Loading ...BAFFLED ( From Jeff Childers )
Baffling pharmaceutical oligarchs and nearsighted scientists, German researchers published an important preprint study last week titled, “Differential Increases in Excess Mortality in the German Federal States During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The study showed the strongest statistical analysis yet linking covid jab rates to untimely deaths, and immediately became the current go-to study for a couple very surprising reasons.
The researchers crunched health and mortality data for Germany’s sixteen states, including vaccination records, since the Germans meticulously record everything, such as the quantities of loose strands left over in individual German hairbrushes. But some data is useful and the study’s scientists carefully examined the first three years of the pandemic, finding a lot of people died.
Specifically, they compared the number of deaths with pre-pandemic population tables and pre-pandemic life expectancy trends and like Magellan, discovered excess deaths, which, at this point, even Magellan’s Aunt Edna could easily find — without her two-pound eyeglasses or a map. Having found those off-the-charts numbers of dead Germans, they compared those excess death rates from each German state to a constellation of other state-level variables.
The researchers found two strong correlations. One was an astonishing surprise. But the first, less surprising discovery was a strong statistical correlation between excess dead Germans and mRNA vaccination rates— starting in year three, when the jabs were supposed to be stopping people from dying.
The scientists expected to see the “negative correlation” between jabs and excess deaths in years one and two. Other studies had already found the same thing, and the media has long trumpeted those studies as proof the jabs didn’t cause the excess deaths. But the scientists kept digging, and were surprised to find jab rates and deaths beginning to travel in lockstep starting in the third year. In their words:
As can be seen in the Figure 4 above, the correlation pattern fundamentally changes from the second to the third pandemic year. Now, positive correlations are observed between vaccination rate and excess mortality and the reported number of COVID-19 deaths and infections: The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the observed excess mortality and the reported number of COVID-19 deaths and infections. This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect from an e?ective vaccination: as the vaccination rate increases, the number of infections increase as well as the number of infection-related deaths and the overall number of deaths.
The observation that excess mortality and the reported number of COVID-19 deaths and infections in the third year of the pandemic are higher the more people have been vaccinated in a federal state is an irrefutable empirical fact. The fact that the vaccination rate is the only variable that is positively correlated with excess mortality as well as with the number of COVID-19 deaths and infections in the third pandemic year makes it seem very likely that this new factor was the COVID-19 vaccination
To rule out a possible third variable that caused both higher jab rates and higher excess deaths, such as people named ‘Fauci,’ the scientists compared over-large death rates against everything else they could think of, like healthcare levels, gross domestic product, average age, covid infection, poverty rates, and lots of other types of illnesses probably including scurvy, although I couldn’t verify that by the time of publication.
During that wide-ranging analysis, something else unexpected leaped out of the data, like a lion suddenly springing from the tall African plains grass and completely consuming a native bearer before you could say “Deborah Birx.”
When comparing deaths to various other healthcare problems, the scientists discovered another strong correlation between jab rates and stillbirths. In fact, the chart comparing jabs versus stillbirths was nearly identical to the Figure 4 chart comparing jab rates to excess deaths. They said:
The results showed a similar pattern to that observed for excess mortality: the number of stillbirths in Germany showed a relatively stable course during the previous years until the start of the vaccination campaign, after which a sudden increase was observed.
This discovery was important for a surprising scientific reason, beyond the undeniable horror of jabs causing excess infant deaths. It also provided an independent third variable, consistent with and corroborating the other excess deaths finding. In other words, because the scientists could link two different deadly outcomes to jab rates, the likelihood of any other possible cause becomes vanishingly small.
Predictably, critics will cry about how correlation does not prove causation. There is a simple answer to this complaint. First off, they are hypocritical jerks. But also, it’s true, correlation does not “prove” causation. Still —and this is the point— correlation is evidence of causation. And this study, with its strong statistical correlation, is also strong evidence of causation. In other words, while not conclusively proving the connection, the study still makes it probable that the jabs are causing excess deaths.
I know what you’re going to say: But Jeff, you say, we already knew this and nothing ever changes! And you say, Jeff, why can’t you get Coffee & Covid out earlier! And you say, Jeff, how is it possible Democrats are still even considering running Sleepy Joe?
Don’t change the subject; we must focus (do NOT say that with a French accent). The truth is, no one study will end the argument. Never. The scientists have a fun shell game they like to play with studies, which allows them to deny the most obvious things, like where the Sun rises in the morning, or the fact that LED light bulbs do not, in fact, last ten years, but often commit electronic Hari-Kari within hours of being switched on the first time, because they are even more depressed to discover their own existence than we were.
In other words, scientists suddenly get all finicky, and nitpick and flyspeck for problems any studies they don’t want to agree with. On the other hand, they credulously shower their preferred studies with praise and peer reviews and instantly become blind as lab-coat-wearing pangolin that couldn’t find an error in a study if that error chased them around a bat cave in Wuhan.
So we must play the long game. We are patiently building a mountain of evidence that, when it gets tall enough, we will push over on top of them and squash them into raspberry jelly. Figuratively, of course. And only after a fair —but expeditious— trial.