Jump to content

Excess death everywhere….


Recommended Posts

I came about this through a fellow looking at excess death in the UK. However it‘s not just the UK, there are excess death almost everywhere. I picked up a few countries in this website and virtually all of them have excess debt, by about 15% above the excepted run rate.

 

Are this due to LT pandemic effects or is there something else going on! I have no clue and neither seems anyone else. I am surprised that 15% more people dying isn’t news  but I think it should be. If it stays it means that the average life expectancy will go down significantly. The excess death seem too every age any age group. This is not meant to be a political post, but I feel it’s important data.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline?country=USA~GBR~DEU~FRA~SWE~BRA~AUS

 

image.thumb.jpeg.f944414be4188f1ed2aa13a9fca5bef7.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the US we still have about 2400 covid deaths per week which is around 4% of that number. I would be interested to see excess deaths prior to 2020 to see the typical variance. The stats were not readily available.

 

I'm sure the covid number is under reported as well as the hangover from the disruption of healthcare the last couple of years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see historical numbers for Germany here:  https://de.usmortality.com/deaths/excess-yearly-cumulative and https://de.usmortality.com/deaths/weekly

 

The chart at the first link shows deaths around normal until late 2020 (big deviation appears to begin in November), then fairly close to normal again until fall 2021 (deviation appears to begin in October) and at or above the top end of normal throughout 2022, with a significant move above normal beginning in September  and on pace to exceed 2021 (and any other recent year).   You can also see this in the shape of the line curves for 2020 - 2022 in the second link.

 

You filter the data by age.  There are no excess deaths in the 0-29 group in 2022. 

Edited by KJP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

COVID-19 death don’t explain the increase in mortality, at least does not only most of it. I think the theory that makes more sense is that it‘s fallout from the epidemic. In particular many people did not get or did not seek timely treatment for chronic diseases and now show increased mortality.

This one discusses the issue from the UK perspective:


 

However, it’s just a theory right now. I personally have more questions than answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Question, if there was a link to the vaccines, does anyone think we'd ever get the truth from the bureaucrats within government and the medical community?

Studies have been done on this apparently. I don’t think it’s it’s directly vaccine related.

https://www.kp-scalresearch.org/new-study-looking-at-millions-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people-found-no-increased-risk-of-death-among-covid-19-vaccine-recipients/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot of medical staff will tell you that higher death rates are Covid related.

Covid displaced almost all surgeries and in-person examinations; they went into backlog, and with the widespread burnout and retirements in the medical community, the backlog will continue for years. Cancers that could have been prevented or mitigated were not, and now the patients are terminal. Hip and joint replacements that didn't happen have become opioid addictions, slips/falls, sepsis, and death. And as the net 'retiree' pool in most places is in YoY net growth, the larger pool dying at the progressively diminishing rates (as backlogs come down), ends up as larger numbers of deaths every year.

 

SD

 

 

Edited by SharperDingaan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

Lot of medical staff will tell you that higher death rates are Covid related.

Covid displaced almost all surgeries and in-person examinations; they went into backlog, and with the widespread burnout and retirements in the medical community, the backlog will continue for years. Cancers that could have been prevented or mitigated were not, and now the patients are terminal. Replacements that didn't happen have become opioid addictions, slips/falls, sepsis, and death. And as the net 'retiree' pool in most places is in YoY net growth, the larger pool dying at the progressively diminishing rates (as backlogs come down), ends up as larger numbers of deaths every year.

 

SD

 

 

 

+1!  You can see exactly where the spikes were during Covid waves.  During those waves, hospitals generally told people don't come to Emergency unless it is Covid-related.  People who normally would have seen their physician for issues outside of Covid cancelled their appointments.  So many surgeries, diagnostic exams, routine checkups, specialist appointments were delayed or cancelled altogether.  As Sharper says...delayed diagnosis, delayed surgeries, delayed checkups...all led to excess deaths and probably delayed deaths because of delayed diagnosis or treatment into 2022 and 2023.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Postponed examinations and surgeries is one factor, but probably not the only one. Increased risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 is not limited to the acute illness: SARS-CoV-2 infection carries a substantially increased mortality in the following 12 months. This is what still shows up in the mortality statistics, even though these cases are not included in official covid death statistics.

 

Long-term mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection: A national cohort study from Estonia - The Lancet Regional Health – Europe

Edited by xxx1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@KJP and @xxx1313 thanks for the additional data. It does seem like the reason for the increased is multi casual.

 

I do feel that an 15% increase in excess death is a big deal, no matter the cause and probably should get more attention than it does currently. With 2.84M death that means that more than  430k people die in the US than statistically predicted.  I guess the hope is that it’s transitory? What if we get higher excess death for longer?

 

Unless you operate a funeral business, it’s bad news for everyone. Some life insurers seem to have taken note of this trend as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^This is a developing 'story' but the excess mortality that's persisting is likely transitory (whatever transitory means).

#1 reason: persisting excess covid-related deaths, trend going down

#2 reason: healthcare 'distortions' due to covid and how society dealt with covid (or not), trend going down 

#3 reason: various factors, mostly non-recurrent ones except maybe the 2022 heat wave (which is part of a climate trend..)

You may find the following short and to the point:

What can explain the excess mortality in the U.S. and Europe in 2022? - Health Feedback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

COVID-19 death don’t explain the increase in mortality, at least does not only most of it.

 

It has been reported that covid can damage organs.  Maybe later on you die from this damage (the straw that broke the camel's back) but it isn't linked back to covid.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. When people have severe COVID and go into sepsis/septic shock, other organs take a hit. Some patients with severe infection end up requiring more than just "respiratory care" in the hospital. Some go into renal failure and have to be placed on bedside dialysis. Having sepsis also makes you susceptible to many other things that are not ideal from a health perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, xxx1313 said:

Postponed examinations and surgeries is one factor, but probably not the only one. Increased risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 is not limited to the acute illness: SARS-CoV-2 infection carries a substantially increased mortality in the following 12 months. This is what still shows up in the mortality statistics, even though these cases are not included in official covid death statistics.

 

Long-term mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection: A national cohort study from Estonia - The Lancet Regional Health – Europe

This is exactly what happened my Dad. 

He got Covid, recovered, then a few weeks later went down with a serious illness. Liver function tests off the charts, no energy, could barely walk a hundred meters without needing a rest (when he is fit as a fiddle usually). Negative for Covid. Doctors flummoxed for weeks, and no change in symptoms. 

They finally did some edge case screening tests, and determined it was a couple of viruses, can't remember the name, which most of us have, and which don't cause trouble 99.999% of the time, unless you have severe immune problems or are on immunosuppressant pills because of a transplant, neither of which were applicable in his case. Seems Covid caused his immunity to drop so low that these viruses were able to kick in somehow.

Thankfully he recovered. However, had he not, I guess that would not count as a Covid case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Pfizer/Moderna shots carry some risk....pretty clear from the VAERS data and other reports.  Hopefully the risks are short term and not long term.

 

The following is an interesting look at heart health.  Pretty amazing that the press and health authorities ignore this stuff.  Like they believe there is a free lunch out there somewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a previously scheduled PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd mRNA COVID shot and was compared to the pt’s PULS test drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre-shot. Each vac pt’s PULS score and inflammatory marker changes were compared to their pre-vac PULS score, thus serving as their own control. There was no comparison made with unvaccinated patients or pts treated with other vaccines.

 

Baseline IL-16 increased from 35+/-20 above the norm to 82 +/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46+/-24 above the norm post vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the pre vac PULS score of predicted 11% 5 yr ACS risk to a post vac PULS score of a predicted 25% 5 yr ACS risk, based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study.

 

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zzzyx said:

Well the Pfizer/Moderna shots carry some risk....pretty clear from the VAERS data and other reports.  Hopefully the risks are short term and not long term.

 

The following is an interesting look at heart health.  Pretty amazing that the press and health authorities ignore this stuff.  Like they believe there is a free lunch out there somewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a previously scheduled PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd mRNA COVID shot and was compared to the pt’s PULS test drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre-shot. Each vac pt’s PULS score and inflammatory marker changes were compared to their pre-vac PULS score, thus serving as their own control. There was no comparison made with unvaccinated patients or pts treated with other vaccines.

 

Baseline IL-16 increased from 35+/-20 above the norm to 82 +/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46+/-24 above the norm post vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the pre vac PULS score of predicted 11% 5 yr ACS risk to a post vac PULS score of a predicted 25% 5 yr ACS risk, based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study.

 

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

 

Aren't even "short term risks" a serious problem when it is something that they are recommending we take multiple times per year for the foreseeable future starting at a very young age?  A short term risk from something like say the MMR vaccine wouldn't be much of a problem because you take it 2 times in your life.  But a short term risk from something you take a few times per year your entire life seems like it would be a much more serious issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zzzyx said:

Well the Pfizer/Moderna shots carry some risk....pretty clear from the VAERS data and other reports.  Hopefully the risks are short term and not long term.

 

The following is an interesting look at heart health.  Pretty amazing that the press and health authorities ignore this stuff.  Like they believe there is a free lunch out there somewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a previously scheduled PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd mRNA COVID shot and was compared to the pt’s PULS test drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre-shot. Each vac pt’s PULS score and inflammatory marker changes were compared to their pre-vac PULS score, thus serving as their own control. There was no comparison made with unvaccinated patients or pts treated with other vaccines.

 

Baseline IL-16 increased from 35+/-20 above the norm to 82 +/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46+/-24 above the norm post vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the pre vac PULS score of predicted 11% 5 yr ACS risk to a post vac PULS score of a predicted 25% 5 yr ACS risk, based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study.

 

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Doesn't any vaccination increase inflammation markers? I think I have seen the same thing about influence vaccines. Like this study:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.ATV.0000248534.30057.b5

 

I don't know if this is comparable or not but those issues are part of safety studies. Also see above study about mortality of COVID-19 unvaccinated vs vaccinated cohorts for non-COVID-19 causes.

 

Anyways, the vaccine is almost certainly not to blame for excess death here. There are likely other leading causes like deferred medical care, long COVID-19 fatalities, increased drug overdose death at play here.

Edited by Spekulatius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I don't know if this is comparable or not but those issues are part of safety studies. Also see above study about mortality of COVID-19 unvaccinated vs vaccinated cohorts for non-COVID-19 causes.

 

Anyways, the vaccine is almost certainly not to blame for excess death here. There are likely other leading causes like deferred medical care, long COVID-19 fatalities, increased drug overdose death at play here.

 

All those factors are likely contributing, including the "vaccine".  The one controlled testing of the shots ended up with more of the vaccinated dead than placebo recipients.  And the VAERS data indicates these shots are very bad for some people.

 

499401946_VAERSdata.png.6db03fdf9ffd038b5eb1a32e3c4ccaca.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the toxin(s) in the virus causing whatever damage the virus causes? Is that toxin(s) present in the various shots? If so, how does the toxic load compare between virus and various vaxxes? Holding a coherent view that long covid or effects of virus are part of the excess deaths but the vaccine isn't requires certain answers to the second and third questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 4:15 PM, Gregmal said:

Question, if there was a link to the vaccines, does anyone think we'd ever get the truth from the bureaucrats within government and the medical community?


Your comment makes me chuckle.  I keep hearing this type of comment suggesting a cover-up, and it is often from the same people who bash government for being incapable and incompetent.

On one hand, the government is unable to tie its own shoes and is utterly and completely incompetent.   On the other hand, the government is able to run a multi-agency and multi-department cover-up of data across 1,000s of employees, contractors, and third-parties (I.e. hospital operators, state government).  
 

Which is it?  Can’t be both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Williams406 said:

What is the toxin(s) in the virus causing whatever damage the virus causes? Is that toxin(s) present in the various shots? If so, how does the toxic load compare between virus and various vaxxes? Holding a coherent view that long covid or effects of virus are part of the excess deaths but the vaccine isn't requires certain answers to the second and third questions.


Cytokines.  COVID stimulates an extreme pro-inflammatory response in the body, which could lead to organ damage.  The response has been called “cytokine storm” in the past.

 

a quick clarification / edit.  I think the cytokine storm only occurs in about 20% of patients.  Not all of these patients die immediately, so maybe this explains some of the excess deaths.  

Edited by shhughes1116
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s a lot easier than you give credit for. You’ve already seen they delayed vaccine news til after the election for purely partisan reasons. You’ve seen deliberate coordination with social media companies to control the news narratives and either censor or discredit those against them. Intelligence agencies have been exposed for having partisan biases as well. So you absolutely know they could do it if they wanted to. Not to mention the Armageddon sized liability lawsuits they’d face. We will never truly know the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, shhughes1116 said:


Your comment makes me chuckle.  I keep hearing this type of comment suggesting a cover-up, and it is often from the same people who bash government for being incapable and incompetent.

On one hand, the government is unable to tie its own shoes and is utterly and completely incompetent.   On the other hand, the government is able to run a multi-agency and multi-department cover-up of data across 1,000s of employees, contractors, and third-parties (I.e. hospital operators, state government).  
 

Which is it?  Can’t be both.

 

Not saying there is any proof of anything nefarious, but if I were to look anywhere it would be with the Pharma companies. Government is nothing more than a proxy for corporations at this point. Could just be they are trying to cover their ass at every turn but this still is very suspect practice in my opinion. If this is the norm, that makes it even more suspect. 

 

Pfizer for example

 

- In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Food and Drug Administration asked a federal judge for permission to make the public wait until the year 2096 to disclose all of the data it relied upon to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. The FDA wanted court approval to have up to 75 years to publicly disclose this information. Shady practice, or complete ignorance on how this would be perceived. 

 

- Pfizer executive said in a hearing that they did NOT test the vaccine for effectiveness on preventing transmission. I've seen some claim this statement was criminal but I don't agree. I think it was taken a bit out of context. BUT at the same time we did have government officials saying that it would prevent transmission and urged people to get the vaccine. Negligence and lack of due diligence on their part. 

 

- When vaccines initially came out they had emergency approval. This allowed companies to be exempt from liability while covered under the Emergency Use Authorization. When the vaccines became approved they should have then been made open to liability at that point. But here is the caveat. How does a company get liability protection for a vaccine moving forward? Well according to Health Resources & Service Administration a vaccine needs to get approval from the CDC for routine vaccination in children and pregnant women.

 

" The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) covers most vaccines routinely given in the U.S.

For a vaccine to be covered, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must recommend the category of vaccine for routine administration to children or pregnant women, and it must be subject to an excise tax by federal law."

 

Not difficult to look at the data and see there is virtually ZERO need for young children to get vaccinated. So if someone dies from the vaccine or we see some down the line effects, who foots that settlement bill? Not Pfizer. CICP and VICP are tax payer funded coffers. This is the unquestionable shady imo. 

 

A quick look at history will show you it can be both, one or the other. Hell a good read over the next Omnibus Bill will show you just how many hands are in the pot and whos interests are being served. 

 

Guess this is borderline political so I'll leave it at that

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

Not saying there is any proof of anything nefarious, but if I were to look anywhere it would be with the Pharma companies. Government is nothing more than a proxy for corporations at this point. Could just be they are trying to cover their ass at every turn but this still is very suspect practice in my opinion. If this is the norm, that makes it even more suspect. 

 

Pfizer for example

 

- In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Food and Drug Administration asked a federal judge for permission to make the public wait until the year 2096 to disclose all of the data it relied upon to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. The FDA wanted court approval to have up to 75 years to publicly disclose this information. Shady practice, or complete ignorance on how this would be perceived. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think this was shady.  That said, I don't think they considered how it would look from the outside.  In order to release all the data through the FOIA process, they would have needed to redirect the entire Agency's FOIA staff (across multiple product centers) to do this work, and it still would have taken multiple years to do this.  And in the interim, all other FOIA activities across the other FDA product centers (CTP, CDRH, CDER, CVM, CFSAN) would come to a halt.   

 

I think FDA would have been better served to ask Congress for authority to release the data outside of the FOIA process (i.e. special exception to dump it all in the public domain), or ask for temporary staffing resources to expedite the FOIA process for this specific request.    

 

20 hours ago, Gregmal said:

I think it’s a lot easier than you give credit for. You’ve already seen they delayed vaccine news til after the election for purely partisan reasons. You’ve seen deliberate coordination with social media companies to control the news narratives and either censor or discredit those against them. Intelligence agencies have been exposed for having partisan biases as well. So you absolutely know they could do it if they wanted to. Not to mention the Armageddon sized liability lawsuits they’d face. We will never truly know the truth.

 

You missed my point.  it is easy to do stupid things.  The bar is very low for this given the decentralization of authority/power across different Departments and Agencies.   And we see political appointees do this routinely, as well as SGE's.  When these shenanigans happen, why does the public always ultimately find out about it?  Because there are people in the civil service that expose this garbage. 

Nefarious activity is always possible, but my point is that cover-ups are literally not possible.  People might try, but the result is the same, it ends up being exposed by the others in the organization. 

 

When Congress starts subpoenaing people, or when they start asking Departments and Agencies very pointed questions about wrongdoing and waste of resources, where do you think they are getting these names and these questions?       

 

 

Edited by shhughes1116
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2022 at 6:00 AM, Spekulatius said:I do feel that an 15% increase in excess death is a big deal, no matter the cause and probably should get more attention than it does currently. With 2.84M death that means that more than  430k people die in the US than statistically predicted.  I guess the hope is that it’s transitory? What if we get higher excess death for longer?

Unless you operate a funeral business, it’s bad news for everyone. 

This is correct. Look at SCI’s stock performance compared to the S&P 500 the last 18 months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...