As The Daily Beagle’s research gains traction on Twitter, shills with missing account avatars are slowly emerging out of the woodwork trying to ‘debunk’ the evidenced research done.
This one emerged in response to our article asking if we had seen behind the veil on vaccine death figures. They previously mentioned taking the Moderna shots.
We remind them that Modern shots cause: Pericarditis, Anaphylaxis, Thrombocytopenia (lack of platelets), Myocarditis (and other cardiovascular problems), skin reactions, Glomerulonephritis (kidney disease), neurological issues, Thromboembolic events (blood clot induced bleeding), Vasculitis (blood vessel inflammation/swelling) and more.
What Did They Post Anyway?
They reference this Substack article, which superficially looks like it might hold water. It invokes the usual unevidenced credentials of PhDs and MDs (even though MD is an American term; Britain just uses the title of ‘Dr’).
However, we’ve been in the vaccine harms debate for well over a decade, and we know all the misleading, data massaging techniques pharmaceutical shills will use to hide bad datasets.
Direct Citation Or Custom Made?
In this case, the graph they’re using to represent their claims is custom made, meaning it is extremely suspect to custom bias and manipulative interpretation. First port of call is to look directly at the figures to see if it confirms or denies their position.
You should check this in any debate, misinterpretation of statistics and hiding source material is a classic deception in a lot of industries.
First major red flag it does not confirm their views, is the fact they haven’t directly linked the source material (found here), and have instead buried it in small writing in an image that requires you manually type out the URL.
It’s a trick often used by the pharmaceutical industry to heavily discourage people from double-checking their claims by making it difficult to view source material. A type of ‘credentials harvesting’ where they want the credentials of the source material, but don’t want to be fact-checked on what it actually contains.
Second major red flag is the abuse of the made-up ‘person years’, which is used to obfuscate total death counts via some made-up speculative nonsense about possible years a person could have in order to completely bypass total death counts.
Not surprisingly, we found the figures aren’t favourable to their claims. If anything, it reinforces what The Daily Beagle said.
Downloading And Examining The Data
We downloaded the .XLSX file for “Deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2022 edition of this dataset” [sic] from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website, with the intention of extracting and then analysing the datasets.
We opened the file, filtered the results to ‘all causes’ for Cause of Death, excluded unvaccinated under Vaccination status, and also excluded ‘Ever vaccinated’ (a duplicate total of all other vaccine fields), then extracted the data and counted the total deaths for vaccinated. We got a whopping total of 531,118 all-cause deaths for vaccinated.
Then, from the original file, we filtered the results to ‘all causes’ under ‘Cause of Death’, selected only unvaccinated under ‘Vaccination status’, then extracted the data and counted the total deaths. We got a mere 109,891 deaths. This is roughly a 5 to 1 ratio: for every 5 vaccinated people dead, 1 unvaccinated person died.
You can view the document containing the extracted information we made here, or you can repeat the steps we used on the ONS dataset (directory is here, direct download link that may break due to government malfaesance here).
Direct Comparison Destroys Their Argument Too
Even without the total count, if we use the sheet that compares the ‘ever vaccinated’ to the unvaccinated groups, you can see the vaccinated groups skyrocket in total deaths:
The Trends Refute Their Claim Too
In graph form it looks like this:
It is worth noting that, unvaccinated death counts go down massively over time, but vaccinated death counts retain high peaks over two years. If vaccines reduced mortality, we would see the opposite, fewer deaths in vaccinated and high in unvaccinated.
A one-off 52k all-cause deaths that then goes on to decline contrasts sharply with the regular bursts of 20k and 30k deaths in vaccinated is alarming. Even the FDA back in 2021 was forced to admit that all-cause mortality was higher in the vaccinated group.
So the direct analysis agrees, and refutes the misleading ‘person-years’ data fudge employed by doctors who should really know better than to play fast and loose with the facts.
May Not Be Updated
ONS have not updated the figures since May 2022, despite death certificates continuing to roll in. Have they discontinued updating it because it makes the COVID-19 vaccines look bad?
Who knows, but it’ll be interesting to see what the Moderna shill’s reaction to this massive backfire will be.
Subscribe to The Daily Beagle to get more cutting edge content.
Learned something new? Share.
Thanks for this. I have also been following prof Fenton, Neil and Dr Craig.
I understand re the "person years" trope and the other ways the data has been misrepresented. Also that there SHOULD be a mortality benefit in the vaccd. ( also the population undercount of unvaccd, and the ridiculousness of stating that UNvaccd start to die MORE on jab rollout... that's obvious miscategorisation.
What about per 100k , we know about 20% of uk pop are unjabbed in actuality. and 80% therefore jabbed:
IF the jabs did.literally nothing, zip, zilch, nada...( and no this is NOT what I am seeing around me)...
but.. you said 1 : 5 ( 109, 891 : 531,118)
unjabbed : ever jabbed deaths,
is the maths:-
total= 6/6 ( around 600k died in all, 100k unjabbed plus the 500k jabbed)
ie 1/6 unjabbed, and 5/6 jabbed died...
ie roundabout 16.6% and 83%.
is this not almost the SAME proportion in each population ( jabbed population, roundabout 20% vs ever jabbed pop. the 80%).
it SEEMS to show it has very little effect?
albeit tipped slightly in favour of unjabbed re mortality.
if this were the case, oh if only this were the case...
Thanks for sharing.