BREAKING! COVID-19 vaccine counting window issues confirmed in government reports, and they won't/can't share the data
'Co-breaking' with Jason Olbourne of World Series News Underground TV
Long story short
This is pretty big. Estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness derived from NSW government COVID-19 reports are unreliable up to early 2022, with people who received the jab being lumped in together with the unvaccinated. Different definitions were later used, with no great recognition of the potential harm done regarding the former, so we sent off an FOI request to see if there really was a difference. The NSW government has decided not to fully answer our request, either because they don’t have the data ‘anymore’ or they have the data but don’t want to share.
Long story long
Aware of my medical journal articles, published alongside the likes of BMJ editor Peter Doshi, indicating that counting window issues (revolving around delays [someone is only considered vaccinated after some arbitrary time], biases [vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are treated differently], and misclassifications [people who took the vaccine are called unvaccinated]) in both the clinical trials and observational studies meant that the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines have likely been highly exaggerated (even to the extent that they may be negatively effective), Jason Olbourne of World Series News Underground TV reached out with an intriguing proposition. We ought to team up and find out if the government of New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state (and one of the most tyrannical during the pandemic), was also manipulating the data in this way. For example, were some of the ‘unvaccinated’ who died from COVID-19 actually people that took the jab? And, why were there COVID-19 deaths in the unjabbed in late 2022, but no hospitalisations?
We found that in NSW Health’s reporting on COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status, up to February of 2022, terms such as “two effective doses” and “no effective dose” are used, and had curious definitions (see pics below): “Cases reported as having received two effective doses have received their second vaccine dose at least 14 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19, and have not yet received an effective third dose. … Cases reported as no effective dose received their first dose of a two-dose vaccination course less than 21 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19, or have not received any vaccine dose.” Source. Bingo! Doshi was right. And Fung. And Jones. And Lataster (read all 4 JECP medical journal articles here). Anyone estimating vaccine effectiveness based on these reports are inadvertently (intentionally?) undercounting cases in the vaccinated, and overcounting cases in the unvaccinated (and hugely, given the relatively small size of the latter group). I smell a lawsuit or 50. Note: Even then, we unjabbed were doing quite well, especially when factoring for other exaggerations around COVID-19 hospitalisations/deaths, as well as the underreporting of COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects and deaths.
So what about after February 2022, until December 2022, when the reporting by vaccination status mysteriously stopped, possibly because the unjabbed seemed to be doing better over time (exactly what we’d expect to see with a dodgy product and even dodgier methods of measuring effectiveness), with 0% of the COVID hospitalisations by the end of it? Source & source. We did what any responsible citizen would do. Taking advantage of my being a researcher affiliated with the University of Sydney, we sent off an FOI request to NSW Health (it’s called GIPA here), the same people that fired me from my administrative role at a large children’s hospital for not submitting to their draconian and illogical COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which destroyed my life. Yay… Don’t worry, I’ve been suing them, and winning too. And I got to meet cool people like Dr Robert Malone, MEP Rob Roos, and Senator Ron Johnson along the way. After much delay, we got our answer.
Dated 17 September 2024, file ref GIPA24/161, doc ref G24/4092, NSW Health finally sought to address our simple and easy-to-answer question: “For your NSW COVID-19 WEEKLY DATA OVERVIEW report, Epidemiological weeks 51 and 52, ending 31 December 2022 (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf), you noted that for those who “have died with COVID-19… 6 had received no doses of a COVID-19 vaccine”. In earlier reports you used the term “no effective dose”, which includes both those who “have not received any vaccine dose” and those who “received their first dose of a two-dose vaccination course less than 21 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19 or arrival in Australia… How many of these 6 ’no dose’ COVID-19 deaths in the above report (https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf) had taken a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine but were considered as having had ‘no dose’ or ‘no effective dose’, perhaps because their dose was received a certain number of days before known exposure to COVID-19 or arrival in Australia?”
First, they acknowledged our description of their curious definitions of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’, which does indeed apply up to February 2022. Data manipulation confirmed. Then they stated that from March 2022 onwards, the new definitions meant that ‘no dose’ really means ‘no dose’ and ‘two doses’ really means ‘two doses’, regardless of date of vaccination - to no great fanfare; it would have been nice for some public acknowledgement that their previous approach might have led to huge exaggerations of vaccine effectiveness (and safety). Finally, they indicated that we’ll just have to trust them on this because they are not going to give us the data. That is not a typo. Despite the ethics around freedom of information and transparency, particularly regarding an experimental product that many were effectively forced to take, and despite already providing somewhat of a substantial answer, they bizarrely decided to not allow us to be fully satisfied with their ‘kinda answer’:
Health Protection NSW cannot recreate the reports / information as it was generated from live data collections that were updated on daily basis, including the below reasons:
There are no documents that currently exist containing this information.
There would be bespoke analysis required to meet the requirements of the request to create a record / provide a tailored data set.
To create a document with a tailored data set to answer the questions raised in the request would be a diversion of extremely limited, and already overstretched resources available to Health Protection NSW.
You can interpret it how you wish. We take it that they either have the data and simply refuse to share it with us, or arguably worse, they can’t as they don’t even have the data anymore - if they ever had it. Brings to mind the 75 years we were supposed to wait for the Pfizer data. Not to mention the leaked NIH/CDC/FDA emails indicating they were purposely avoiding answering questions, the ‘missing’ jab side effect data in Israel, and my (invited) submission being rejected by the Australian senate’s inquiry into excess mortality (around the same time a correlation was found between the jabs and excess mortality in Europe). It’s almost as if they don’t want us to know something, can’t quite figure out what…
At least they were kind enough to waive the totally not made-up $420 fee (are they high?) in good faith for all the ‘work’ they had to do or not do for this ‘answer’, so that’s something - though there was also an application fee that they didn’t refund. Asking related questions could easily see costs spiral into the thousands. ‘Freedom’ of information, huh? More like the freedom to pay a lot of money to receive no conclusive answers. This will be my last Australian FOI request for a while, until my case is finalised and/or someone with deep pockets actually decides to fund important stuff like this.
This is a great example of our tax dollars hard at work. Not to mention the trust we have to place in people that got so much wrong, and even outright lied to us - just recently the Australian state-funded national news outlet reportedly doctored video footage to make a former soldier look like a war criminal. Not to be outdone, the US government, who really don’t like ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’, went on some highly deceptive anti-vax (yes, that includes COVID-19 jabs) campaigns in Asia during the pandemic, with nary an apology to be found.
Okay then.
Extra: Gentle reminder that it’s not hard to figure out why Big Pharma, the mainstream media, and governments around the world work so tightly together in their endless campaigns of misinformation and outright disinformation. Financial data, which they freely provide for us, reveals that the same few wealthy elites pretty much own everything, even each other. And the Australian government is spot on. Source. As is Secretary Hillary Clinton. Let’s prosecute all these people guilty of spreading such dangerous misinformation and disinformation, starting with them and their buddies.
Update: Click here for Jason Olbourne’s thoughts on this, on X, and Rumble.
Update: Links added for Jason Olbourne’s thoughts on this.
EXCESS DEATHS AUSTRALIA — ALMOST NONE DURING 2020 AND 2021 DURING THE “HORRIBLE ‘DEADLY’ COVID EPIDEMIC” — THE HUGE SURGE IN 2022 HAS ABATED BUT EXCESS DEATHS ARE STILL OCCURRING — 117,643 DEAD — EQUAL TO MORE THAN 600 BOEING PLANE CRASHES
Share CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network
CALCULATIONS of EXCESS DEATH IN AUSTRALIA
EXCESS DEATH CALCULATIONS
HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN EXCESS OF STATISTICALLY EXPECTED DEATHS BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA = “EXCESS DEATHS”.
Deaths Data released by Australian Bureau of Statistics:
After the bulk of the Covid vaccination program was completed by end of 2021, “Deaths from All Causes” rose dramatically FROM THE END OF 2021 AND CONTINUING during 2022, as evidenced by official data releases from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
In 2020, there were 141,116 deaths in Australia from All Causes -- "in line with the baseline average" (as per ABS statement of fact in Reference) i.e. in line with historical data.
In 2021, there were 149,486 deaths in Australia from All Causes.
In 2022, there were 190,394 deaths in Australia from All Causes.
During those 3 years, cumulatively, there were only 17,816 deaths officially attributed to Covid by 31st December 2022 out of the All Cause Deaths Total of 480,996 -- which is only 3.7 % of the ALL CAUSE Death Totals.
The increase in Deaths From All Causes during the year of 2022 compared to 2021 was 40,908 deaths.
Those 40,908 EXTRA AND UNEXPECTED deaths in one year (2022) are equivalent to 215 Boeing 737- 400 passenger jets crashing in ONE year. (Passenger and Crew load of 190)
Causes of death are not presented for coroner-referred deaths (except for COVID-19) due to the time required to complete coronial investigations.
And Deaths officially attributed to Covid (by the ABS) are based upon Positive PCR Tests -- with an average Amplification Cycle Number of 40 – 45 (a very high number, many experts recommend 30 or less Cycles)
So – this means that many False Positive results may have been included as Covid deaths.
This means that many less people may have died from or with Covid than is claimed.
References:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/jan-dec-2020
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/jan-2020-dec-2021
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/jan-dec-2022
==============================================================
AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS SUMMARY OF COVID-19 MORTALITY
COVID-19 Mortality in Australia: Deaths registered until 31 January 2024
Released 27/02/2024
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-until-31-january-2024
Key statistics
21,827 of the 687,639 ALL CAUSES death registrations received by the ABS between March 2020 and January 2024 were of people who are OFFICIALLY ATTRIBUTED as died from or with COVID-19.
The underlying cause of death for 17,276 of these people was OFFICIALLY ATTRIBUTED to COVID-19.
There were a further 4,551 people who died of other causes (e.g. cancer) but COVID-19 is OFFICIALLY STATED TO HAVE contributed to their death.
3.17 % of the Total ALL CAUSES Deaths were attributed to Covid (died from or with)
2.5 % of the Total ALL CAUSES Deaths were attributed to Covid (died from)
2.5 % is not a "horrible pandemic of death".
The ABS stated that the Total Deaths from all Causes in 2020 was "in line with the baseline average" -- 141,116 deaths OVER 12 MONTHS, or 11,760 PER MONTH.
So, we can MULTIPLY that MONTHLY "baseline average" with the number of months from March 2020 to January 2024 inclusive (47 Months). The following Excess Deaths number can be calculated for that period.
687,639 – 552,720 (11,760/month x 47 Months)
ANSWER = 134,919 Excess Deaths (over that 47 month period)
We can then subtract the Number of Deaths attributed from Covid
134,919 – 17,276 = 117,643
ANSWER = 117,643 Excess Deaths (excluding Covid) over that 47 month period
That is 2,500 Excess Deaths from All Causes (exc Covid-19) PER MONTH
(And remember – that number does not include pending final reports on Coroner’s Case Deaths for that period)
The Melbourne Cricket Ground, (fully seated), could not hold all those bodies.
The number is equivalent to 619 Boeing 737-400 planes crashing with no survivors.
That is equal to 13 crashes PER MONTH for 47 months.
So --- WHAT DID THESE PEOPLE DIE FROM? (they did not die from Covid-19)
And – IT IS OBVIOUS WHEN this phenomenon BEGAN. Look at the chart BELOW — Deaths from All Causes Australia 2020 - 2024
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline?country=~AUS
World’s Top Vaccinologist Comes Clean: “We Lied About Vaccines Being Safe”
The rats are suddenly changing their tune. Longtime pro-jab apologist finally comes clean about the lack of science proving vaccine safety, that mRNA jabs are not safe for public consumption.
July 19, 2024
One of the world’s top vaccinologists has come clean and admitted that mRNA jabs are not safe for public consumption.
After decades of aggressively promoting the experimental jabs, Dr. Stanley Plotkin is finally admitting that vaccine safety has never been robustly studied as he has long claimed.
After decades of aggressively promoting vaccines of all kinds, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world's leading vaccinologist, is finally coming clean about the fact that vaccine safety has never been robustly studied as he has long claimed.
A paper he co-authored that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on July 6, 2024, reveals that no vaccine has ever been properly studied either before or after their release.
Aaron Siri tweeted a lengthy post about Plotkin's new paper in the NEJM, which admits that "prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations," as well as that "there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies."
Tuzara Post Newsletter
World’s Top Vaccinologist Comes Clean: “We Lied About Vaccines Being Safe”
By Ethan Huff July 19, 2024 One of the world’s top vaccinologists has come clean and admitted that mRNA jabs are not safe for public consumption. After decades of aggressively promoting the experimental jabs, Dr. Stanley Plotkin is finally admitting…
Read more
5 days ago · 1 like · Joe Tuzara, M.D. @TuzaraPost
AND JUST LIKE THAT, THE CLAIM VACCINES ARE THE WORLD’S BEST STUDIED PRODUCT DIES
The world’s leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and company have just capitulated…
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri
AND LIKE THAT, THE CLAIM VACCINES ARE THE WORLD’S BEST STUDIED PRODUCT DIES
Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite…
CMN News
Me: But 2023 and 2024 numbers have not been published yet.