA released data shows the Pfizer trials had a 1 in 800 serious adverse reaction or death (short term AE’s too). (That was only those who had both initial shots! Those who died or had serious reactions after only one shot were removed from the study and so not included in the final data analysis!). Multiply that across the billions of vaccine doses given worldwide and you have a heck of a lot of people suffering!
So we should accept that these poor human beings are simply collateral damage in order to theoretically save millions of lives from Covid, of which there is zero proof other than data plucked from thin air and not based on anything truly scientific. I wonder how you’d feel if it was your loved one! The bottom line is that we knew very early on the high and low risk groups. Top scientists and great doctors have been ignored, discredited and censored all along in order to protect the vaccine rollout. Why???? It’s beyond obvious that there was an agenda here and wilful blindness is not an excuse I’m afraid. Everyone still trying to cover this up, they are all culpable.
I started my research back in mid 2021 when I was under pressure to get the jabs, I really wanted to see that they were safe so I could get it and just get on with my life. Yet I have seen literally zero hard evidence that is not full of holes and misrepresented data. I have, however, seen a huge effort to obfuscate and protect the ‘safe and effective’ narrative at all costs. Alarm bells were and still are ringing loud and clear.
I remain unvaccinated to this day, PROUD AND VERY RELIEVED!