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?