Global Death Rates Are Skyrocketing! Why?

[revelarts]

the previous post was from insurance analysis studies

this study is from
"Western Norway University of Applied Sciences"

Excess deaths, correlation study
"We primarily study a possible link between 2021 COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe, and monthly 2022 excess all-cause mortality, (i.e., mortality higher than before the pandemic)

Analyses of 31 countries, Jan to September, 2022 31 EU member states, plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland

All-cause mortality, increased more the higher the 2021 vaccination uptake Countries with more covid vaccines in 2021 had higher excess mortality in first 9 months of 2022

Positive correlation between vaccination in 2021 and excess deaths in 2022
A one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake, was associated with a monthly mortality increase in 2022 by 0.105% (95% CI, 0.075-0.134).

When controlling for alternative explanations...."

to me it seems that the correlation here is hard to explain away ("a slam dunk").
But the percentage, at 1st glance, seems thankfully small.
But if I'm understanding the numbers the study says for each 1% rise in vxcine there's a 0.1x% in mortality.
But that's not small for a "safe" drug.

[revelarts]

Even the W.H.O. beginning to admit it.

[COLOR=var(--yt-formatted-string-bold-color,inherit)]359,699 views[COLOR=var(--yt-formatted-string-bold-color,inherit)] [/COLOR][COLOR=var(--yt-formatted-string-bold-color,inherit)]Aug 2, 2023[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Global excess deaths associated with COVID-19, January 2020 - December 2021New hope children centrehttps://www.newhopeuplands.orgIf you would like to support the work in Africa, donations are welcome using the PayPal link below. 100% of funds go directly to Africa. Thank you. https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...A comprehensive view of global deaths directly and indirectly associated the COVID-19 pandemic.https://www.who.int/data/stories/glob...The World Health Organization (WHO) is tracking global excess mortality as the pandemic evolves over time to reveal a picture of its full impact and burden on countries, health systems and individuals.'Excess mortality' is defined as the difference between the total number of deaths that have occurred and the number of deaths that would have been expected in the absence of the pandemic i.e. a no-COVID-19 scenario.Understanding the excess mortality:Excess mortality includes deaths attributable directly to COVID-19,includes deaths attributable directly to COVID-19 that were not counted or reported,includes deaths indirectly associated with COVID-19, due to other causes and diseases, resulting from the wider impact of the pandemic on health systems and society.It is minus any deaths that would have occurred under normal circumstances but were averted due to pandemic-related changes in social conditions and personal behaviors,e.g. less traffic deaths or influenza deaths due to local lockdowns and less travel.No mention ofAdverse effects of lockdowns, social, economic, psychological, psychiatricAdverse events of medical interventions (iatrogenesis)https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...https://www.canada.ca/en/public-healt...Vaccination of individuals who are pregnantStudies continue to support vaccination during pregnancy. Safety of Omicron-containing bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccinesThe safety profile of the bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters is comparable to that of original mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters No evidence on VE against infant outcomes is available for vaccination with bivalent mRNA vaccines in persons who are pregnant.In Western Australiahttps://www.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/...Total AEFI rate following a COVID-19 vaccine was 264.1 per 100,000 doses. 26.41 per 10 thousand 2.641 per thousand0.241%One in 414 dosesOf these AEFI, (adverse events following immunisation)10,428 (97%) occurred after a COVID-19 vaccine21 times more common than ‘conventional’ vaccinesMyocardial Injury after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/e...One in 35 recipients (2.8%) had vaccine-associated myocardial injury

[revelarts]

My sarcasm is not directed at you Kath, But someone who's name I will not say.
but the letters to his name are F & J.

[Kathianne]

My sarcasm is not directed at you Kath, But someone's who name I will not say.
but the letters to his name are F & J.

I think he's alot like you in getting heated about what he feels very strongly about.

Now, I do think when he was discussing admitting what is in common between those like you-largely committed to the government/big pharma intentionally or close to it, hurting the citizenry; and me, who is not putting anything past the government, but doesn't go down the same road. I think there were wrongs done and still happening because of a decision to go full bore on this virus. Two administrations-one bureaucracy.

[fj1200]

My sarcasm is not directed at you Kath, But someone's who name I will not say.
but the letters to his name are F & J.

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.

[Kathianne]

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.

GGRrrrr at bolded. If real scientists had balked then, maybe we wouldn't be where we are today. Actually was my first time being convinced the MSM was twisting truth and protecting the liars.

[revelarts]

GGRrrrr at bolded. If real scientists had balked then, maybe we wouldn't be where we are today. Actually was my first time being convinced the MSM was twisting truth and protecting the liars.

Some real scientist did balk. but they were censored and shouted down.
And assumed to be lying for various reasons. paid off by 'big oil'. And supposedly had a different narrative they wanted to promote.

And many people didn't even want to think that mainstream, 'consensus science' could be lying or wrong.
The outsiders were wrong SIMPLY because the were outsiders.

[Kathianne]

Some real scientist did balk. but they were censored and shouted down.
And assumed to be lying for various reasons. paid off by 'big oil'. And supposedly had a different narrative they wanted to promote.

And many people didn't even want to think that mainstream, 'consensus science' could be lying or wrong.
The outsiders were wrong SIMPLY because the were outsiders.

Indeed, thus my MSM comment.

[AHZ]

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.

no. you always side with big government and or big business, where their malign interests intersect, and perverting thought to preserve these fascist notions.

[revelarts]

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.

FJ if you were really open or simply looking at and for the truth, you'd have rejected headlines of the gov't rather than running behind post like mine here. and RANDOMLY tossing up BS about "causation vs. correlation" when the study i posted ruled out all of the items you mentioned.
Why would you ASSUMED the items you mentioned are a cause? seems like bias. you haven't done a study.

Why would you assume the vax is NOT the cause? unless you do have preferred bias. Your own narrative.

I can't read your mind but based on your post, the best i can say is the difference between you an I here is that I'm aware of my bias and try to check myself against it. While you seem to assume that you have none.
And, you casually look past the headlines, but not to the content, but to the person who posted it and assume that it's must be lacking somehow then toss out inapplicable logical-fallacies and non-sequiturs trying to make them stick.

When you're ready to engage the content directly let me know.

[fj1200]

no. you always side with big government and or big business, where their malign interests intersect, and perverting thought to preserve these fascist notions.

You're fun.

FJ if you were really open or simply looking at and for the truth, you'd have rejected headlines of the gov't rather than running behind post like mine here. and RANDOMLY tossing up BS about "causation vs. correlation" when the study i posted ruled out all of the items you mentioned And HAVE ASSUMED are a cause.

Why would you assume the opposite? unless you do have preferred bias. Your own narrative.

I can't read your mind but based on your post, the best i can say is the difference between you an I here is that I'm aware of my bias and try to check myself against it. While you seem to assume that you have none.
And, you casually look past the headlines, but not to the content, but to the person who posted it and assume that it's must be lacking somehow then toss out inapplicable logical-fallacies and non-sequiturs trying to make them stick.

When you're ready to engage the content directly let me know.

I don't randomly toss up anything. Any study can attempt to rule things out, and should anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they did it successfully. There are a million gun studies in the world and they mostly suck because people look for the conclusion that they want and/or it's virtually impossible to account for the millions of interactions that they can't control for. If you call BS on causation vs correlation then you should probably think through things a little more closely.

I have bias, you have bias, the study authors have bias, the author of the article has bias. Besides I don't recall that many folks tossing up government studies that I have to run behind but if they are biased then they should be called out. FTR, I read the article.

I believe I've engaged the content.

[revelarts]

I don't randomly toss up anything. Any study can attempt to rule things out, and should anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they did it successfully.

So If it's not a random toss up, where the flaw in THIS study FJ?

There are a million gun studies in the world and they mostly suck because people look for the conclusion that they want and/or it's virtually impossible to account for the millions of interactions that they can't control for.

umm, FJ, This is not a gun study.
where the flaw in THIS study FJ?
there are Studies that DO rule out other factors why don't you ASSUME they've done it here, if you're "not locked into a particular position"?

If you call BS on causation vs correlation then you should probably think through things a little more closely.

When you toss it up randomly Assuming that they have not ruled out the rando items you mentioned .

I have bias, you have bias, the study authors have bias, the author of the article has bias. Besides I don't recall that many folks tossing up government studies that I have to run behind but if they are biased then they should be called out.

You have to SHOW the bias before you call it out FJ.
You don't ASSUME the bias and ask others to prove the negative.
You know, like with the hockey stick study.

[AHZ]

I believe I've engaged the content...

poorly.