You should publish when you get excited about a topic and really feel that you have valuable insight. That moment will come. So much information has come in, that readers of Substack need to digest it all and put it into perspective. The last few years have been a shock and a life-altering era for many of us. Do what you need to do. Your readers appreciate your work so far.
Give it a bit of time. Don't burn any bridges. Take a pause. Pivot to politics? Interesting stuff going on in Britain.
You have a very curious mind, in both senses, with an excellent capacity for analysis and evidence-gathering. I hope that, whatever you do, your talents are used. But Descartes was a bastard who treated animals like automata; ignore his evil invalid views. Whether we think or not, we sure do exist and we are worthy.
Hi Underdog. As you know, I like your work and have a couple of suggestions.
1. Are the UK/global mortality figures actually real?
A study by Leonard Murphy revealed 194 deaths in 1000 US households from 2021. I worked out that equates to excess mortality of not the 20% which we are hearing about but 150% once you factor in average numbers per household. It's in this post here if you can access along with other shocking data. Has anyone been paid to hide mortality data?
I personally saw that the ONS adjusted their excess mortality graph figures down a couple of times. That shouldn't be possible. I wish I had pursued it as the wayback machine took a data grab too late and I couldn't recover the info. Also at the Chief Coroners office, deaths which are still off the record a year from fatality have doubled to about 4500 or so. That's the figure which Andrew Bridgen was looking for but didn't have. Is this emblematic of a wider pool of death?
2. Did the MHRA possess foreknowledge of pandemic/covid vax?
You may be familiar with an aspect of this. Six months of spending accounts just prior to the start of the pandemic are missing. I made a post on it in the end and went a bit deeper. It is indeed a gross aberration.
I know that it might take legal action to get those accounts but perhaps there's another way around. There's a blog here which may be a good starting point.
You know, I don't mind trying to find answers to subscriber's questions.
1. Are the UK/global mortality figures actually real?
It depends by what you define as "real". Does real mean: 'information comes from a genuine source' [even if incomplete], or 'information reflects reality' [even if data doesn't always come from a genuine source].
The last one might sound impossible, but lets say we have 1 death per 10,000 doses of a drug, but we know it has been underreported by 100%. We could say there's 100 deaths per 10,000 doses to compensate - but we don't have a genuine source to prove that is the case, we're artificially generating the dataset in attempt to reflect reality.
In terms of reliability, I think this has been indirectly answered if we combine a number of articles, these would be:
That database would include a list of deaths from the vaccines.
The Daily Beagle's argument has been, not that the datasets are inaccurate, but as the name implies, also *fudged*. So, the answer would be a yes. I know you intended this as an article idea, however quite a few articles answer this question.
2. Did the MHRA possess foreknowledge of pandemic/covid vax?
This is actually a decent question and I think warrants an investigation, and if I find anything, a write-up. I typically avoid trying to guess intentions and foreknowledge as these tend to be nebulous concepts of the mind. However, given I was one of the earliest critics of the shots (I made 2 rebuttal videos to John Campbell back in the day), there were plenty of red flags MHRA knew exactly what they were scheming.
In-fact, I would go so far as to argue they knew about the mRNA instability problem. I'll need to review my notes when I next get a chance.
Ah really look forward, I was aiming to reply to you a lot earlier but got horribly tied up last week. I've read a couple of your articles and am just mind blown by CDC incompetence/ lack of willingness masquerading as incompetence.
You should publish when you get excited about a topic and really feel that you have valuable insight. That moment will come. So much information has come in, that readers of Substack need to digest it all and put it into perspective. The last few years have been a shock and a life-altering era for many of us. Do what you need to do. Your readers appreciate your work so far.
Give it a bit of time. Don't burn any bridges. Take a pause. Pivot to politics? Interesting stuff going on in Britain.
You have a very curious mind, in both senses, with an excellent capacity for analysis and evidence-gathering. I hope that, whatever you do, your talents are used. But Descartes was a bastard who treated animals like automata; ignore his evil invalid views. Whether we think or not, we sure do exist and we are worthy.
OMG. 😲 So Frank Fuckyomama was right? Just a leetle early. The End of History indeed 🤔
I'm not sure I understand what this comment means, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
Hi Underdog. As you know, I like your work and have a couple of suggestions.
1. Are the UK/global mortality figures actually real?
A study by Leonard Murphy revealed 194 deaths in 1000 US households from 2021. I worked out that equates to excess mortality of not the 20% which we are hearing about but 150% once you factor in average numbers per household. It's in this post here if you can access along with other shocking data. Has anyone been paid to hide mortality data?
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/survey-nearly-half-the-deaths-observed?publication_id=548354&triedRedirect=true
I personally saw that the ONS adjusted their excess mortality graph figures down a couple of times. That shouldn't be possible. I wish I had pursued it as the wayback machine took a data grab too late and I couldn't recover the info. Also at the Chief Coroners office, deaths which are still off the record a year from fatality have doubled to about 4500 or so. That's the figure which Andrew Bridgen was looking for but didn't have. Is this emblematic of a wider pool of death?
2. Did the MHRA possess foreknowledge of pandemic/covid vax?
You may be familiar with an aspect of this. Six months of spending accounts just prior to the start of the pandemic are missing. I made a post on it in the end and went a bit deeper. It is indeed a gross aberration.
My post here:
https://feldmans.substack.com/p/were-the-mhra-striking-a-deal-for
I know that it might take legal action to get those accounts but perhaps there's another way around. There's a blog here which may be a good starting point.
https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/category/events-and-symposia/page/2/
But in any case, I hope you find something that interests you and it is clear to me you have considerable skill.
You know, I don't mind trying to find answers to subscriber's questions.
1. Are the UK/global mortality figures actually real?
It depends by what you define as "real". Does real mean: 'information comes from a genuine source' [even if incomplete], or 'information reflects reality' [even if data doesn't always come from a genuine source].
The last one might sound impossible, but lets say we have 1 death per 10,000 doses of a drug, but we know it has been underreported by 100%. We could say there's 100 deaths per 10,000 doses to compensate - but we don't have a genuine source to prove that is the case, we're artificially generating the dataset in attempt to reflect reality.
In terms of reliability, I think this has been indirectly answered if we combine a number of articles, these would be:
ONS Covers Up Excess Deaths | FudgeGate
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/ons-covers-up-excess-deaths-fudgegate
FudgeGate: CDC Caught Fudging Vaccine Mortality Data
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/fudgegate-cdc-caught-fudging-vaccine
CDC Denies Deaths Datasets | FudgeGate
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/cdc-denies-deaths-datasets-fudgegate
FudgeGate: ONS Makes Person-Years Go Up As Deaths Mysteriously Disappear
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/fudgegate-ons-makes-person-years
And, most importantly of all (given I personally got to see behind the veil):
BMJ Accuses FDA, CDC Of Secret VAERS Database
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/bmj-accuses-fda-cdc-of-secret-vaers
That database would include a list of deaths from the vaccines.
The Daily Beagle's argument has been, not that the datasets are inaccurate, but as the name implies, also *fudged*. So, the answer would be a yes. I know you intended this as an article idea, however quite a few articles answer this question.
2. Did the MHRA possess foreknowledge of pandemic/covid vax?
This is actually a decent question and I think warrants an investigation, and if I find anything, a write-up. I typically avoid trying to guess intentions and foreknowledge as these tend to be nebulous concepts of the mind. However, given I was one of the earliest critics of the shots (I made 2 rebuttal videos to John Campbell back in the day), there were plenty of red flags MHRA knew exactly what they were scheming.
In-fact, I would go so far as to argue they knew about the mRNA instability problem. I'll need to review my notes when I next get a chance.
I wanted to give you a quick status update.
I plan to write up an article laying out my findings re: MHRA, just bear with me as I've got a few other articles I want to push out first.
Ah really look forward, I was aiming to reply to you a lot earlier but got horribly tied up last week. I've read a couple of your articles and am just mind blown by CDC incompetence/ lack of willingness masquerading as incompetence.