Share this discussion
An even worse interpretation of the impact on male life expectancy from annual C19 mRNA injections - a 30 year old man taking annual C19 injections will take just 14, because he will be dead
peterhalligan.substack.com
|
6 Comments
© 2024 Peter Halligan
Substack is the home for great culture
Do we have any idea if these studies are accurate? Like, I'm super-curious how they selected their subjects, and if there is any bias involved in that.
No, We are in the midst of an experiment. These are estimates based on data from insurance and health companies.
the actual shortening could be more or less and is subject to other influences like a new variant that will have been forced by changes to injections.
that new variant could be less or more infectious and pathogenic.
Omicron was a blessing as it displaced deadly delta and the original. the next variant will have been caused by changes to injections.
What is being estimated is the impact on life expectancy based on prior statistics.
Even the CDC noticed
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/
" The CDC estimates life expectancy at birth in the U.S. decreased to 76.1 years in 2021, down 2.7 years from 78.8 years in 2019 and down 0.9 years from 2020. "
Hopefully we will get better news, because if that keeps up, in ten years, life expectancy will de down 13.5 years and in 20 years - a 27 year drop.
"if that keeps up, in ten years, life expectancy will de down 13.5 years and in 20 years - a 27 year drop."
Nothing biological plots as a straight line like that.
It seems like error range would trend toward "it's worse than that, actually" and not toward "less"-- it would depend a lot on the subject pool.
Scenario 1) These studies are dealing with people who self-reported that they were vaccinated. This has the best chance of being fairly accurate.
Scenario 2) These studies are looking at a pool of people where there's no way to tell who is vaccinated and who wasn't, we just have a "%vaxd" number and we're comparing some mushy population numbers. Impossible to say if there's any actual difference between vaxd and unvaxd populations (have we answered the shedding question yet?), we just know that the more shots were reported given to any group of people, the worse off that entire group is.
Scenario 3) These studies are looking at population-wide stats, without differentiating between vaxd and unvaxd except as a group percentage. But IRL we actually have no friggin clue what percentage of the population was vaxd because "gift card" "incentives" were offered and a bunch of homeless addicts trawled all the local distribution sites and racked up dozens of door prizes apiece, *plus* there are several docs that were caught issuing bogus cards. How many *didn't* get caught, and how many of their "vaxd" patients really weren't? Remember that nurse in EU who was prosecuted for injecting saline? How many of those out there? Now add in a heap of perverse incentives at every level of bureaucracy-- like, what did your local health department do to meet their quotas? Pad out those numbers a little? Make up some customers? It's not like we had any system for accurate tracking. Where there's incentive and means, you *know* it happened. So let's say local offices, on average, padded their numbers a bit, then sent those numbers up to the state office, and they padded them a little more, and then when they got to the federal office, eh... maybe they needed them to look a little better and used some dastardly "nudge" tactics and inflated the numbers again to make the unvaxd feel sufficiently marginalized and alone. It's at least possible that the official numbers for % vaxd are vastly overstated. If that is the case, then any effect found by these studies is far, far more egregious than this, because the percent vaxd is actually much smaller.
I can't prove any of that, obviously. But I think how you see the official numbers depends a lot on what part of the country you live in. Among people I know personally, the rate of even one shot seems to be well below 50%. Among people in deep-blue liberal PMC enclaves, it's maybe approaching 100%. But... I'm just not seeing how that averages out into the official govt stats. Last I checked, the working class was larger than the PMC, which is why they're so dang scared of us. The number of us who have a disposable job we can walk away from, vs. a "career" we're willing to sacrifice our health for... I don't think it adds up.
Yes. Occam's Razor is difficult to apply in the scenario of bad data.
As far as the adverse events are concerned, aside from some wide variations in assumptions of the under reporting factor, there remains the migration of events from first report of severe (life altering) serious (life threatening to death that seems subject to even greater under reporting as the time from injections and their frequency diminishes. The aborted Pfizer phase 3 clinical trials had numbers of 5,241 adverse events, of which 262 were severe and 127 were serious with 20 dead - this in 3 months with the original 2020 formulation - out of 21,926 in the injected group. I suspect that half of those non-severe/serious events have moved to severe or serious - almost all of the severe have moved to serious and half the serious are now dead.
So, the injected group is not known in total, neither are the events.
Which leaves excess mortality/extra deaths as the only accurate metric. That is around +560,000 for each of 2020, 2021 and 2022, with a little fall off in 2023 so far.
The lack of clarity is, of course, intentional. I am awaiting the pro-vaxx group to say that the majority of vaxx injuries are from C19 - not the vaxx, but I think it has been shown that C19 only has the S1 part of the virus, whereas the vaxx has S1 and S2 (McKernan and his use of Rt-PCR tests and cycles).
Thanks for covering this one. No doubt in my mind that all of this is an EXTERMINATION event.