The answer is simple: because the most influential health authorities are communicating to the public, both in words and in actions, the view that covid-19 ‘vaccines’ are “safe and effective” when the totality of available evidence suggests otherwise. Let me explain.

Shouting from the webpage of what is the world’s largest ‘health system’, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), is the following statement, in bold text, declaring the safety and effectiveness of covid-19 ‘vaccines’.

The following screengrab was taken today:

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), like so many others, parrots the same information, using bold text for emphasis in the new, lockstep tradition.

The following screen grab was also taken today:

It is widely acknowledged that the proportion of proven cases of injury from covid-19 vaccines is currently very small compared with the total number of doses administered. But this metric is not sufficient to declare a product as safe. After all, society seems quite happy to deem a children’s toy unsafe even if there is just a theoretical risk of injury – let alone a demonstrated one that has led to death or permanent injury.

The Oxford Dictionary tells us that a product that is safe is one that is “free from hurt or damage”. The Cambridge Dictionary offers a similar meaning: “not in danger or likely to be harmed.”  Obviously there are some harms that are inevitable and would be readily accepted by most who were being offered an injectable medicine, even saline. These minor harms include common reactions caused by the breach of the skin by the hypodermic needle or even the risk of fainting from “needle phobia”. Then there are nocebo responses that might include headache or fatigue.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. What’s much more relevant is the rapidly building evidence base that shows substantial differences in severe reactions between injecting a placebo and the real thing. Sadly and to confuse the wider picture – quite probably deliberately – some of the clinical trials have not been conducted with saline controls, but rather with other vaccines or with mixtures of adjuvants.

This aside, let’s look at two pieces of relatively recent evidence from available data that any court would likely find hard to ignore, that demonstrate the covid-19 ‘vaccines’ should not and cannot be regarded as safe based on clear-cut differences between treatment and placebo arm results.

Study 1: Haas et al, JAMA (January 2022)

The first is a comprehensive meta-analysis of 12 clinical trials published in January this year in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The study was led by Julia Haas from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and among the 8 author-strong team was senior author, Ted Kaptchuk, from Harvard Medical School. This is not a marginalised journal, nor a marginalised or discredited authorship.

The findings show a clear and pronounced, statistically significant elevation in severity and number of adverse events in those receiving the covid-19 vaccines (mRNA, adenoviral vector and protein subunit types), compared with those receiving controls – especially after the second of two doses included in the trials. That’s it – it should be GAME OVER for any claim that the covid-19 vaccines are “safe”.

A second study in a major high-impact journal should make it not just GAME OVER but a SLAM DUNK. Turns out there is at least one. In fact there are many more; I have simply been selective in providing two composite studies (meta-analyses) that in turn include many other studies.

Study 2: Fraiman et al, Vaccine (September 2022)

The authorship of the second study I’ve selected is equally star studded, including leading researchers from UCLA, Stanford and the University of Maryland, the latter including as its senior (last) author, Peter Doshi, also a senior editor at The BMJ. What these authors did was painfully tease apart available data from the phase 3 trials that Pfizer and Moderna used to gain their emergency use authorisations (EAUs).

The authors found a consistent trend for significantly greater risks for serious adverse events in the covid ‘vaccine’ arms compared with placebos, the risk ratios being between 1.36 and 1.57 times greater in the ‘vaccine’ arms for those adverse events defined as being of “special interest”. These include criteria developed specifically for covid-19 vaccines by the Brighton Collaboration, and have been agreed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The common clotting and heart health issues we see around us today were actually concealed in the the data reviewed by the likes of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) at time the EUAs were issued. They were just ignored by the regulators. That includes the coagulation disorders, acute cardiac injuries and the myocarditis/pericarditis issues that all jumped off the journal pages.

Joseph Fraiman and colleagues, the authors of the study, had difficulty getting to the bottom of the data in these trials given that both Pfizer and Moderna kept protocols secret and failed to make public individual participant data. They decided to publish the letter they sent to Albert Bourla and Stéphane Bancel, the respective CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna, in a Rapid Response to The BMJ in August, raising their concerns over non-transparency. We drew attention to this major problem in 2020, here and here.

Damning stuff – yet not even a squeak from the vaccine confidence brigade. Punch in (as I just have) ‘Doshi’ in the search bar of the Vaccine Confidence Project and you’ll find zero hits. Then follow this by plugging in ‘Offit’, as in Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also a long-term vaccine protagonist, albeit one who has been voicing caution over covid-19 vaccines to healthy youngsters. You’ll find multiple pages of hits when you use Offit’s name. Have they not worked out that it’s this kind of illogic and imbalance that adds to our lack of confidence?

What was concealed from view in the Phase 3 trials, is the disturbing picture of the spectrum of neurological injury that we are now witnessing from real world, population-wide roll-out that appear to be linked to covid-19 vaccines, albeit not commonly, but predictably uncommonly. Then there are suggestions of increasing cancer incidence, this inevitably clouded by cancer cases among those who didn’t receive standard care during the lockdowns as well as emerging evidence of natural killer and T cell exhaustion following repeat covid-19 ‘vaccination’.

Even more challenging will be deconstruction of the long-term complications caused by this new technology that will inevitably be delayed in time post-vaccination and become ever more difficult to unwrap as people get exposed to more shots while the virus continues to circulate and infect people. High on the watch list are fertility, autoimmune conditions and the smorgasbord of chronic, degenerative diseases associated with ageing populations, especially in industrialised countries.

Are covid-19 ‘vaccines’ unavoidably unsafe?

US courts established some 40 years ago (e.g. here and here) that traditional vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”. The precedent set the scene for vaccine makers to seek indemnity from governments, which would then make the vaccine makers immune from prosecution in the event of no-fault (i.e. non-negligent) injury. Compensation would then be available in cases where causation of vaccine injury could be proven. That was the theory.

Those of us who have been aware of these issues for many years know just how difficult it is to prove causation. But those who know it even better are the vaccine injured themselves as they often spend years, at huge personal cost, attempting to work their way on behalf of loved ones through the compensation schemes in different countries. More often than not they’re spat out of the process and left to contend with life-changing injuries without any state support.

Disturbingly, given that so many of us have now been exposed to the virus, it’s also easy for authorities to try disguising covid ‘vaccine’ harms under the general heading of ‘long covid’. In the UK alone, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates that as of 3 September 2022, 2.3 million people are “living in private households who are experiencing self-reported long COVID symptoms”.

Aside from the issue of conflating ‘vaccine’ and virus induced harms, the current data reported even by official sources are pointing to an emerging problem of an unprecedented scale. Official data associated with covid-19 shots in the USA, as reported by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as summarised on OpenVAERS.com, currently reveals:

• 59,127 permanently disabled
• 34,492 life threatening injuries
• 31,569 deaths
• 53,302 reported cases of myocarditis/pericarditis
• 180,915 hospitalisations

Let’s get some perspective on these figures using another very commonly and widely utilised technology: the motor car. The number of people who died in the USA from motor vehicle accidents, 40,698 in 2018, is in the same order as the VAERS figure for covid-19 vaccines. However, the VAERS figure is widely considered to be an underestimate of the real figure, with Pantazatos and Seligmann (2021) suggesting the reported number of adverse events might just represent 5% of the total.

But even if we stick to the official numbers, how can we consider covid ‘vaccines’ to be safe? We, as in society generally, do not consider motor vehicles to be intrinsically safe. They are intrinsically, or unavoidably, unsafe. That’s why society has seen fit to instigate a bunch of processes that aim to make them safer, from the design of the vehicles, to the licensing of drivers, to the creation of safer cars and roads, and of course the creation of laws, supported by human and robotic enforcement, that attempt to ensure safer (but not entirely safe) driving and road use.

The shots on the other hand are administered by people who say the products they are administering are safe, with no hint that they might lead to death or permanent injury, despite this being a real, albeit it low probability, consequence. There is no admittance that the manufacturers, like car manufacturers, should be pressured into making safer covid vaccines. It seems we’re meant to blindly accept what they’ve produced at breakneck speed – and just lump it (that means accepting and paying for injuries, given we, the taxpayers, fund the government indemnity programs).

It’s not just the relentless use of the word “safe” by authorities and so-called ‘health systems’ – it’s also their actions.

Right up there has to be the fact that they are deemed safe enough to administer to our most vulnerable, including babies as young as 6 months and pregnant women. Which pregnant woman or new mother gets to sign a consent form that asks her to accept possible harms or future fertility impacts on her unborn child or baby? None, it seems.

The effectiveness claim used in the mantra “safe and effective” is also dubious. But it’s tougher to argue against given the health authorities could say, as they have done, that they have elsewhere qualified what they mean. This would include suggesting that effectiveness is measured only over short durations such as 6 months or less, and it now refers to the protection against severe disease and death, not to the ability of the product to stop transmission from human to human (the usual intended purpose of vaccines). Accordingly, let’s not open this can of worms right now.

Cracks in the narrative

Amidst the bleak background of covid ‘vaccine’-induced harms is some light; light that’s breaking through the cracks in the narrative. The sands are now definitely shifting, with increasing numbers who were previously steadfast advocates of the unquestionable safety of covid-19 ‘vaccines’ doing U-turns. That’s mainly a function of the available science and the fact so many have either directly experienced adverse effects or know people close to them who have.

I sense that the authorities as well as the media and tech companies that are trying to control the message and side line dissent through censorship and manipulation of messaging using behavioural science, have underestimated the power of experience.

Let me give you a four important areas where these cracks are appearing.

The first is the science – and I’ve given you earlier in this article examples of two big studies in big journals by authors from big name institutions. That’s a far cry from early-mid 2021 when these signals could only be found in studies on preprint servers and occasionally in minor journals.

For good measure, an article in Science – one of the most influential scientific journals in the world – caught my eye when it was published some 10 days ago. It’s not a study but it’s an insight piece that provides a perspective on the elevated risk of myocarditis following covid-19 vaccination based on widely published data (i.e. it will inevitably underestimate risks). Included in the article are quotes from mainstream experts, including Paul Offit, who do not recommend boosters to children or healthy people under 65.

Also, the notion of previously undescribed post-vaccination syndrome linked specifically to covid-19 vaccines, as explained by Josef Finsterer from the Neurology and Neurophysiology Center in Vienna, Austria, is entering the mainstream medical community. Mainstream doctors often won’t have any idea of how to treat it having no pre-set pathway established by their health systems. But they’ve often seen too many cases that have been temporally associated with vaccination to continue to deny what they are observing.

The second area where cracks are appearing are among politicians. Take the latest All Party Parliamentary Group (AAPG) on Covid-19 Vaccine Damage that we have reported on separately today. And a stunning change in view is that of Danielle Smith, the 19th premier of Alberta, Canada, who only took office on 11 October.

Responding to a question from a journalist at Rebel News, Ms Smith replied, “I’m deeply sorry for anyone who was inappropriately subjected to discrimination as a result of their vaccination status. I am deeply sorry for any government employee who was fired from their job because of their vaccine status. I’d welcome them back if they wanted to come back.”

That’s a full 360 degree turnaround on premier Smith’s predecessor. You can see her full response at a press conference here.

A government data leak in Australia reported yesterday by Sky News Australia revealed the Australian government is budgeting for an 80-fold increase in covid-19 vaccine injury payments, to nearly $77 million for 2023. That will be mana to some politicians, no doubt.

A fourth area is the recognition of a corrupt or broken system by mainstream players. Take what America’s top litigator for vaccine injury cases has said about the prospects for covid-19 vaccine injury claims. In June 2021, Maglio told Reuters, not some local rag or even the Epoch Times, that “…the current system for handling COVID-related claims is different [from previous systems] – and not in a good way.”

There’s a statement on the website of Maglio’s law firm, Maglio Christopher & Toale, that is likely deeply disheartening to many victims of covid-19 ‘vaccine’ injury, “We have concluded that there is nothing our attorneys can do to help you in filing a claim in the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program”.

When both the top law firm dealing with the US ‘vaccine court’ and Reuters agree there is a ‘black hole’ for covid-19 vaccine injury claims, to use Reuters’ own words, that means the main players, not just those dishevelled conspiracy theorist types, recognise the system has been manipulated to work against the public interest. More to the point, to favour a protected class – the people who profit from making these new ‘vaccine’ technologies that are being trialled on humans as if they were experimental guinea pigs. While making it ever harder for those injured to be compensated for the damage that can be guaranteed to occur.

As disgusting as that is, it’s also just the stuff that causes people to say, you know what; I’m going to stop buying into the stuff those health authorities are feeding us, including the fact they’re claiming that covid-19 vaccines are safe. They wonder why we distrust governments and why politics in many countries has become something of a circus.

Last word – let’s go legal, but we need your support

Our sense is that the data are now more than strong enough to challenge the safety claims health authorities continue to make. I’ve discussed a limited number of studies in this article – but there is a battery of other data that could be brought to bear to further support the case against the misleading and deceitful safety claim made by health authorities.

Let’s remind ourselves that it has been the European requirement, supported by the European people and Parliament, to mandate the labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that has largely stopped GMO’s entering the human food chain in Europe. That contrasts with the US, where some 80% of processed foods sold by retailers are estimated to contain GMOs.

I’d argue that it’s the continued pronouncement by health authorities that covid-19 vaccines are safe that causes so many to continue to roll up their sleeves, in the mistaken belief that what they’re told must be true.

Preventing health authorities from doing this could save many lives going forward. We have been talking with various players in the UK and USA about a joint action either side of the Atlantic that aims to challenge this.

The only thing in the way of progressing this legal initiative is funding. We would dearly like to speak to anyone who might be able to provide significant funding towards a consortium of lawyers and scientists of which we are part, to take on this challenge. The first stage will be to identify the most appropriate, top-tier barristers, before going on to work with them to map out the grounds of challenge and gain an opinion.  We’re targeting an initial fundraise of £10,000 to achieve this first step.

Please email us at [email protected] (with the subject ‘covid challenge’) if you think you might be able to financially support such an initiative. This is a ‘low hanging fruit’ legal challenge we believe is waiting to be initiated. One that, if successful, would have a profound impact on reducing unnecessary harms to current and future generations.

© 2022 Alliance for Natural Health International. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The Alliance for Natural Health International.

Editor’s Note: It’s the jabs. With that said, this informative article looks at the jabs as well as other factors in play. But at the end of the day, it’s the jabs.

We have previously pointed to official data in 2021 that shows a temporal association between the apparent rises in “excess mortality” among different age groups and the time each was exposed to COVID-19 “genetic vaccines” (here and here).

These data were in plain sight in the public domain, being based on official data from the nearly 30 mainly European countries carried on the euroMOMO portal.

Now, a year on, it’s nigh on impossible to hide the fact that in many industrialized countries that went full swing into intense control measures, from lockdowns, masks, genetic surveillance and “genetic vaccines,” people are dying at unexpectedly high rates. The jabs or boosters may be a factor — but so may a bunch of other things, such as not gaining timely and proper medical attention, psychosocial stress and deprivation, along with a gamut of other potential co-factors.

The current apparent excesses in deaths over those that would have been expected is especially unusual given they have occurred during the northern hemisphere summer when deaths are normally at their lowest — and it is difficult to apportion blame to an invisible virus that on all accounts has lost virulence in its current guise.

According to The Guardian, even the U.K. Health Security Department argues summer heatwaves only explained around 7% of the excess mortality in July in England and Wales. We have to ask ourselves what’s really going on. Are the statistics tricking us, or is there something ominous going on that’s not being reported?

If the latter, how much effort is going into trying to unearth the causes of these deaths — and how many are, or could be, preventable?

From unadjusted mortality to excess mortality — the imperfect but perhaps best metric we have?

At Alliance for Health International, we’ve been tracking mortalities in different countries, especially “excess mortalities,” for the last two and half years (e.g. here and here).

For anyone who might need reminding, “excess deaths” is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes, beyond what we would have expected to see under “normal” (in this case the most recent pre-pandemic) conditions.

Straight all-cause mortality data is not a great metric on its own as it fails to take account of the population size (which is in turn affected by birth rate, death rate, immigration and emigration) or the age structure in a given country.

Countries with top-heavy age structures, like many industrialized ones, will have much higher expected mortality rates than those populated mainly by younger age groups, such as so-called “less developed countries.”

If a crisis, like COVID-19, causes women to give birth to fewer children (owing to the conditions of the crisis, impacts on fertility or any other cause), unadjusted mortality data per 100,000 population will appear to rise, but this apparent rise is a statistical artifact.

Factors like age, population size, ethnicity and socioeconomic status can of course be standardized or adjusted for, but you still don’t get a broad picture of what’s going on at a population, national or international scale, because your adjustments have forced you into looking at specific segments of the population.

Excess mortality is widely recognized as one of the most important markers of crisis-related changes in mortality.

This is because it compares mortalities for a given population size and structure in the crisis against those that would be expected in the same country derived usually from the average of the most recent few (often 5) non-crisis years.

The fact that this metric doesn’t get affected by things like how or why COVID-19 deaths are recorded on death certificates, and it is specific to the particular demographics and age structure of the country in question, has led to it becoming widely regarded as a robust marker — even a gold standard — for assessing the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

If only it were that simple. Different countries report their own data at different frequencies — or not at all. Different groups of researchers also use different statistical methods and parameters to derive excess mortality, these often not being reported in sufficient detail to really understand how they’ve come up with their numbers.

Thus failing in the important scientific reporting principle that says that other scientists should be able to reproduce the same results with the same data.

Something that particularly bugs me is that those reporting excess mortality fail to explain exactly where and how they sourced their non-crisis comparator data.

As German scientists Christof Kuhbandner and Matthias Reitzner rightly indicate in their recent preprint study of excess deaths in Germany between 2020 and 2022 (discussed below):

“While the number of observed all-cause deaths is a fixed and clearly defined number, the estimation of the usually expected deaths is relatively complex and entails several choices of mathematical models and parameters and which can lead to large differences in the estimated values.”

Totality of evidence

So, like all statistics, excess mortality data may still mislead.

But before we throw this metric in the nearest recycling bin, let’s pay homage to another scientific principle — that is, especially when uncertainty abounds (yip, that’s us on this issue, folks), reserving any conclusions until the totality of available evidence has been assessed.

This, in essence, means not cherry-picking your data, and instead, looking at all plausible data and analysis, interpreting it and only then drawing conclusions from it. This is why I implied earlier that it’s now becoming very difficult to hide the fact that something ominous is going on with all-cause or excess mortality.

We know now from multiple sources of official data from different countries that COVID-19-related deaths aren’t much of an issue at present, such as the lack of virulence of the circulating Omicron strains (something that might change given the selection pressure that is likely to ensue as more people opt for “genetic vaccination” this autumn).

Bear in mind, even these “COVID-19 deaths” (as tracked globally through Our World in Data, see Fig. 1) have often substantially overestimated deaths because COVID-19 was in the majority of occasions not found to be the primary cause of death.

Rather, it was only associated with deaths, having been determined by way of a flawed PCR test within, say, one month of death.

Yes, someone killed in a motorcycle accident who died 27 days after having received a false positive COVID-19 antigen test would be down in the official record as a “COVID-19 death.”

Multiple sources, all pointing to an unexpected rise in deaths in 2022

The following are five important sources that include country-specific, region-specific and global data that most reputable scientists (an ever more tricky characterization), I believe, would regard as being of high quality, and approaching the “totality of evidence” threshold, that we think paint a fairly complete picture of the excess death paradox we currently face.

1. Excess mortality data for England, from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (U.K.)

The first thing to note is the relative increase in excess mortality over the three successive summers (Fig. 2).

More than this, when you explore the data from this Office for Health Improvement and Disparities source, you find that some of the biggest excesses compared with expected deaths have occurred in the two youngest age groups, ages 0 to 24 years and 25 to 49.

Not only that, there are few differences in death according to the level of deprivation, which might have been caused by inadequate or poor quality diets or lifestyle effects.

Ethnicities also had an influence with white and mixed ethnicities being most impacted, while black and Asian ethnicities, were least affected.

This pattern, whether or not it is coincidental, follows the pattern of COVID-19 “vaccine” uptake — Johnson’s government pushing hard but ineffectually to get black and Asian ethnicities to be less “hesitant.”

There were also some differences in region, and it’s of interest that low COVID-19 “vaccine” uptake and highly polluted London had the lowest excess mortality of any of the regions.

2. Excess mortality from Germany, 2020-2022

In their ResearchGate preprint analyzing excess mortality in Germany between 2020 and 2022, Christof Kuhbandner (University of Regensburg) and Matthias Reitzner (University of Osnabrück) have applied actuarial science to get to the bottom of the excess mortality figures in Germany.

Long and short of it — with different, interesting and transparent methodology — here are some of the top line findings:

• In 2020 there was no apparent significant excess mortality.
• Excess mortality started rising as of April 2021 for reasons other than COVID-19 caused or associated mortality.
• Nearly all of these excess deaths were in the age groups between 15 and 79 — hence not including the oldest most frail members of society that have historically been shown to be the most likely to succumb to respiratory infections.

3. EuroMOMO — regional excess mortality data mainly from Europe

Readers and supporters of Alliance for Health International have been led by us so often to the euroMOMO website.

That’s the deal — we have to keep looking as every time we look, we get to see a snapshot in time. We only start to get a more complete picture of what’s going on when we see all the snapshots together in our “COVID Crisis Album.”

The excess mortality in the youngest age group across all 28 euroMOMO countries/regionscontinues for 2022 and is deeply disturbing as it includes the youngest and most vulnerable in society between the ages of 0 and 14 years.

But there is a noticeable trend for excesses that have occurred at a time when Omicron has caused little in the way of mortality, in a number of countries.

Let’s look at these data in two ways via the graphs and maps section of the euroMOMO website.

Firstly, scroll down to the “Map of z-scores by country” (z-scores being the specific excess mortality used by euroMOMO based on a published method), and then move the time slider to see the most recent few weeks over the summer of 2022.

“Houston…”, or should I say, “… Ursula von der Leyen, we have a problem, even if you don’t want to talk about it.”

Following (Fig. 3) is a screen grab from a single time point of week 29 (third week of July) where you can see high excess mortalities in England, France, Germany and Italy, with very high excesses in Spain.

As noted earlier, this cannot just be a heatwave effect.

Secondly, check out the age data under the Excess mortality heading (Fig. 4). You’ll see marked excesses in both the 0-14 and 15-44 age groups in 2022, ones that were comparatively affected by the initial pandemic waves in 2020.

This is particularly disturbing as the effect is not even diluted by those countries that didn’t have serious COVID-19 burdens (e.g. much of Scandinavia).

You can even look at it in a third way, via the country graphs at the base of the page, which will show you the upticks we saw via the “Map of z-scores by country.”

4. Our world in data — national and global excess mortality data

I’ve long been bemused that excess mortality — this very robust statistic, sits at the end of all the various statistics that Our World in Data, supported by Johns Hopkins and the Gates Foundation, have assembled in the “data explorer” segment for under the “coronavirus” heading for our viewing pleasure.

I’m also interested that the default countries of late have been three countries the official data from which don’t show significant excess mortality at present, namely Russia, Mexico and South Africa.

Lo and behold, when we add a few more countries in — some that we’ve talked about above, we see the same trend in rising excess mortalities (Fig. 5).

5. The Economist machine learning algorithm for national and global excess mortality data

The final data source I’m going to touch on is the excess mortality data being churned out of the state-of-the-art, machine learning algorithm developed by The Economist.

The unique methodology used factors in over 100 variables, it teases out those that don’t have much influence, it estimates data from similar countries, regions and demographics where data are missing and appears to try pretty hard to give us as complete a picture that available data and science-based estimates allow.

The first thing to notice about The Economist’s tracker is that excess deaths during the pandemic period are way higher than the official deaths.

The official death toll is currently cited as 6.5 million — the Economist’s algorithms roughly triple this, suggesting a more likely, actual death toll of between 16 and 27.2 million.

It seems likely that if these estimates are more realistic, many of them won’t be directly attributable to a virus.

Estimated cumulative deaths globally deliver something of a pessimistic picture, with many parts of the world from the U.S., most of South America, Russia, Eastern Europe, Italy, Greece, India and South Africa all experiencing considerably more deaths than would have been expected in the absence of a pandemic and measures deployed ostensibly to protect public health (Fig. 6).

This cumulative perspective, of course, doesn’t show us what’s going on now.

Here (see rectangle highlighting “Northern summer 2022” in Fig. 7) we can see the previously discussed pattern of excess mortalities, within the 0-25% excess range, for many (not all) countries, regardless of them being northern or southern hemisphere, especially those with more complete data sets (Fig. 7).

When comparing excess mortalities of the northern summer of 2022 with those of 2021 and 2020, we see the more expected patterns that have been widely associated with discrete, somewhat seasonal waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection hitting countries at different times.

The southern hemisphere appeared to be affected to a greater extent during its own winter, which corresponded to the northern hemisphere summer.

This trend appears to have dissipated by the summer of 2022, but rather than returning to baseline, pre-pandemic mortalities in line with the recent loss of SARS-CoV-2 virulence, significant excess mortality is still noted, irrespective of hemisphere.

What’s killing people?

“They” — including the mainstream science and medical establishment, governments and much of the media — are largely mute on trying to unpick what’s going on.

When they do recognize the paradox of excess mortalities now that the pandemic is viewed by most as largely over or in a temporary lull prior to another assault this northern hemisphere Autumn, the one consistent thing you find is the lack of any mention of the possible role of those infernal “genetic vaccines.”

This shouldn’t be a surprise given the extraordinary suppression of information on the scientific discourse around these gene-altering products, as reported by Ety Elisha, Josh Guetzkow and colleagues in the peer-reviewed journal HEC Forum that has been informed by the forcibly released Pfizer data that reveals just how much the regulators knew about lack of effectiveness and significant harms when they issued emergency authorization in 2020.

Among those acknowledging excess mortalities, Professor Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, is typical in her inability to consider the “vaccines” as a possible determinant in the current rise in deaths.

In a recent article in the Gates-funded Guardian newspaper, COVID-19 still held the limelight as a key determinant, despite little in the way of supporting evidence.

In professor Sridhar’s own words:

“It’s likely to be a mix of factors: COVID is making us sicker and more vulnerable to other diseases (research suggests it may contribute to delayed heart attacks, strokes, and dementia); an aging population; an extremely hot summer; and an overloaded health service meaning that people are dying from lack of timely medical care.”

What’s the real mix of contributory factors?

Honestly? We don’t know! But we could add a few additional points to Prof Sridhar’s list that might be worth looking into, should any researchers be interested (but who will fund them?):

• Suicides.
• Loneliness.
• Depression and anxiety.
• Lack of purpose or meaning in life.
• Inappropriate diets.
• Inappropriate lifestyle.
• Breakdown in social relationships.
• Lack of timely access to effective healthcare services.
• Lack of early diagnosis of serious, life-threatening conditions or diseases.
• Short, medium and longer-term harms of “genetic vaccines.”
• Increased autoimmune diseases triggered by “genetic vaccines.”
• Increased infectious disease prevalence from compromised immunity from social isolation and “genetic vaccines.”
• Enhancement of chronic diseases by dysregulated immune system and persistent systemic inflammation, triggered by repeated exposure to COVID-19 “genetic vaccines.”
• Sub-optimal treatment of COVID-19 disease (e.g. remdesivir).
• Failure to implement effective early treatment (e.g. as per FLCCC [Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance] protocols).
• Inappropriate use of mechanical ventilators.
• Unwarranted placement of DNR (“do not resuscitate”) notices on care home residents.
• Unjustified use of powerful sedatives (e.g. midazolam) known to contribute to deaths in nursing homes.

Even this is a partial list, supplementary to that of Prof Sridhar.

However, in light of what we know now about COVID-19 “genetic vaccine” harms, their omission as potential contributors to the clearly evident excess mortalities in many countries is a grave — and likely deliberate — scientific oversight.

An oversight that is likely killing and injuring people, unnecessarily.

Society normally has ways of dealing with deliberate oversights of this nature, through the courts and penal system.

Maybe that’s still to come?

If there’s one feeling I have about any retribution, it is that in the years to come, this omission and violation of human rights and human life will be seen for what it is by the majority, not just a growing minority.

This article was published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website, via the Alliance for Natural Health International.