Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

duplicate

[stickdog99]

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/jan-nov-2020



https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/healt ... 0-dec-2021



Why was Australia's all cause mortality so much higher in 2021 compared to 2020? According to official statistics, there were just 359 COVID deaths in the first 8 months of 2021 compared to 682 COVID deaths in the first 8 months of 2020. So why the far higher OVERALL 2021 mortality rate compared to that of 2020?

And why am I the only one on Earth asking this question?

Probably because it wasn't "so much higher". In a couple of instances it was nearly 10% outside the range for a week or two, thats about it tho.

Did you also notice that while we were in lockdown throughout 2020 our "all cause mortality rate" dropped significantly? Probably cos lockdowns save lives lol.

LOL. Is the cognitive dissonance really too great for you to handle?

Even if you can credit your beloved lockdowns for the lower mortality rates in May, June, and July of 2020 (during which there were 100 total COVID-19 deaths in Australia), what do you credit for the huge excess in mortality (roughly 200 excess deaths every week for 13 weeks) in May, June, and July of 2021 (during which there were 22 total COVID-19 deaths in Australia)?

It's hilarious to me that the same person who fully supported locking his whole continent down over a few hundred COVID-19 deaths (almost exclusively among people older than the average Australian age of mortality) would so blithely dismiss this level of unexplained excess mortality (over 2,500 excess deaths over just this 13 week period) with a "nearly 10% outside the range for a week or two, thats about it tho" smirk.

[Harvey]

...so blithely dismiss this level of unexplained excess mortality (over 2,500 excess deaths over just this 13 week period) with a "nearly 10% outside the range for a week or two, thats about it tho" smirk.

Stick: it is genuinely fascinating to witness. What's intriguing me at this moment is that some of the handful of friends who've asked me what I think then had the most intense emotional reaction when I tell them what I think, striding away in genuine anger, utterly disgusted, have begun approaching me in recent weeks, quietly apologising. Something's getting through. Not enough, but something.

[Harvey]

I'm fairly convinced that this treaty, expected by 2024 will be the end of the pretense of democracy. As Corbett said recently, this is our ticking clock. After that, I expect our lives as we knew them are over.

https://off-guardian.org/2022/04/19/pandemic-treaty-will-hand-who-keys-to-global-government/

The first public hearings on the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” are closed, with the next round due to start in mid-June.

We’ve been trying to keep this issue on our front page, entirely because the mainstream is so keen to ignore it and keep churning out partisan war porn and propaganda.

When we – and others – linked to the public submissions page, there was such a response that the WHO’s website actually briefly crashed, or they pretended it crashed so people would stop sending them letters.

Either way, it’s a win. Hopefully one we can replicate in the summer.

Until then, the signs are that what scant press coverage there is, mostly across the metaphorical back-pages of the internet, will be focused on making the treaty “strong enough” and ensuring national governments can be “held accountable”.

An article in the UK’s Telegraph from April 12th headlines:

Real risk a pandemic treaty could be ‘too watered down’ to stop new outbreaks

It focuses on a report from the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC), and quotes one of the report’s authors Dame Barbara Stocking:

Our biggest fear […] is it’s too easy to think that accountability doesn’t matter. To have a treaty that does not have compliance in it, well frankly then there’s no point in having a treaty,”

The GPHC report goes on to say that the current International Health Regulations are “too weak”, and calls for the creation of a new “independent” international body to “assess government preparedness” and “publicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements”.

Another article, published by the London School of Economics and co-written by members of the German Alliance on Climate Change and Health (KLUG), also pushes the idea of “accountability” and “compliance” pretty hard:

For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance.

It also echoes the UN report from May 2021 in calling for more powers for the WHO:

In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.

It recommends the involvement of “non-state actors” such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and International Labour Organisation in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of “health emergencies” [emphasis added]:

In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.

It doesn’t stop there, however. They also raise the question of countries being punished for “non-compliance”:

[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

To translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English:

.If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.

.If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

In combination, these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible “disease outbreaks”. Far from preventing “future pandemics”, they would actively encourage them.

National governments who refuse to play ball being punished, and those who play along getting paid off is not new. We have already seen that with Covid.

Two African countries – Burundi and Tanzania – had Presidents who banned the WHO from their borders, and refused to go along with the Pandemic narrative. Both Presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new Presidents who instantly reversed their predecessor’s covid policies.

Less than a week after the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, the IMF agreed to forgive almost 25 million dollars of Burundi’s national debt in order to help combat the Covid19 “crisis”.

Just five months after the death of President John Magufuli, the new government of Tanzania received 600 million dollars from the IMF to “address the covid19 pandemic”.

It’s pretty clear what happened here, isn’t it?

Globalists backed coups and rewarded the perpetrators with “international aid”. The proposals for the Pandemic treaty would simply legitimise this process, moving it from covert back channels to overt official ones.

Now, before we discuss the implications of new powers, let’s remind ourselves of the power the WHO already possesses:

. The World Health Organization is the only institution in the world empowered to declare a “pandemic” or Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

.The Director-General of the WHO – an unelected position – is the only individual who controls that power.

We have already seen the WHO abuse these powers in order to create a fake pandemic out of thin air…and I’m not talking about covid.

Prior to 2008, the WHO could only declare an influenza pandemic if there were “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” AND there was a new and distinct subtype. In 2008 the WHO loosened the definition of “influenza pandemic” to remove these two conditions.

As a 2010 letter to the British Medical Journal pointed out, these changes meant “many seasonal flu viruses could be classified as pandemic influenza.”

If the WHO had not made those changes, the 2009 “Swine flu” outbreak could never have been called a pandemic, and would likely have passed without notice.

Instead, dozens of countries spent millions upon millions of dollars on swine flu vaccines they did not need and did not work, to fight a “pandemic” that resulted in fewer than 20,000 deaths. Many of those responsible for advising the WHO to declare swine flu a public health emergency were later shown to have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.

Despite this historical example of blatant corruption, one proposed clause of the Pandemic Treaty would make it even easier to declare a PHEIC. According to the May 2021 report “Covid19: Make it the Last Pandemic” [emphasis added]:

Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted

Yes, the proposed treaty could allow the DG of the WHO to declare a state of global emergency to prevent a potential pandemic, not in response to one. A kind of pandemic pre-crime.

If you combine this with the proposed “financial aid” for developing nations reporting “potential health emergencies”, you can see what they’re building – essentially bribing third world governments to give the WHO a pretext for declaring a state of emergency.

We already know the other key points likely to be included in a pandemic treaty. They will almost certainly try to introduce international vaccine passports, and pour funding into big Pharma’s pockets to produce “vaccines” ever faster and with even less safety testing.

But all of that could pale in comparison to the legal powers potentially being handed to the director-general of the WHO (or whatever new “independent” body they may decide to create) to punish, rebuke or reward national governments.

A “Pandemic Treaty” that overrides or overrules national or local governments would hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria.

This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.

[stickdog99]

https://michaelpsenger.substack.com/p/h ... e-to-italy

How Covid Lockdowns Came to Italy

The Italian Job

In Snake Oil, I detail the evidence that the Chinese Communist Party used multiple modes of influence including online propaganda, mainstream media, and fraudulent “science” to popularize lockdown policies that were unprecedented in the western world. But for many, one big question remains: Yes, this may all be true, but what about Italy? In the words of Neil Ferguson, architect of the wildly-inaccurate Covid models that sent the world into a tailspin:

It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could…

This is, of course, true. Italy’s adoption of China’s containment policy was one of the most important events instigating lockdowns across the free world—and, I would argue, one of the most darkly clever aspects of the lockdown operation. Limited information as to how Italy’s lockdowns transpired has been a hindrance. Thus, our case takes us to Europe’s ancient capital.

As historical background, the last time Italy had a strong, competent national government was roughly 179 AD, after which Marcus Aurelius passed away and emperorship passed to his son Commodus, the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire. For 1300 years after the fall of Rome, Italy was largely governed as a smattering of city-states owned by rivaling, illustriously-wealthy families. When Italy became a republic in the 19th century, the private security forces of these wealthy families evolved into the loosely-knit clandestine network referred to as the mafia, serving as liaisons between the Italian elite, the government, and purveyors of various illicit activities. As a result, Italy has long been unique as one of the world’s most prosperous and talented countries, but with a level of corruption more characteristic of a developing nation—a match made in heaven for an organization like the CCP.

In 2013, a new political party formed by comedian Beppe Grillo called the Five Star Movement (M5S) began to rise. Like most of Italy’s political parties, M5S marketed themselves as populist and anti-establishment, but Grillo and M5S had long sought and formed close relations with China. As M5S gained political power, they sold relations with China to the Italian people as a way to foster Italy’s economic independence.

After M5S member Giuseppe Conte became Prime Minister in 2018, the party’s overtures to China reached an apex when Conte gave Xi Jinping a royal welcome and signed onto his Belt and Road initiative, becoming the first major European country to do so.

On March 23, 2019, the same day Conte signed Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative, Italy’s Health Minister, M5S member Giulia Grillo, signed a Plan of Action on Health Cooperation between Italy and China, binding Italy to cooperation with China in certain fields including “prevention of infectious diseases.” This plan was a continuation of health cooperation plans between Italy and China first launched in 2000 under former Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema. D’Alema had been a longtime member of the Italian Communist Party and was the first known Communist to ever become prime minister of a NATO country. D’Alema now served as honorary president of the Silk Road Cities Alliance, a Chinese state organization, and was a leader of the newly-formed political party Article One (A1).

Giulia Grillo left her post and another A1 member, Roberto Speranza, became Italy’s new Minister of Health in September 2019. Shortly after, in October 2019, Prime Minister Conte paid a visit to the headquarters of Technogenetics, a Chinese-owned company in Italy that developed the initial Covid PCR test swabs which were sent to Wuhan in January 2020.

On November 8, 2019, Health Minister Speranza signed an Implementation Programme of the Plan of Action on Health Cooperation between Italy and China, binding Italy to specific actions in the area of infectious disease control. As is now widely-acknowledged by intelligence sources, the CCP was aware that Covid was spreading by November 8, 2019, but had not yet shared that information with the rest of the world. Among Italy’s commitments to China in the Implementation Programme were the following:

a. Develop and support prevention strategies, policies and actions to counter the following situation: exposure to etiological agents; individual and general population behaviors and attitudes related to the transmission of infections; the low compliance of health professionals with respect to the surveillance of communicable diseases and measures of prevention … and the non-standard behaviors and unserious attitudes of health professionals in care practices regarding risk and infection control.

b. Develop and support epidemiological surveillance, organization for infectious emergencies, communication for the population, training of health workers, the coordination between different institutional levels and various territorial competences during the implementation of prevention interventions, collection of information, systematic monitoring of the quality and the impact of the actions implemented…

f. Carry out cooperation activities like academic exchange, training and manoeuvres on emergency medical rescue and response of major public health emergency, i.e., natural disaster, accident-related disaster, nuclear biochemical emergency, infectious diseases pandemic like influenza.

On November 23, 2019, M5S founder Beppe Grillo—who had no official government position—met with China’s ambassador to Italy and attended a long meeting at the Chinese embassy, the details of which remain unknown.

Prime Minister Conte announced Italy’s first two confirmed Covid cases after a couple of tourists from China tested positive on January 30, 2020; months later, this couple donated $40,000 to the hospital in Rome that treated them. After announcing the two cases, Conte declared a state of emergency, “allowing the government to cut through red tape quickly if needed.”

Hours after Conte confirmed Italy’s first two Covid cases on January 30, 2020, an anonymous stock tipster posted that he or she had “friends and family in the medical industry and field, including at CDC and one close friend at WHO,” and felt guilty not disclosing what they knew:

[T]he WHO is already talking about how “problematic” modeling the Chinese response in Western countries is going to be, and the first country they want to try it out in is Italy. If it begins a large outbreak in a major Italian city they want to work through the Italian authorities and world health organizations to begin locking down Italian cities in a vain attempt to slow down the spread at least until they can develop and distribute vaccines, which btw is where you need to start investing… I just think it’s a really shitty thing to not be sharing this information with the public because they arrogantly think we’re all irrational and shouldn’t be informed as they are.

This tip proved to be a near-perfect foretelling of subsequent events. Shortly after Conte confirmed Italy’s first two cases in Rome, hospitals in the Lombardy region, farther north, under the direction of regional health minister Giulio Gallera, began mass testing both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals for Covid. On February 21, 2020, 15 cases of Covid were detected, and a Chinese-style lockdown of ten towns in Lombardy was immediately announced for 15 days to slow the spread. This lockdown order was officially signed into law by Health Minister Speranza two days later on February 23, 2020—the first lockdown order ever signed in a modern western country.

If that timeline seems blindingly fast, it’s because it is. In fact, not only was the concept of “lockdown” unprecedented in the western world and not part of any western country’s pandemic plan, but the WHO had not even announced its approval of the policy until February 24, 2020, when Bruce Aylward—famous for later disconnecting a live interview when asked to acknowledge Taiwan—reported back about Wuhan’s lockdown from Beijing:

What China has demonstrated is, you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease.

That same day, February 24, 2020, the WHO sent a Covid Joint Mission to Italy. The Joint Mission’s goals were defined as follows:

At this stage the focus is on limiting further human-to-human transmission… It is vital that we…put measures in place to prevent onward transmission… This aligns with the containment strategy currently being implemented globally in an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19.

According to the WHO Joint Mission’s own description, a containment strategy was already “being implemented globally” as of February 24, 2020.

On February 23, 2020, the same day Health Minister Speranza signed the Lombardy lockdown into law, the Italian Ministry of Health issued PCR testing guidance to 31 labs across Italy. The next day, Speranza appointed Walter Ricciardi, former head of the Higher Institute of Health, as liaison between the WHO and Italy to coordinate Italy’s response at a national level, saying “it is essential that there is only one coordination center for emergency management” to eliminate “unilateral choices of individual territories.”

After the PCR testing guidance was issued, large numbers of Covid cases were detected all across Italy. On March 9, 2020, Prime Minster Conte placed all of Italy under a Chinese-style lockdown, with Conte and Speranza co-signing the decree (officially titled the #IStayAtHome Decree)—the first lockdown order of an entire country ever signed in the western world.

Chinese experts arrived in Italy days later and immediately advised stricter lockdown measures. Around that time, Italy was barraged with an unprecedented amount of online disinformation celebrating its lockdown and Chinese-Italian cooperation on Covid. International social media was flooded with grisly stories of lines of coffins and military trucks carrying bodies in Italy, but many of these images—like those that came from Wuhan in the preceding weeks—were subsequently proven fake.

Soon after Conte’s decree, the rest of the world was in lockdown—egged on by an array of influence operations detailed in my book and other writings. This timeline confirms that foretold by the anonymous tipster from January 30, 2020, that the world would soon find itself “modeling the Chinese response in Western countries.”

It will take many years to unravel exactly who did what, and why, in the leadup to Italy’s lockdowns. Unlike the Chinese, the Italians, being in a democratic country, had a strong incentive to cover their tracks. But the picture of what transpired in Italy is starting to come together, and it’s every bit as damning as one might imagine.

[stickdog99]

https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substa ... overeignty

Please take seriously the severity of this existential threat to everything free people hold dear. Do everything in your power to pass this report on to others and to find ways to communicate with and to influence people to stop empowering WHO to take over our national sovereignty and freedom.

On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).

This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as “Provisional agenda item 16.2” at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.1

These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.

If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong to WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population.2

These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”3 U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them.

How It Became Official

On January 18, 2022, with no public awareness, officials from the Biden Administration sent the World Health Organization these extensive amendments to strengthen WHO’s ability to unilaterally intervene into the affairs of nations merely suspected of having a “health emergency” of possible concern to other nations.4 The U.S. amendments cross out a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…”5 By eliminating that, and other clauses (see below), all the shackles will be removed from the Director-General of WHO, enabling him to declare health emergencies at will.

The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes. The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation.

Although sponsored by an American administration, WHO’s most significant use of this arbitrary authority to declare national emergencies will be used against the United States if our government ever again dares to take anti-globalist stands as it did under the Trump administration.

How Much Time Do We Have to Stop the Amendments?

The contents of the proposed amendments were not made public until April 12, 2022,6 leaving little time to protest before the scheduled vote. As noted, the amendments are scheduled and almost certainly will be enacted May 22-28, 2022.

The existing WHO regulations then provide for an 18-month grace period during which a nation may withdraw its “yes” vote for amendments, but the current proposed amendments would reduce that opportunity to six months. If the U.S.-sponsored amendments are passed, a majority of the nations could, in the next six months, change their individual votes and reverse the approval. But this is a much more difficult proposition than stopping the whole process now.

We must act now to prevent the passage of the amendments, including putting sufficient pressure on the United States to withdraw them from consideration. If that fails, and the amendments are approved at the May meeting of the WHO governing body, we must then make the effort to influence a majority of the nations to change their votes to “no.”

We must act now to prevent the passage of the amendments, including putting sufficient pressure on the United States to withdraw them from consideration. If that fails, and the amendments are approved at the May meeting of the WHO governing body, we must then make the effort to influence a majority of the nations to change their votes to “no.”

Without Organized Resistance, the Amendments Will Definitely Pass

On January 26, 2022, the same U. S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva sent a one-page memo to WHO confirming that the amendments had been sent. It also contained a brief report by the same Loyce Pace, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs HHS.7 Most importantly, the memo listed all the nations backing the U.S. amendments. The size and power of the group guarantee that the amendments will be passed if unopposed by significant outside pressure.

Here are the 20 nations, plus the European Union, listed by the U.S. as supporting the amendments:

Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Japan, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Member States of the European Union (EU).

The European Union, a globalist organization, has been among the biggest backers of increasing WHO’s global power. The EU includes the following 27 Western nations:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

That’s a total of 47 nations supporting the U.S.-authored amendments. All of them have endorsed empowering WHO to declare a possible or potential health emergency or crisis within any nation despite its objections and refusal to cooperate. To repeat, these amendments will pass unless American citizens, as well as citizens worldwide, mount a very strong opposition.

World Health Organization

Defining “Health” and WHO’s Domain of Authority

According to the Foreward to WHO’s regulations, there is no specific limit to what constitutes a health emergency, and it is certainly not limited to pandemics. WHO’s domain includes:

* a scope not limited to any specific disease or manner of transmission, but covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans…

* WHO’s powerful reach is also defined by the number of other organizations it is authorized to cooperate with once it has declared an emergency or health crisis: “other competent intergovernmental organizations or international bodies with which WHO is expected to cooperate and coordinate its activities, as appropriate, include the following: United Nations, International Labor Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Maritime Organization, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Air Transport Association, International Shipping Federation, and Office International des Epizooties.”9

* The Preamble to the WHO Constitution (separate from the International Health Regulations) summarizes WHO’s concept of what is included under its mandate of improving, guiding, and organizing world health:10

* WHO remains firmly committed to the principles set out in the preamble to the Constitution

* Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

* The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

* The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent on the fullest cooperation of individuals and States.

* The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.

* Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of diseases, especially communicable diseases, is a common danger.

* Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.

* The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological, and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.

* Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.

* Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.

Given WHO’s assessment of the breadth of its health concerns, mandates, and goals — almost any kind of problematic situation that affects the people of a nation could be considered a health problem. Indeed, under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem. With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.

WHO’s Sweeping New Powers

The sweeping new powers will be invested in the Director-General of WHO to act on his own. The Director-General is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commonly known as Tedros. Tedros, the first non-physician director-general of WHO, is an extremely controversial Marxist activist and politician from Ethiopia installed by the Chinese Communist Party. Despite the fact that his role as the cover-up apologist for the Chinese Communists at the onset of COVID-19, this “dear friend of Anthony Fauci” was re-elected without opposition in 2022 to a second five-year term.11 His original election in 2017, followed by his re-election without opposition in 2022, is an ominous display of Chinese Communist influence over WHO,12 which makes further empowering the U.N. agency extremely dangerous.

Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action. This requirement is stricken by the U.S. amendments (Article 9.1). The amendments require a response in 24 hours from the identified nation, or WHO will identify it as “rejection” and act independently (Article 10.3). If the identified nation “does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall … immediately share with the other State Parties the information available to it…” (Article 10.4).

Indicating the breadth of WHO’s scope of power, the agency will be given the right to involve multiple other U.N. agencies, including those related to food and agriculture, animal health, environmental programs, “or other relevant entities” (Article 6.1). This, too will not require the permission of the identified nation. The targeted nation is also required to send to WHO any relevant genetic sequence data. And as we have seen, the Foreward to these regulations presents a much larger array of potential collaborating agencies.

Under the proposed regulations, WHO itself would develop and update “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources…” (New article 5). Notice that the health-endangering event may be so nonspecific as to have “unknown causes or sources.” Thus, Tedros and any future Director-Generals of WHO will be given unrestricted powers to define and then implement their interventions.

The proposed regulations, in combination with existing ones, allow action to be taken by WHO, “If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring…” (Article 12.2). That is, Tedros need only “consider” that a “potential or actual” risk is occurring.

Global Supporters of WHO

WHO is not a global powerhouse by itself. Early in the pandemic, it acted as a front group for the international exploiters of humanity, whom we describe in our new book COVID-19 and the Global Predators. In particular, it made certain the Chinese Communists could hide the seriousness of the pandemic while spreading to the world on passenger airplanes from its major cities, including Wuhan itself. We have already noted and documented that the Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping have enormous influence over WHO.

Even after Donald Trump slashed the U.S. contribution to WHO in February 2020, the U.S. remained the largest donor to WHO. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. contribution was $115.8 million, followed by China at approximately one-half that amount, followed by Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Brazil.13

Then in early July 2020, Trump notified Congress and the U.N. that it was formally withdrawing from WHO. Bill Gates quickly announced he was increasing his contribution from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to $250 million.14

After the Communist Chinese Party, Bill Gates probably has the most influence over WHO. In our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey, we describe in Chapter 15 how Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and the giant medical foundation Wellcome Trust created CEPI — The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. This became the center of global predatory activities in preparation for the anticipated pandemic. It brought together key U.S. agencies, including the FDA, CDC, NIAID, NIH, the U.N., WHO, giant pharmaceutical companies, banks, and multiple other sources of wealth and power.

In 2017, or earlier, CEPI made an agreement called a memorandum of understanding with WHO. CEPI then presented a PowerPoint presentation to WHO in July 2017, in effect dividing up the world between the Gates’ CEPI and WHO in the coming pandemic. Gates would handle the financing, supply, and distribution of the vaccines, and WHO would control and monitor the scientific and medical community. Among the stipulations of the PowerPoint, which the Gates-created foundation presented, was that the pharmaceutical companies would be reimbursed for all direct and indirect costs by the government for developing their high-speed manufacturing platforms.

WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies. This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.

Europeans Call for Additional Further Increases in WHO’s Power

There is a growing debate over further increasing the power of WHO to punish uncooperative or dissident nations.15 Some “have sounded the alarm about giving the WHO too much power at the expense of national sovereignty.” Some have voiced concern about China’s influence on WHO: “Not only has it increased its payment to the WHO in recent years, but it also enjoys a special relationship with its leader.”
\Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, with President Xi Jinping.

But others are calling for increasing WHO’s ability to sanction non-compliant nations. Echoing recent plans publicized by the Biden administration, some nations are calling for “national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization that undermine public health.” German Health Minister Jens Spahn has proposed “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” Tedros has said, “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.”

Treaties with WHO: Another Enormous Threat to Sovereignty — With a Longer Timeline

Before we learned about this current and more immediate threat to U.S. sovereignty, we were focusing on WHO’s plans to begin making treaties with individual nations to take over their general healthcare structures, making WHO the guiding and central authority for the world’s healthcare. In addition to many radio, TV, and public appearances giving the details about this threat, we have written a column on America Out Loud, dated February 18, 2022, “Tedros Introduces Globalist Plan to Take Over World’s Health Systems.”

If implemented, the treaties become an even greater threat than the amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, but we have more time to deal with the treaties than with the amendments.

We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion. Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty.

Why Would the U.S. Government Surrender Its Sovereignty?

Why would the U.S. give away its sovereignty to other nations? In reality, that process has been going on at least since President Wilson’s failed attempt to get the Senate to approve U.S. membership in the League of Nations. It has escalated since World War II, often under the umbrella and authority of the United Nations, with which many global predators are enamored and use as the cover story for their predations. As documented in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab have both worked out cooperative agreements for their versions of the New World Order with the U.N.

President Biden has recently told the Business Round Table — the presidents and CEOs of the wealthiest 200 corporations in America — that they must lead the growing New World Order:17

“And now is a time when things are shifting. We’re going to — there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it. And we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.”

John Kerry, the President’s climate czar, had announced that when Americans elected Biden, they voted for the Great Reset, whether they knew it or not.

Discussion and Conclusions

The planning for these devastating U.S.-sponsored amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations has been so stealthy that it might have escaped attention except for the efforts of one individual, James Roguski. He was the first to recognize this threat, and on March 31, 2022, he published a report headlined, “WAKE UP and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution.”19 He also helped us by reviewing the material and this report with us. Fortunately, our courageous medical colleague Robert Yoho originally alerted us to Roguski’s work and its importance.20

We are facing an imminent threat to U.S. sovereignty by these legally-binding amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations that — without stiff opposition — will almost certainly be passed during the upcoming meeting of WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly, May 22-28, 2022. As noted earlier, there is a six-month grace period following approval of amendments during which countries may withdraw their approval, but a majority doing so seems highly unlikely. Right now, we must focus on preventing the WHA from approving the amendments.

We must immediately mount an international campaign, especially focused within America, to force the U.S. to withdraw these amendments before they come to a vote. Otherwise, America and the nations of the world will take a giant stride toward forfeiting national sovereignty to WHO and the U.N. In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the U.N. and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations. Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.

[Joe Hillshoist]

LOL. Is the cognitive dissonance really too great for you to handle?

Even if you can credit your beloved lockdowns for the lower mortality rates in May, June, and July of 2020 (during which there were 100 total COVID-19 deaths in Australia)...

Of course I can. People weren't going to work and dying at work for a start. People weren't driving drunk at the same rate or drowning in pools, creeks and at beaches cos they were swimming drunk etc etc. No one was killed in random gym accidents etc etc.

what do you credit for the huge excess in mortality (roughly 200 excess deaths every week for 13 weeks) in May, June, and July of 2021 (during which there were 22 total COVID-19 deaths in Australia)?

I dunno.

Those weeks don't correspond to any particular change in vaccine rollout rates. If anything the vaccine rollout was at a lower rate then whereas when it really ramped up in August and September the excess mortality rate drops. it wouldn't make sense that that would happen if those excess mortality rates were due to covid vaccines.

Wouldn't they stay higher during that period as well instead of dropping?

It's hilarious to me that the same person who fully supported locking his whole continent down over a few hundred COVID-19 deaths (almost exclusively among people older than the average Australian age of mortality)

The whole continent wasn't locked down, and the lockdowns didn't happen because of a few hundred deaths but because of earlier infections. They happened in order to prevent thousand or tens of thousands of deaths and ... they worked. Compare how many Aussies died to the rest of the world over that period.

And look how many people have died since we stopped them. Shitloads!

We had thousands of deaths from Covid since restrictions ended, less than 1000 before that iirc

So you're essentially hanging shit on a policy that worked. (Look at those wusses locking down their continent over a few hundred deaths lool, we should let this virus do its job and cull the old, infirm and those who don't contribute to the economy. - SD99)

would so blithely dismiss this level of unexplained excess mortality (over 2,500 excess deaths over just this 13 week period) with a "nearly 10% outside the range for a week or two, thats about it tho" smirk.

I'm not blithely dismissing it but what do you think its significance is - that vaccines caused all those deaths?

Then why does the excess death rate drop when the vaccination rate is at its highest? Why does it only show an excess death rate in a few months, randomly?

I've seriously thought about this, from your pov, (no shit, cos what if there is a connection between the excess detah rates and the vaccine rollout?) trying to find a way for that data to show some sign covid vaccines can have those excesses pinned on them and I can't. I can't find any particularly vulnerable groups specifically targeted for vaccination during those times.

However ... if you look at the excess deaths from mid April to early June and the area of 2015-19 excess deaths - the puzzling drop in excess deaths that corresponds to the ramping up of the vaccine rollout across August and September ... thats when the flu deaths happen.

You might be able to show some relationship between those early excess deaths and the lower rate of flu deaths if you can find people vulnerable to the flu who were vaccinated in that May/June period and then died.

That's the only thing I can think of that might support the argument you are trying to make.

I spent an hour going over this graph and more time trying to chase up some of those details earlier in the year.

Sorry if my flippant response offended you but its kind of annoying that you assume I wouldn't have already sussed this stuff out to see if there was something in the excess data that supported all these claims.

[Grizzly]

test

[Grizzly]

General Error
SQL ERROR [ mysqli ]

Incorrect string value: '\xF0\x9F\xA4\x94[/...' for column 'post_text' at row 1 [1366]

An SQL error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact the Board Administrator if this problem persists.

[stickdog99]

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/07/vac ... data-show/

Vaccinated Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show

Over the past 15 months we’ve had a barrage of statistics presented to us shouting about how great the vaccines are at preventing hospitalisation from (or with) Covid. However, these statistics have been light on detail on how they were calculated and we’ve not seen much sight at all of the raw data that the statistics were based upon.

Until now. In April, a paper was published by the UKHSA (currently in pre-print, which means that it hasn’t yet undergone the usual peer-review process) on its statistical analysis of a selection of hospitalisation data by vaccination status. The intent of this paper was to support its statements that the vaccines prevent hospitalisation. However, the paper also includes the raw data upon which the UKHSA statistics were derived, and these data tell a very different story to that presented by the UKHSA. The data show:

* Far higher accident and emergency admission rates for reasons other than Covid in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.

* Much higher rates of hospitalisation due to non-Covid acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated.

* Even higher A&E admissions and hospitalisations in the double-vaccinated (not boosted).

* Even where the data suggest that the vaccines offer some protection (the risk of admission to intensive care resulting from Covid infection) the results look like they might be an artefact created by the assumptions used by the UKHSA.



Table 2 (numbers in brackets indicate the rates relative to the unvaccinated)

In addition, the data strongly suggest that the UKHSA is using an inappropriate method in its statistical analysis of vaccine effectiveness – the test-negative case-control (TNCC) method. It is likely that it has been significantly overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing hospitalisation.

The data released by the UKHSA and expounded below aren’t proof that the vaccines have caused a great deal of harm and injury to the population, but they do raise a huge red-flag that something is amiss. Urgent investigations need to be undertaken to clarify the situation regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

A note on the Test-Negative Case-Control (TNCC) method

The basic concept of measuring vaccine efficacy (in a trial) or effectiveness (based on real-world results) is relatively straightforward – simply calculate the ratio of the proportion of the vaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised) with the proportion of the unvaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised). However, while this simple method can work well, it can be affected by differences in the types of people vaccinated and unvaccinated and more powerful methods are preferred.

The ‘gold standard’ for measurement of vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) is the prospective matched cohort design. This is quite simple in concept – you simply divide the study into a number of groups of individuals with similar characteristics, based on the vulnerability to the disease and the typical effectiveness of vaccines. Matched cohort studies nearly always split into groups of similar age and sex, and will usually include many other factors thought to be related to risk of disease. For example, for Covid these might include race, BMI and whether the individual has diabetes – all factors identified in early data as being relevant risk factors.

The ‘prospective’ part means that the individuals are placed into their groups before they are given their doses of vaccine, but this isn’t the only way – it is possible to undertake a retrospective study where people are placed into their different groups after they are vaccinated (potentially some time after).

The problem with matched cohort trials is that they’re rather expensive and also require you to know what factors to control for when calculating vaccine efficacy/effectiveness. This led to the development of the test-negative case-control method. With this method you compare the ratio of positive (have the disease) to negative (don’t have the disease) tests results for a given condition (e.g. admission to hospital). This method, when applied correctly, automatically corrects for many biases, such as propensity to be tested or seek medical care, and is both accurate and removes much of the complexity and costs associated with matched-cohort studies. The important part is the ‘when applied correctly’ – if it is applied incorrectly then you end up with inaccurate and potentially misleading results.

The UKHSA data – Emergency admissions

Let’s apply the TNCC method to the data in the UKHSA paper on vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation. Fortunately, it offers raw data in its supplementary document. I’ll start with hospitalisations ‘with symptomatic Covid’ for those aged over 65 who presented to A&E for reasons other than accident/injury (Table S12 in the paper), and to keep things simple will look at ‘any vaccine’ (i.e., any number of doses

) vs ‘no vaccine’ and only for the Omicron period (the data covers the period from 22nd November to 2nd February).



To show the TNCC method in action we can use the figures in the table above to gain an estimate of VE using the TNCC methodology:

VE = 100 × (1 – (873÷140,931) ÷ (103÷1,705) ) = 90%

Thus even with this simplified case where we only consider the protection offered by the vaccines to the ‘vaccinated group’ (with any number of doses, though most are boosted in the over-65 age group), we can see that TNCC estimates that the vaccines offer significant protection from hospitalisation, around 90%.

But wait – those raw numbers for A&E presentation by vaccination status look more than a little suspicious. We know that during the study period approximately 10 million individuals aged over 65 had been vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine, and around 600,000 remained unvaccinated. Thus we can present the raw figures above as a ‘per 100,000’ to remove the effect of the size of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups.



Wow. According to the raw data the vaccinated are presenting to A&E without having Covid at around five times the rate of the unvaccinated. Sure, there are more hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the unvaccinated, but only by eight per 100,000.

In Table 2 above I have also included an estimate of vaccine effectiveness based on these raw data. Now, I’m being a bit naughty here as the data aren’t meant to be used this way – this is why I’ve used the UKHSA trick of greying out the text in the hope that no-one will notice. Nevertheless, for population-wide data this shouldn’t be too far out.

Now, I’m sure that epidemiologists up and down the land are shouting that the data shouldn’t be used in this way – and they’re right. It certainly doesn’t prove that the vaccinated are getting ill because of the vaccine. There are a number of reasons why this result might be found:

* The vaccinated might be much more likely to be hypochondriacs/malingerers and thus be going to A&E even though they’re not ill at all. More realistically, the vaccinated might have a lower threshold for the severity of symptoms required to get medical assistance at A&E. If this was the case then there would be vaccinated individuals presenting themselves to A&E where the average unvaccinated person with similar symptoms wouldn’t.

* The vaccinated might be much more unhealthy in general than the unvaccinated.

However, the sheer scale of the differences between the A&E visits not-for-Covid is huge, and given that these are population-wide figures I’d suggest that it couldn’t all be explained either by health seeking behaviours or because of general health – but I’d accept they they could certainly contribute.

Nevertheless, the TNCC assumption would be that the vaccinated are simply the type of people that are five times more likely to go to A&E (whether because of differences in behaviour or health) and thus they’re also going to be five times more likely to attend A&E with symptomatic Covid. The researchers would therefore adjust the figures to allow for this difference between the groups, boosting VE. I’d suggest that this latter point isn’t necessarily the case – it is very often the case that behaviours aren’t proportional like this, for example, just because an individual chooses to drive at 40mph in a 60mph zone, doesn’t mean he or she will drive at 20mph in a 30mph zone.

The alternative explanation:

* Some of the visits to A&E might be due to a reaction / side-effect / complication of the vaccines.

* The vaccines might have an impact on the immune system for diseases other than Covid, resulting in increased illness and thus presentation to A&E.

Just to be clear – we don’t know whether the vaccinated are seeing much higher admissions rates to A&E due to a vaccine effect or simply because the vaccinated have different behaviours and general health to the unvaccinated. However, anecdotal data on pressures on A&E services and on the general health of the nation (‘worst cold ever’) suggest that the vaccines may be at least partially responsible.

More on the emergency admissions data

The UKHSA paper also includes incidence by vaccination status (Table S12 again). We have to be a bit careful here as we don’t know when the individuals were vaccinated, but we do know that the incidence of Covid varied substantially through the period. Without information on which individuals were vaccinated on which date we run the risk of introducing a bias. However, we do have information about some aspects of the vaccinated population:

* Around 600,000 individuals over the age of 65 remain unvaccinated, and this hasn’t changed much for over six months (this is why it was safe to use this assumption in the prior analysis).

* The vaccination data suggest that around 90,000 individuals over the age of 65 took the first dose of vaccine during spring 2021 but didn’t receive the second dose.

* The vaccination data suggest that around 440,000 individuals over the age of 65 took their first and second doses of vaccine according to the vaccination schedule (i.e., early/late spring 2021) but didn’t receive the booster/third dose.

Table S12 splits out hospitalisation data for those vaccinated with their first dose more than 28 days before their positive test, and vaccinated with their second dose more than 175 days before their positive test. Thus we can tentatively include these specific data in our analysis – individuals that had their first dose (only) or second dose (no booster) some time before the study period started.



Table 3 (numbers in brackets indicate the rates relative to the unvaccinated)

Two points immediately stand out.

First, the hospitalisation rate with symptomatic confirmed Covid in those that had a single dose of vaccine ‘some time before’ the study period is similar to the hospitalisation rate in the unvaccinated but their A&E presentation rate for ‘not Covid’ is 2.5 times the rate of the unvaccinated. The TNCC assumption would be that the similarity in the symptomatic Covid rate is a fluke and what’s important is that on average they’re simply the type of individuals that would go to A&E more often and if that group of individuals hadn’t been vaccinated they’d have had 2.5 times more hospitalisation rates ‘with Covid’. I suggest that it is far more likely that the single-dose individuals have no vaccine induced protection against hospitalisation but that they are very much more likely to attend A&E.

Second, the A&E attendance rate of the double-vaccinated (only) without Covid is very similar to the A&E attendance rate of the vaccinated (any dose). However, their hospitalisation rate ‘with Covid’ is 2.5 times greater than that of the vaccinated (any dose) – the double-dosed that didn’t take their booster appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’: increased A&E attendance (non-Covid) and increased admission rates ‘with Covid’.

Summary so far:

* The UKHSA has provided us with some raw data on hospitalisations by vaccination status.

* Examination of the data suggests that ‘with Covid’ hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated aren’t too far from those in the vaccinated (any dose). However, non-Covid admission rates for A&E are much much higher in the vaccinated (any dose) than the unvaccinated.

* The TNCC approach would suggest that the vaccinated are simply ‘the type of people’ more likely to attend A&E and that the vaccines really do offer substantial protection against hospitalisation ‘with Covid’.

* Examination of other data suggests that the single dosed have ‘with Covid’ rates similar to the unvaccinated but 2.5 greater A&E attendance (without Covid) and that the double dosed (only) appear to have the worst situation of all – much higher Covid hospitalisation and much higher non-Covid admission to A&E.

Admission rates for acute respiratory illness

Table S7 in the UKHSA paper presents data on hospitalisations after an A&E visit where the individual had symptomatic Covid (again, Omicron, over 65). This sounds like the condition for the previous table, but in that table the ‘Covid negative’ column counted all non-accident or injury A&E visits, whereas the data in Table S7 only consider those that had symptoms similar to Covid.

I’ll present only the rates this time (feel free to look up the raw numbers yourself).



...

Conclusions

The UKHSA has at long last published raw data on hospitalisation rates by vaccine status, for those infected with Covid as well as those that aren’t. The results are very concerning, showing significantly higher A&E admission rates in the vaccinated for reasons other than Covid, and much less difference in admission rates for symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated than suggested by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness published by the UKHSA.

What I’ve shown here isn’t proof that the vaccines are causing harm – but it is a huge red-flag that strongly suggests that there might be a serious problem, and certainly indicates that a proper analysis of illness after vaccination needs to be undertaken urgently.

Furthermore, the significant differences in the ‘negative test’ arm of the UKHSA data suggest that the test-negative case-control method is not appropriate, and that a full retrospective matched-cohort study into vaccine effectiveness and safety should be undertaken.

[stickdog99]

Comment from the UK on the previous article:

Everyone but the most dense must now realise that covid 19 was the equivalent to spam in your email box; if you opened it by mistake and it took you to a site called NHS, you’re buggered. A total reboot will now be required; this will involve walking out of step for at least twelve months. If you’re a cyclist, think ‘Road Closed’ means no traffic.

[Belligerent Savant]

Re: masking; co-sign the below assessment --

@Humble_Analysis
·
Why did mandatory masking cause unruly behavior and why did it decline once the mandates were lifted?

Forced masking is dehumanizing - and not just because we need to see each other's faces. The act of being forced to lie is psychologically excruciating.

Unruly air passenger incidents fall after mask mandate lifted
Emmett Jones - Yesterday 3:08 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/u ... ar-AAX07wr

https://twitter.com/Humble_Analysis/sta ... W_aAK5X4YQ

[Grizzly]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zhdEftYd5kwJ/

Corbett finds adverse reactions to covid clot shot from 2015-19
Time stamp 22:30 mins in

[stickdog99]

Those weeks don't correspond to any particular change in vaccine rollout rates. If anything the vaccine rollout was at a lower rate then whereas when it really ramped up in August and September the excess mortality rate drops. it wouldn't make sense that that would happen if those excess mortality rates were due to covid vaccines.

Wouldn't they stay higher during that period as well instead of dropping?

But the end of July, over 8 million Australians had received at least vaccine dose. Weren't these vaccines rolled out to the most vulnerable populations first as in every other county? And weren't the mortality rates above average every single week from the middle of September onward as well? Are you really contending that the two weeks of lower than average mortality in the middle and end of September somehow exonerate the vaccines from any suspicion of being correlated to higher than average death rates in every other week during their rollout?

I'm not blithely dismissing it but what do you think its significance is - that vaccines caused all those deaths?

Something caused all of those excess deaths during a time in which 40+ million doses were administered to Australians, and it wasn't COVID-19. So what is your alternate theory?

[stickdog99]

Newest Walgreens COVID-19 Testing Data (4/30-5/6)



The unvaccinated Have a far lower chance of testing positive for COVID-19 than the vaccinated! And those who got boosted in 2021 are most likely to test positive for omicron!

The boosted account for 51.7% of all COVID-19 positive tests. Note that according to Our World In Data, only 30.5% of Americans have gotten their booster shots and more than 79% of the boosted (24.2% of the US population) got their booster shots more than 5 months ago.

Thus, the 24.2% segment of the population who dutifully rushed out to do what our Big Pharma captured government and medical establishment coerced them into doing now account for 37.1% of all COVID-19 positive tests at Walgreens.

When will somebody, anybody in corporate media deign to notice these data?

Source: https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolut ... -index.jsp (see page 3)