In a nice bit of synergy with another article on Covid on these pages (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=23859) a new study has been released which shows that the Covid Vaccine is responsible for significant numbers of deaths.

The study is here... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09246479261426743

Its long been recognised that many countries are showing increased excess deaths and there have been arguments high and low as to the causes.

This new study has lobbed a bomb into the camp that thought the excess deaths were caused by covid. To (overly) summarise, they looked at Australia's smaller states (NT, WA SA) where covid didn't take a hold until much later than the rest of the world and AFTER the vaccine was available. Their study showed that the causes of the excess deaths in these regions couldn't have been due to covid but was likely caused by the administering of the covid vaccines.

"Findings
I found that in 4 of Australia’s 8 major regions excess mortality was present, correlating with rapid and thorough COVID-19 vaccination programs, before mass exposure to COVID-19, and in the absence of lengthy and highly restrictive lockdowns.

Conclusions
Combined with increasing evidence that the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines have been greatly exaggerated, including acknowledgements from the Australian and American governments that several deaths have been caused by the vaccines, these findings make it a near-certainty that COVID-19 vaccines have been – and continue to be – contributing to excess mortality."

The vast majority of the Australian population was forced to get vaccine with assurances that was safe and stopped the spread of the virus. All of that was a lie.

The paper is behind a paywall, mhaze.

Only the abstract is publicly available. The abstract asserts causation. It does not demonstrate it.

So a simple question:

Does the study provide individual-level mortality linkage between vaccination status and deaths?

If not, then it’s an ecological correlation analysis. And ecological correlations cannot establish causation.

If it does, quote the section where that linkage is shown.

The study works on population statics. It shows correlations across the populations of the studied regions, not individual death certificates.

This is standard practice among epidemiologists and has been for decades. Only those who work on the basis of 'I don't want it to be true therefore it isn't true' would suggest otherwise.

For the slow, the logic goes like this:

* a population is protected by circumstances from the dreaded virus.
* nonetheless said population is required to take the vaccine to 'protect' them from the dreaded virus.
* suddenly said population starts to see increases in excess deaths AFTER the vaccine but BEFORE the virus spreads.
*other possible causes for the increase in excess deaths are examined and rejected as causes.
*conclusion - the vaccine was the primary reason for the increase in excess deaths.

This is only of interest since it is Australian based. Multiple other studies around the world have reached similar conclusions although without the benefit of the natural control groups presented by the smaller Australian regions.

Of course, those who fell for the vaccine mantra will never allow themselves to believe that they were duped.

mhaze,

Ecological studies are legitimate tools. They are not definitive proof of causation. That limitation is standard epidemiological doctrine, not denial.

Calling WA and NT "natural controls" assumes structural comparability. Were age structure, baseline mortality, healthcare disruption and demographic differences fully controlled? If not, the control claim is overstated.

The timing argument also requires precision. What is the exact temporal separation between vaccination rollout and measurable infection waves? And what biological mechanism explains sustained population-level mortality increases months after vaccination?

Finally, if vaccines were the primary driver of excess mortality, we would expect a consistent international pattern where higher vaccination correlates with higher excess deaths. That pattern does not consistently hold.

If you believe the study eliminates alternative causes, point to the section where those controls are robustly modelled.

Hypothesis generation is not the same as causal proof.

//...those who fell for the vaccine mantra will never allow themselves to believe that they were duped.//

You would need to show that they were, first. You haven't done that yet.

More of JDs "this is stuff I don't know about therefore its wrong".

" we would expect a consistent international pattern where higher vaccination correlates with higher excess deaths. That pattern does not consistently hold."

We see it, just not as starkly as the current study due to potential confounding factors. Show examples where its doesn't hold.

"More", mhaze?

//More of JDs "this is stuff I don't know about therefore its wrong".//

I need to have done that at least once before you can get to "more". I know, I know... it just theatrics, but it would land better if it were accurate.

Anyway, Portugal (very high vaccination) had lower excess mortality than several lower-vaccinated Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria.

Bulgaria had among the lowest vaccination uptake in the EU and among the highest excess mortality.

If vaccines were a primary driver of excess mortality, that pattern should not occur.

Similarly, Japan and Canada - both highly vaccinated - did not show sustained mortality spikes temporally aligned with initial vaccine rollout independent of infection waves.

You say "we see it." The cross-country OECD pattern does not show a consistent positive correlation between vaccination rates and excess mortality.

If the signal only appears after selectively controlling away confounders in certain regions but not others, that weakens the universality of the claim.

So again: where is the consistent international pattern?

Trumpster,

As an anti-vaxxer sovereign citizen, your whole argument, without world wide statistics, seems a load of crap! Whey didn't you follow the Dangerous Doctor Donald's advice at the time, and drink Pine-O-Clean? I know you didn't because you are still here, how disloyal of you. It is estimated that more than 100 people in the US died from taking the advice of DDD and swigging on diso, you not being one.

Japan vaccination rates were over 80% for the first dose.
Japan excess death rates were 7.55% (2022), 5.7% (2023 and 2024)

Canada vaccination rates were over 83% for the first dose.
Canada excess death rates were 13.5% (2022), 5% (2023).

I couldn't be bothered checking the rest of your claims...Bulgaria and Portugal!!

________________________________________________________________________

"your whole argument.....seems a load of crap!"

Well not my argument. I was merely passing on the scientific findings. Paul's a big believer in following the science, so long as it tells him what he wants to hear.

" It is estimated that more than 100 people in the US died from taking the advice of DDD and swigging on diso"

There are two types of statistics... those you look up and those you make up. Looking up facts is difficult for Paul since he's not sure what a fact its, so all of his statistics are made up.

mhaze,

You’re just listing vaccination rates next to excess mortality and implying that proves something.

Japan and Canada both had big Omicron waves in 2022-23. Excess deaths during infection waves don’t automatically become vaccine deaths.

The question isn’t "did a vaccinated country have excess mortality?" Most countries did. The question is whether highly vaccinated countries consistently had more excess mortality than lower-vaccinated ones.

That pattern isn’t clear at all.

Bulgaria had low vaccination and very high excess mortality. Portugal had very high vaccination and lower excess mortality than a number of lower-vaccinated Eastern European states.

If vaccines were the primary driver, you’d expect that relationship to show up more cleanly across countries.

So where’s the broader cross-country analysis showing that higher vaccination independently predicts higher excess deaths once infection waves are accounted for?

Just lining numbers up side-by-side doesn’t establish that.

Trumpster/Anti Vaxxer/Sovereign Citizen

Your title is growing. That is a reasonable question from John;
What is the relationship between vaccination rates and mortality rates?

The stats for Australia show the mortality rate for those vaccinated (3 does) was substantially lower than for the un-vaccinated, particularly amongst people over 60

"Just lining numbers up side-by-side doesn’t establish that."

Nor does declaring the figures from random nations are significant and then retreating with alacrity when the actual figures are revealed.

______________________________________________________________________

Paul,
you should consider applying for the Paralympics given the speed you showed in running away from your 'detergent' fabrications.

There's no retreat here, mhaze.

Japan and Canada having excess mortality doesn't demonstrate vaccine causation. Most countries had excess mortality during major infection waves.

The test isn't "did a vaccinated country have excess deaths?" The test is whether higher vaccination predicts higher excess mortality once infection waves and demographics are accounted for.

If vaccines were a primary driver, we should see a consistent positive relationship across countries. Not isolated examples, and not numbers presented without context.

So the question still stands: where is the cross-country analysis showing vaccination rate independently predicts excess mortality?

That's not retreating. It's asking for the evidence required to support the scale of the claim.

Let's recap, mhaze.

You've acknowledged the study is ecological - population-level trends, no linkage between vaccination status and individual deaths.

That matters. Ecological studies can suggest patterns. They don't, by themselves, establish individual-level causation. That's not denialism. It's a standard limitation.

Your logic is:

1. Low COVID circulation
2. Vaccination increased
3. Excess deaths increased
4. Therefore vaccines caused the deaths

That's a temporal sequence. It isn't causal identification.

To move from "after" to "because", you need more than saying other causes were "examined and rejected". You need modelling that actually controls for:

- Age structure shifts (small regions can swing with small absolute changes)
- Healthcare disruption and delayed treatment
- Cause-of-death composition
- Baseline mortality trends
- Precise timing between rollout, outbreaks and reporting lags

Otherwise "natural control group" is a description, not a design.

On the international point: listing vaccination rates next to excess mortality doesn't demonstrate a consistent relationship. The claim you're making requires that higher vaccination independently predicts higher excess mortality once infection waves and demographics are accounted for.

Where is that analysis?

If the conclusion is "near-certainty", there should be a clearly articulated identification strategy - not just temporal alignment.

So again: which part of the paper provides the causal framework strong enough to justify that level of confidence?

An update…

I've managed to get hold of a follow-up piece from the same author responding to criticisms of his paper that mhaze cited.

What's interesting is the difference in language.

As mhaze had quoted, the abstract of the original paper uses the phrase "near-certainty" that vaccines have contributed to excess mortality.

In the follow-up response, however, the framing is noticeably softer. The author explicitly acknowledges that correlation does not prove causation and describes the vaccine contribution as "plausible" and warranting further investigation.

That's a meaningful shift in evidentiary tone.

The underlying method remains ecological - population-level correlation without individual-level linkage. Ecological studies can suggest associations. They don't, on their own, justify "near-certainty".

So the question becomes: what in the methodology bridges the gap between "plausible association" and "near-certainty"?

If that bridge exists, it should be clearly identifiable.

Correction on chronology:

The Bulgarian Medicine response I referenced is from 2024, so it predates the 2026 Sage paper mhaze cited.

That’s my error on sequencing.

The substantive point still stands, though. In the author’s earlier published discussion of this line of research, he explicitly acknowledges that correlation does not prove causation and frames vaccine contribution as plausible.

The 2026 abstract’s use of “near-certainty” is therefore a strengthening of language relative to earlier framing.

So the question remains: what methodological development between the earlier correlation work and the 2026 paper justifies that escalation in evidentiary confidence?

Like everything else the extremist Trumpster/Anti Vaxxer/Sovereign Citizen believes in conspiracy theories, one being, Covid vaccination and Covid itself were a communist plot to take over the world. The truth is Covid was a deadly respiratory infection, and the vaccines, hastily developed, saved million of lives. It probably saved mhaze!

"Paul, you should consider applying for the Paralympics given the speed you showed in running away from your 'detergent' fabrications."

Paul from his last post is still running. Marathon man. But he can't far or fast enough to hide from the fables he makes up.

Hi mhaze,
I guess the question you're asking is whether the vaccine did more harm than good.

Risks of harm caused by vaccine V's Risks of harm from Covid prevented by vaccine.
- It may have depended on the individual, their age and level of immunity.

As you know I did not take the vaccine or the boosters.
I made it clear I did not want Covid, and I did not want the vaccine either.
I did eventually get Covid though, twice I think.

My position was basically that people should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want the vaccine, and be free from discrimination.
But with that, comes a higher responsibility to protect yourself and others so I wasn't all that opposed to the mask mandates, though I'm not sure how well the masks actually worked.
Thankfully we only had lockdowns for very short periods in Brisbane.

I was totally opposed to the vaccines myself and openly shared that view, but I also thought it was understandable if an older Australians with a lower immunity were less worried about the vaccine than they were about the coronavirus.

I thought and hoped I was still young / healthy enough to survive Covid, so thought the vaccine was an unnecessary added risk with too many unknowns.

People were not treated with respect or dignity, it was all about vaccine rates and targets, reaching herd immunity, coercion including blaming the unvaccinated like they were putting everyone else at risk and there was not a balance between respecting peoples own choices and protecting the population.

I imagine it would've been a totally different experience being in full lockdown for months on end.

"That’s my error on sequencing. The substantive point still stands, though."

Oh, so the facts change but the conclusions don't? Words fail me.

AC,

There is little doubt that the vaccine was efficacious in reducing the severity of the disease if someone caught it. But it didn't stop that someone from passing the disease around; probably didn't even reduce the likelihood that they'd pass it on.

The problem with the vaccine is that it wasn't entirely safe, despite what they originally told us. Giving it to people who were genuinely at risk from the virus was correct on a cost-benefit basis ie the benefit of having it was greater than the potential costs of it being unsafe.

But that was reversed for the majority of the population. Basically anyone under 60 who was in reasonable health was safe from the virus even if they caught it. It wasn't going to kill them. But the vaccine might. This was especially the case for children unless they had significant underlying health issue.

That is why the targeted lockdown policies of places like Sweden were the right call. Sequester the truly vulnerable while the rest of the population developed a societal herd immunity.

"I did not take the vaccine or the boosters."

Personally I had the shot and one booster. Not because I believed in it but because, at the time, I had my two parents in lockdown facilities (one in hospital, one in a nursing home) and couldn't get into to see them without the vaccine certificate. So love of parents overrode fear of the vaccine. Additionally I had a wife who was recovering from chemo and was therefore immuno-compromised and as such we created our own lockdown. She spent eight months without ever coming into contact with anyone but me.

I never caught the virus, one of the 20% of people who never did.

"That is why the targeted lockdown policies of places like Sweden were the right call. Sequester the truly vulnerable while the rest of the population developed a societal herd immunity."

Yes that's true, they focussed too much on vaccination targets when they should've been focusing on a plan to protect the vulnerable in a way that bought time to manage the situation better.

And I only just thought of it now, but I wonder maybe instead of ensuring health workers were vaccinated, maybe just as important was to have the people looking after the elderly and vulnerable be health care workers who had already caught Covid and had developed some natural immunity.

"Personally I had the shot and one booster. Not because I believed in it but because, at the time, I had my two parents in lockdown facilities (one in hospital, one in a nursing home) and couldn't get into to see them without the vaccine certificate. So love of parents overrode fear of the vaccine."

No-one can criticise you for willfully putting yourself at risk of harm to be there for elderly parents.
It's kind-of unfair you were forced to make that choice.
Many people were coerced into jabbing their kids, and some ended up with side effects, I'd hate to be a parent that carries that guilt.

No, mhaze, the chronology changed. The methodological point did not.

The Bulgarian Medicine piece predates the 2026 paper. That was my sequencing error.

But whether the author used cautious language in 2024 or stronger language in 2026, the evidentiary question is the same:

What in the 2026 methodology justifies moving from ecological correlation to “near-certainty”?

Correcting a date doesn’t alter the standard of evidence required for that conclusion.

If you believe it does, explain how.

"I never caught the virus, one of the 20% of people who never did."
- Well you definitely didn't need the shots then.
You must have some kind of natural super-immunity, I wonder why that is and whether they should've been studying people like yourself.

They came out with the vaccine too quick and they hadn't even sequenced the virus properly yet at the time I think, then I looked up and saw that it was actually an experimental gene therapy not a vaccine per se, and it just didn't feel right to me.
Especially since I felt like the WHO was too slow in labeling it a pandemic and it had already spread to many countries.
Denying people ivermectin.

Also I already knew about the lab closures at Fort Detrick, as well as the nursing home deaths in Maryland, the reports of this unknown suspicious respiratory condition linked to vaping, and on top of that, Event 201.

Interestingly, Garland mentioned some of these things a couple weeks back..

With all the stuff I'd heard already before it really took hold here in Australia, I was just too suss on the whole thing, and I didn't buy into the Chinese 'wet market' story either.

There were just too many red flags, and my internal bs detector was sounding off an alarm to not trust it.

- tempted to listen to it again..

COVID ORIGINS - SOME VERY INTERESTING EVIDENCE
http://www.youtube.com/live/JxJ1UXfd6as

AC,

I get that you were piecing things together early on. But the problem with the "too many red flags" approach is that it turns a pile of separate events into a single storyline.

Fort Detrick. Vaping illness. Event 201. WHO timing. Lab safety questions. That's not evidence of coordination, it's pattern-stacking.

Event 201 was a pandemic exercise. Governments run those all the time. Running a bushfire drill doesn't mean you lit the match.

The vaping cases were traced to vitamin E acetate in black-market THC cartridges. That was established pretty clearly.

And the genome was published in January 2020. That's how vaccine design started so quickly. mRNA tech wasn't invented overnight either. It had been in development for years.

Distrust is fine. But suspicion isn't proof.

Which of those things do you think actually demonstrates coordination, rather than coincidence?

You still haven't answered the all-important question, mhaze:

Which part of the paper provides the causal framework strong enough to justify that level of confidence?

Hi John,
Sorry for the slow response, I only just saw this.
Did you watch the video I shared, by chance?
It has a number of other points I haven't mentioned, and Garland does a way better job than me selling his opinions, and I - well at the very least acknowledge his arguments and line of thinking.

I acknowledge your 'holding feet to the fire' approach to facts.
I know there's a difference between 'proven fact' and 'working theory'.

As I can say right now is the whole thing never smelled right to me.
It just smelled like bs.

And I know that doesn't give your fact-oriented analytical mind much to go with...

Maybe for you things organise better into black and white.
Maybe I pay more attention than others of the grey in between.
I don't know.

Apologies for the delayed response, AC.

I finally got around to watching the entire video, and I can see why it feels compelling. It's structured around a timeline. "This happened, then this, then this" is a format that always feels persuasive.

But here's the issue, proximity in time isn't causation:

- Fort Detrick failing an inspection doesn't equal a leak.
- A summer respiratory outbreak in a retirement home isn't unusual.
- The vaping lung injuries were traced to vitamin E acetate in illicit THC cartridges. That investigation didn't just vanish. It concluded.

The September 2019 executive order wasn't some secret Covid starter pistol. It was about influenza vaccine manufacturing. Influenza pandemics happen. 1918. 1957. 1968. 2009. Governments plan for the next one because history says there will be a next one. The word "pandemic" appearing in a flu preparedness document isn't weird. It would be weird if it didn't.

As for Event 201, SARS happened in 2003, MERS in 2012 - both were coronaviruses. So it would actually be strange if you ran a pandemic simulation in 2019 and you don't model it on a coronavirus. There was no prophecy, it was simply a case of picking a plausible category of pathogen.

The video's strength isn't evidence. It's sequencing. It walks you through events in a way that creates narrative gravity.

But "this happened near this" isn't proof that one caused the other.

And I don't think this is about black and white vs grey. I think it's about the difference between:

- things that feel suspicious
and
- things that meet evidentiary thresholds.

You're right, instinct doesn't give me much to go on. But instinct alone can't carry the claim either.

so called vxx rollout killed and maimed thousands in this country. tga, aphra and public health showed themselves to be criminals. So sad they cancelled doctors who stood for truth. Personally, I witnessed death, strokes and numerous other auto immune diseases as a direct result of so called vxx. Interesting that less than 10% of doctors are taking boosters. Even Karl Stefanovic and other pharma harlots have apologised. I wonder how ex ama's lesbian partner is getting on? So glad I refused the poison. How embarrassing for the harlots still trying to justify this evil.

That's a lot of accusation there, runner, but not much evidence.

"Personally I witnessed…" doesn't get you where you want to go. In a country that gave out tens of millions of doses, people were always going to have strokes, heart attacks, cancers and autoimmune diagnoses afterwards. That's just what happens in large populations every day. The real question is whether those events happened more often than you'd normally expect after vaccination.

That's why people look at linked vaccination, hospital and mortality data, not just stories and impressions. And when those population-level analyses are done, the same pattern keeps turning up: during COVID waves, mortality was higher among the unvaccinated, especially in older groups.

None of that means vaccines were risk-free. They weren't. No medical intervention is. But "I saw bad things happen" is a long way from "thousands were killed."

If that's really the claim, then where's the clear signal in the Australian mortality data after the rollout?

John Daysh

feel free to line up for shot 10. And if you like continue to wear 3 masks. That is the ' science'. Numerous doctors and nurses have testified to Emergency rooms filling immediately after the rollouts and boosters. Even the harlots working for tga knew young kids were killed by the jab. You can remain pig headed ignorant for whatever reason but numerous have now woken up to the con. Plenty of data out their if you were really interested in the truth. Pity many who exposed have been gaoled and demonised.

Sarcasm aside, runner, the issue is still evidence.

You say emergency rooms filled after vaccination and that "numerous doctors and nurses testified". If that were happening at scale it would show up clearly in hospitalisation and mortality data. That's exactly why those datasets are analysed.

Instead, across multiple countries, the consistent pattern during COVID waves was that severe illness and mortality were higher among the unvaccinated, particularly in older groups.

"Plenty of data out there" isn't the same thing as actually pointing to it. If vaccines had killed thousands in the way you're suggesting, there should be a clear signal in the mortality data somewhere.

So where is it?

you really think a government evil and deceitful enough to change the definition of vxx and then again change a person's vaccination status as being unvaccinated until 2 weeks after receiving the poison is going to provide accurate date. Just to a little research on Barry Young in NZ who was gaoled as a data analysist for exposing certain batches of poison that murdered numerous. Call it what you want but only the pig headed ignorant now hold the lying Government narrative. They killed and maimed thousands in this country alone. There is a very good reason Albo lied promising a Royal Commission but true to form ditched his promise.

That position puts you in an impossible corner, runner.

First you say the evidence is obvious and "the data is out there". But when you're asked to point to it, the response becomes that governments, regulators and health systems are all fabricating the data.

If every national mortality dataset, hospital record system and statistical agency is assumed to be lying, then no evidence could ever settle the question either way.

At that point it's not really an argument about data anymore. It's simply a belief that the entire system is corrupt.

If vaccines had killed thousands on the scale you're suggesting, there would be a clear signal somewhere in the mortality data across multiple countries. Those are exactly the patterns epidemiologists look for.

Rejecting all of that while asserting mass death still leaves the same question.

So again, where is the verifiable data showing thousands of vaccine deaths?