Global Death Rates Are Skyrocketing! Why?

[revelarts]

If you read the rest of my post, and understood it, you'd have your answer.

No one has said the vaccines were the ONLY cause of excess deaths.
But when people present to physicians shortly after vaccines with cancers LONG in remission. When they have strokes, blood clots, nerve issues or die within 2 weeks -30 days of the shots. When young people with NO pre-existing conditions who are in good health suddenly get specific heart conditions, ONLY after vaccines, (not after covid) it's more than reasonable to conclude that the shots are the PRIMARY cause of excess death.

If you understood what the professor said and what the studies point toward, you'd reconsider.

[fj1200]

No one has said the vaccines were the ONLY cause of excess deaths.
But when people present to physicians shortly after vaccines with cancers LONG in remission. When they have strokes, blood clots, nerve issues or die within 2 weeks -30 days of the shots. When young people with NO pre-existing conditions who are in good health suddenly get specific heart conditions, ONLY after vaccines, (not after covid) it's more than reasonable to conclude that the shots are the PRIMARY cause of excess death.

If you understood what the professor said and what the studies point toward, you'd reconsider.

Your professor said exactly that. And he's incorrect. I know that because I know what he said.

it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program.

I can't restate any more clearly than 4 posts up. Try addressing those points rather than rehashing your copy/paste list.

[SassyLady]

Another study

https://slaynews.com/news/study-find...d-covid-shots/

Here's the last 3 paragraphs

Many researchers have identified links between the toxicity of vaccine batches and adverse events, they noted.

Rancourt and his team have linked the vaccine rollouts to unprecedented peaks in all-cause mortality in a study of 17 countries.

They are currently completing a study of 125 countries which will be concluded and published soon.

[fj1200]

^What was their control group?

[revelarts]

Another study

https://slaynews.com/news/study-find...d-covid-shots/

Here's the last 3 paragraphs

Many researchers have identified links between the toxicity of vaccine batches and adverse events, they noted.

Rancourt and his team have linked the vaccine rollouts to unprecedented peaks in all-cause mortality in a study of 17 countries.

They are currently completing a study of 125 countries which will be concluded and published soon.

For some people there will be no amount of evidence.
In 20 years "official" reports will confirm that the primary cause of excess deaths was/is the "vaccines".
But right now it's like telling some people in the 1950-60s the fact that Butter is better for you than Margarine & Smoking causes Cancer.
Some folks will insist on using margarine and smoking because the gov't, popular health advocates, the experts & doctors said it was A-OK, and the "studies" that said they were bad weren't really "conclusive". They thought that the dangers were overhyped by some uneducated people & fringe experts. The majority of major reports and the smart people don't think so.
Didn't matter that the neighbor died of lung & throat cancer after a 15 year, 5 pack a day habit. That's antidotal!. Plus My auntie smoked 2 packs a day & chewed tobacco and lived to be 90 with no problem! Plus "they say" that other things are the real major cause of lung & throat cancers.

[fj1200]

For some people there will be no amount of evidence.

Please tell me. Did you understand any of this...

No I haven't. I've acknowledged, exactly as the "studies" have acknowledged, that there are other possible factors, including vaccines, as causing cancer incidences to go up. Dalgleish is wrong that he correlates it specifically to the vaccine program. Whatever you want to call these particular "studies" or "statistical analyses" they only acknowledge that cancer incidences have gone up and can only speculate as to the cause.

IIRC you previously posted favorably about Dr. Bhattacharya et al and the Great Barrington Declaration which speculated that lockdown policies would lead to what we're seeing today. Specifically mentioning fewer cancer screenings. If you haven't commented on the GBD then I'd like your thoughts on it.



To specifically tie increases in cancer incidence to the vaccine rollout ignores countless other factors which had at least as direct an influence on health outcomes as the potential influence that vaccines have. It would be incredibly convenient to tie vaccines to cancer incidence when covid had at least a one-year head start on impacting future health outcomes without even taking into account the disastrous government mandates that also had a huge impact.

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto yet another notch against vaccines that you will accept any evidence against the vaccines as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are as of yet not proven. You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.

I need a baseline to know what you understand and don't understand.

[revelarts]

You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.

I'm long Familiar with Dr Bhattacharya and the GBD.
And other doctors statements to the health cost of lockdowns and lack of medical diagnostics. I posted 2 of the 1st drs who mentioned the long termed effects of lockdowns would have. 2 dr in California who were banned from youtube/everywhere. for saying so, & for saying that mask were crap, and that most people did not need vaccines.
But maybe i was jumping at bad science?
well no, seems they were right.
so , It seems I'm jumping at GOOD science.
i didn't take the vaccine because of the drs and studies i looked at from both sides.
it seems by some wild accident i jumped at the GOOD science.

so It seems I AM better than the other side, since my choices were correct.
If were speaking practically.
Maybe my assessment of the info at hand at the time made sense.
maybe it's still pretty good. God willing.
please don't hate me for being correct for once in my life.

Please tell me. Did you understand any of this...



I need a baseline to know what you understand and don't understand.

as i said
I'm long Familiar with Dr Bhattacharya and the GBD.
And other doctors statements to the health cost of lockdowns and lack of early/regular medical diagnostics... and long term effects of covid itself.

But the primary effects of lockdowns on health were NOT predicted to be the list of events Dalgleish and others are pointing too.
the GBD did NOT expect the level excess deaths in 2 weeks to 1 year from lockdowns.
I think this is the point you're missing.
the GBD and Dr Bhattacharya did not predict Bells palsy, neurological diseases, NEW types of blood clots, myocarditis and pericarditis in young healthy people, miscarriages, and the other issues from lockdowns.
Their prediction were talking about a rise in the normal course of medical issues in the typical age groups.
Also the GBD and others predicted an increase expected over decades. While whats been seen are cancers & deaths rising 30 days to 2.5 years after vaccines, especially shortly after boosters.
Cancers decade+ in remission coming back aggressively after vaccines.
Are you factoring in these details into your baseline?

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto any idea that vaccines are NOT the primary cause.
That you will accept any OPTIONS against the vaccines as cause as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are, as of yet, not proven.

[fj1200]

I'm long Familiar with Dr Bhattacharya and the GBD.
And other doctors statements to the health cost of lockdowns and lack of medical diagnostics.
...
I think this is the point you're missing.
...
You appear to be so desperate to grab onto any idea that vaccines are NOT the primary cause.

I'm not interested in another of your laundry lists. I'll just tell you that you're wrong and any desperation you sense... you might look in a mirror. In the future comment on what I post and not what you think I post.

[SassyLady]

I'm not interested in another of your laundry lists. I'll just tell you that you're wrong and any desperation you sense... you might look in a mirror. In the future comment on what I post and not what you think I post.

I have the same impression fj. That you will refute any and all evidence that the vaccine was/is not what it was touted to be.

[fj1200]

I have the same impression fj. That you will refute any and all evidence that the vaccine was/is not what it was touted to be.

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to ask the same question because I haven't refuted anything.

Please tell me. Did you understand any of this...

No I haven't. I've acknowledged, exactly as the "studies" have acknowledged, that there are other possible factors, including vaccines, as causing cancer incidences to go up. Dalgleish is wrong that he correlates it specifically to the vaccine program. Whatever you want to call these particular "studies" or "statistical analyses" they only acknowledge that cancer incidences have gone up and can only speculate as to the cause.

IIRC you previously posted favorably about Dr. Bhattacharya et al and the Great Barrington Declaration which speculated that lockdown policies would lead to what we're seeing today. Specifically mentioning fewer cancer screenings. If you haven't commented on the GBD then I'd like your thoughts on it.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

To specifically tie increases in cancer incidence to the vaccine rollout ignores countless other factors which had at least as direct an influence on health outcomes as the potential influence that vaccines have. It would be incredibly convenient to tie vaccines to cancer incidence when covid had at least a one-year head start on impacting future health outcomes without even taking into account the disastrous government mandates that also had a huge impact.

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto yet another notch against vaccines that you will accept any evidence against the vaccines as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are as of yet not proven. You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.

I need a baseline to know what you understand and don't understand.

And are you going to say the same thing which would get the same response from me?

I'm not interested in another of your laundry lists. I'll just tell you that you're wrong and any desperation you sense... you might look in a mirror. In the future comment on what I post and not what you think I post.

Inquiring minds...

[Kathianne]

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to ask the same question because I haven't refuted anything.



And are you going to say the same thing which would get the same response from me?



Inquiring minds...

You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser.

[fj1200]

You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser.

It amuses me that I hadn't commented on that particular article until I got trolled. But there are so many questions that can come out of that and so much more that can be investigated and so many caveats on everything related to covid that it's hard to accept when conclusions are automatically derived from a headline and then to ignore what the headline actually said.

I believe this is the actual study.

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

Why excess deaths may still be occurring is concerning and exactly why is important.

[Black Diamond]

It amuses me that I hadn't commented on that particular article until I got trolled. But there are so many questions that can come out of that and so much more that can be investigated and so many caveats on everything related to covid that it's hard to accept when conclusions are automatically derived from a headline and then to ignore what the headline actually said.

I believe this is the actual study.

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

Why excess deaths may still be occurring is concerning and exactly why is important.

Climate change

[Kathianne]

It amuses me that I hadn't commented on that particular article until I got trolled. But there are so many questions that can come out of that and so much more that can be investigated and so many caveats on everything related to covid that it's hard to accept when conclusions are automatically derived from a headline and then to ignore what the headline actually said.

I believe this is the actual study.

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

Why excess deaths may still be occurring is concerning and exactly why is important.

Just skimmed beginning, but my reaction to it and the like, "Very interesting, needs follow-up. Lots here to look into, I don't trust government either." It's a starting point, not an end.

[revelarts]

You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser.

Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

He's not being honest.
If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
that's all.
He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
not Short term rise in Strokes.
not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
not Crippling Neurological diseases
etc etc etc

He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
Sorry.

Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
and leave it there.