More dodgy data being used to support 'the vaccine'...
QUOTE:
In the absence of a vaccination program, there would have been approximately 1.1 million additional COVID-19 deaths and more than 10.3 million additional COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. by November 2021.
Without the U.S. vaccination program, COVID-19 deaths would have been approximately 3.2 times higher and COVID-19 hospitalizations approximately 4.9 times higher than the actual toll during 2021.
If no one had been vaccinated, daily deaths from COVID-19 could have jumped to as high as 21,000 per day — nearly 5.2 times the level of the record peak of more than 4,000 deaths per day recorded in January 2021.
Even though I receive emails notifying me of new articles, I receive so many Sub stack notifications that I generally do not look at them when I receive them but go through them when I have some spare time then I do some 'binge reading'. I had such a binge reading session on 15 April, prior to this article being published. I posted a comment on the 'Where Aare the Numbers' article about MHRA still not releasing data regarding pregnancies, etc. https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/mhra-still-wont-release-critical
Today I am doing a similar binge read and have just read this article about data on the JHU dashboard. Whilst reading what it said, it resonated so much with what I had said in my post on 15 April, namely:
"Bill Malcolm
Apr 15
I'm lost for words...
I have 2 points I wish to make.....
My second point is that what can be so difficult about summarising and publishing data that is contained within the systems that they administer/ monitor? It is not rocket science!
From early 2020, every country in the world (allegedly) reported, ON A DAILY BASIS, the new number of cases and deaths linked to CV19. The logistics of doing such (worldwide) reporting always puzzled me.
When did the reporting system get put in place and how was it administered? Were additional staff employed just to do this daily reporting? The logistics of this are quite mind boggling. Such data was being fielded from every health centre/ doctors practice/ hospital within each NHS region and reported centrally every day!! Even if such daily reporting was done, which I very much doubt, who (if anyone) checked/ verified the figures reported?..."
My suspicion has always been that much of the data reported in real time (news media, Covid dashboards like JHU) must have been educated estimates (guesses) or, worse still, completely made up!! This article confirms my suspicions and, if anything, it seems more likely that it was the latter!
My go-to source for CV19 data during the 'Restrictions' or 'Period of Madness' (much more apt descriptions than 'pandemic') was Worldometer, which gets prominently & extensively mentioned in your article.
As you correctly point out this website provides information (on a world wide basis) in respect of populations. What is remarkable is that this website has just 2 main topics, Population & Coronavirus
As an aside, given the date of your article, there is a note that now appears in a banner displayed (from 14 April) at the top of of the Worldometer Covid page, which says:
"NOTE: As of April 13, 2024, the Coronavirus Tracker is no longer being updated..."
What is peculiar (gleaned from using the Wayback Machine) is that prior to 2019, the site only had one tab on its home page (Population). In May 2019, it added a "GDP" tab and in September it added a "CO2" tab. The peculiar thing about the CO2 tab is that it only shows data from 1971 up to 2016. The tables & graphs in the tab look like a test out of the tables & graphs that would used in the (still in the future) Coronavirus tab.
On 29 January 2020, the Coronavirus tab was added.
Whoever did this must have had amazing forethought (like 'Mystic Meg'!!) to decide to set up a completely new section on the website, which according to the figures it reported that day, only had deaths (1,133) in one single country (China). The table this day has 20 countries listed. The other 19 countries, in aggregate, have zero deaths and only 101 cases (range 1 to 14), including USA with just 5 cases.
On this first day of Coronavirus reporting, Worldometer ditch their GDP tab. And the next day (30 Jan), Worldometer ditches its CO2 tab!!
Another remarkable thing about 30 January is that 963 previously dead people in China came back to life because the total deaths for China dropped from 1,133 to only 170!!!
Prior to 29 January 2020, The Worldometer website would not have required much administration because it was not providing real word up to date data. On the "About" page, the following is stated (December 2019) regarding how the website works:
"The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world."
This begs the question, how did Worldometer magically have the resources to not only obtain real world live data (if it existed, which I very much doubt) from all countries around the world but also verify it on an ongoing 24 hour basis?
Below is what was stated on the About page of their website (again from December 2019):
"Trusted Authority
Worldometers was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
We have licensed our counters at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), to BBC News, and to the U2 concert, among others.
Worldometers is cited as a source in over 3500 published books, in more than 2000 professional journal articles, and in over 1000 Wikipedia pages."
I am just throwing out a hypothesis. If, prior to 2020, Worldometer was widely perceived to be such a trusted source (similar probably to how JHU would have been perceived) then, if somebody, or a group or groups, wished to spread false information/ propaganda (and wanted it to be trusted as being true) spreading such information through a trusted source (like Worldometer) would be a good way of doing it.
Particularly so because journalists and politicians are widely regarded as not trustworthy (journalists, politicians, Govt ministers are all near the bottom, around 20% trusted, in the annual Ipsos Veracity Index). Therefore a long established, very well trusted and apparently "independent" website would be excellent for providing support for what the media/ governments report, should any non-trusting citizens want to verify/ try to fact-check what they are being told.
The trustworthiness of this website seems to have even improved since December 2019 as the About page now says the following. Note the 10+fold increase in citations in journal articles (2,000 to 25,000).
"Trusted Authority
Worldometer was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
Worldometer is a provider of global COVID-19 statistics for many caring people around the world. Our data is also trusted and used by the UK Government, Johns Hopkins CSSE, the Government of Thailand, the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Sri Lanka, Government of Vietnam, Financial Times, The New York Times, Business Insider, BBC, and many others.
Over the past 15 years, our statistics have been requested by, and provided to: Oxford University Press, Wiley, Pearson, CERN, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), The Atlantic, BBC, Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science & Technology, Science Museum of Virginia, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Kaspersky, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Amazon Alexa, Google Translate, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the U2 concert, and many others.
Worldometer is cited as a source in over 10,000 published books and in more than 25,000 professional journal articles."
Yup all fake modelling as reliable as Dr Pants Down Fergusons! All on purpose, to create the fear needed to roll out an injection based toxic synthetic weapon. Nothing biological about so called covid. Its not even made in a lab from bats etc. Its just a weaponised synthetic protein, or other chemical poison, crafted after years of prior also fake vaccines, for fake diseases, which are all just cover stories for industrial toxins, or sanitation/malnutrition issues.
Thank you for deep and clear analysis of details underlying JHU dashboard. Indeed, at the beginning of 2020 I thought (as millions of people around the world) that it presented number of real cases (simply speaking- people suffering from severe pneumonia caused by novel virus).
To supplement above analysis- all C19 statistics are based on massive testing of people with highly unreliable tests. As a result- official C19 data are rubbish.
I'm not following what is being shown regarding the probables, the difference, and what it necessarily shows or doesn't show. It may be because, for me, "Whence the probables?" has always been a critical question of the NYC mass casualty event.
I therefore offer the following context/comments, with questions:
1) You say, "In general, both NYCH and JHU included what they called 'probable deaths' in their daily numbers."
I think it’s important to note that inclusion of the probables began at a certain point in time.
I have not investigated the role of the timing/magnitude of “probables” in all states or in other countries.
Do you have a sense of how the JHU dashboard integrated the probables across the board?
2) The addition of the NYC probables was preceded by officials and media reports/experts quoted by media saying that "coronavirus"/COVID deaths in NYC were being undercounted because totals didn't include all potential coronavirus deaths at home, there wasn't enough testing, etc. Their claims were hogwash, in my opinion, but as relevant insofar as the contemporaneous government narrative is concerned.
Is there evidence that JHU’s dashboard was (at that point) stating a higher number than NYC was stating – or stating a very high case number and using a model that pushed the forecasting for deaths higher? (What I’m really asking is if we have reason to believe that federal or local officials were shown or saw something behind the scenes and had an “uh oh” moment in need of course-correction.)
3) Andrew Cuomo fueled the "Undercount!!" fire [intentionally IMO] when he said on April 8, 2020 that the state coronavirus death numbers were coming directly from hospitals. Because New York City, at least, launched mass testing in hospitals - and tested many existing hospital patients - I'm sure that was largely true, even if numbers were inflated. Of course, it raises questions about how numbers were getting from hospitals to the state/city health departments, whether those were model based, etc., but it may explain what both JHU and other dashboards were showing, i.e., positive tests and positive-test deaths in hospitals.
I'm not suggesting JHU was accurate, mind you - only suggesting that what appears to have been happening via hospital data in NYC could've been happening elsewhere.
Related excerpt from NYT article:
Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that the official death count numbers presented each day by the state are based on hospital data. Our most conservative understanding right now is that patients who have tested positive for the virus and die in hospitals are reflected in the state’s official death count.
The city has a different measure: Any patient who has had a positive coronavirus test and then later dies — whether at home or in a hospital — is being counted as a coronavirus death, said Dr. Oxiris Barbot, the commissioner of the city’s Department of Health.
“To date, we have only been recording on people who have had the test,' she said on Thursday morning.”
Do you think it's possible that hospital systems in some cities in the U.S. and elsewhere had any new or upgraded abilities were feeding data to health departments very quickly?
4) I don't see in the article where you defined or cited a reference for "probable death" or made/observed any distinctions between NYCDOHMH's definition and JHU's.
The city's vital statistics report for 2020 (published in April 2023) gives a definition and suggests that a good portion of the probable COVID deaths are NOT included in the COVID-19 mortality section. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2020sum.pdf
I note that JHU page you linked doesn't say "probable COVID death" but rather "probable deaths."
What is your interpretation of the JHU “probable deaths”? Are those people who probably died, but may not have died at all?
5) Given the above background, I'm not seeing how "The similarities between the blue and green lines provide almost irrefutable proof that the 'probable death' numbers were artificially generated on a computer." Can you explain?
6) Finally, you said, "All of this suggests, and that rather strongly, that Covid death numbers for NYC were invented on a calculator rather than counted in a morgue."
As you may know, I believe and have written about how the New York City all-cause daily curve very likely represents a fantasy.
In your statement above, it's not clear whether you're implying a) that the deaths DID occur in real-time, as presented by official data, and were merely attributed to COVID-19 based on a model, b) some portion of the deaths did not occur in real-time, were fabricated, etc., or c) something else entirely.
Chapter, verse and receipts on the Dempanic that somehow magically came and went with the 2020 election season.
The aggregate costs of the various models, “remediation” policies, economies collapsed, jobs lost, families split, government trust cratered, and children not educated is incalculable but certainly in the billions of dollars.
That is how much the globalists are willing - and can / have access to - to spend to crush the middle class and self-government.
Anyone thinking they won’t remove Trump from the board is not thinking.
Here’s a recent paper claiming “The Australian vaccination campaign was successful in reducing mortality over 2022, relative to alternative hypothetical vaccination scenarios.”
Also, if you search for recent Supreme Court rulings, you will find that the only thing questioned is the federal authority to encroach upon States authority to require medical personnel to get a vax NOT that a mandate by the State is unconstitutional.
The 1905 case declared that the mandate was constitutional and that the refuser had to pay a $5 fine (under some clause like the commerce one) which has been misconstrued ever since to claim that the court said that mandates were OK without the option of paying the fine.
The whole system which is designed and run by the judeo-masonic secret society that rules over us has been rigged against us for a century or more.
Given your mention of Event 201, might JHU's dashboard also have been skewed by the agenda of the WEF and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who were also co-sponsors of Event 201?
Hmmm.......
But a very well written, in depth piece.. It's a subject that needs more scrutiny.
More dodgy data being used to support 'the vaccine'...
QUOTE:
In the absence of a vaccination program, there would have been approximately 1.1 million additional COVID-19 deaths and more than 10.3 million additional COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. by November 2021.
Without the U.S. vaccination program, COVID-19 deaths would have been approximately 3.2 times higher and COVID-19 hospitalizations approximately 4.9 times higher than the actual toll during 2021.
If no one had been vaccinated, daily deaths from COVID-19 could have jumped to as high as 21,000 per day — nearly 5.2 times the level of the record peak of more than 4,000 deaths per day recorded in January 2021.
END OF QUOTE.
Based on estimates...
The U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Program at One Year: How Many Deaths and Hospitalizations Were Averted? https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/dec/us-covid-19-vaccination-program-one-year-how-many-deaths-and
Uncanny!!
Even though I receive emails notifying me of new articles, I receive so many Sub stack notifications that I generally do not look at them when I receive them but go through them when I have some spare time then I do some 'binge reading'. I had such a binge reading session on 15 April, prior to this article being published. I posted a comment on the 'Where Aare the Numbers' article about MHRA still not releasing data regarding pregnancies, etc. https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/mhra-still-wont-release-critical
Today I am doing a similar binge read and have just read this article about data on the JHU dashboard. Whilst reading what it said, it resonated so much with what I had said in my post on 15 April, namely:
"Bill Malcolm
Apr 15
I'm lost for words...
I have 2 points I wish to make.....
My second point is that what can be so difficult about summarising and publishing data that is contained within the systems that they administer/ monitor? It is not rocket science!
From early 2020, every country in the world (allegedly) reported, ON A DAILY BASIS, the new number of cases and deaths linked to CV19. The logistics of doing such (worldwide) reporting always puzzled me.
When did the reporting system get put in place and how was it administered? Were additional staff employed just to do this daily reporting? The logistics of this are quite mind boggling. Such data was being fielded from every health centre/ doctors practice/ hospital within each NHS region and reported centrally every day!! Even if such daily reporting was done, which I very much doubt, who (if anyone) checked/ verified the figures reported?..."
My suspicion has always been that much of the data reported in real time (news media, Covid dashboards like JHU) must have been educated estimates (guesses) or, worse still, completely made up!! This article confirms my suspicions and, if anything, it seems more likely that it was the latter!
My go-to source for CV19 data during the 'Restrictions' or 'Period of Madness' (much more apt descriptions than 'pandemic') was Worldometer, which gets prominently & extensively mentioned in your article.
As you correctly point out this website provides information (on a world wide basis) in respect of populations. What is remarkable is that this website has just 2 main topics, Population & Coronavirus
https://www.worldometers.info/
As an aside, given the date of your article, there is a note that now appears in a banner displayed (from 14 April) at the top of of the Worldometer Covid page, which says:
"NOTE: As of April 13, 2024, the Coronavirus Tracker is no longer being updated..."
What is peculiar (gleaned from using the Wayback Machine) is that prior to 2019, the site only had one tab on its home page (Population). In May 2019, it added a "GDP" tab and in September it added a "CO2" tab. The peculiar thing about the CO2 tab is that it only shows data from 1971 up to 2016. The tables & graphs in the tab look like a test out of the tables & graphs that would used in the (still in the future) Coronavirus tab.
On 29 January 2020, the Coronavirus tab was added.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200131025422/https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Whoever did this must have had amazing forethought (like 'Mystic Meg'!!) to decide to set up a completely new section on the website, which according to the figures it reported that day, only had deaths (1,133) in one single country (China). The table this day has 20 countries listed. The other 19 countries, in aggregate, have zero deaths and only 101 cases (range 1 to 14), including USA with just 5 cases.
On this first day of Coronavirus reporting, Worldometer ditch their GDP tab. And the next day (30 Jan), Worldometer ditches its CO2 tab!!
Another remarkable thing about 30 January is that 963 previously dead people in China came back to life because the total deaths for China dropped from 1,133 to only 170!!!
Prior to 29 January 2020, The Worldometer website would not have required much administration because it was not providing real word up to date data. On the "About" page, the following is stated (December 2019) regarding how the website works:
"The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world."
This begs the question, how did Worldometer magically have the resources to not only obtain real world live data (if it existed, which I very much doubt) from all countries around the world but also verify it on an ongoing 24 hour basis?
Below is what was stated on the About page of their website (again from December 2019):
"Trusted Authority
Worldometers was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
We have licensed our counters at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), to BBC News, and to the U2 concert, among others.
Worldometers is cited as a source in over 3500 published books, in more than 2000 professional journal articles, and in over 1000 Wikipedia pages."
I am just throwing out a hypothesis. If, prior to 2020, Worldometer was widely perceived to be such a trusted source (similar probably to how JHU would have been perceived) then, if somebody, or a group or groups, wished to spread false information/ propaganda (and wanted it to be trusted as being true) spreading such information through a trusted source (like Worldometer) would be a good way of doing it.
Particularly so because journalists and politicians are widely regarded as not trustworthy (journalists, politicians, Govt ministers are all near the bottom, around 20% trusted, in the annual Ipsos Veracity Index). Therefore a long established, very well trusted and apparently "independent" website would be excellent for providing support for what the media/ governments report, should any non-trusting citizens want to verify/ try to fact-check what they are being told.
The trustworthiness of this website seems to have even improved since December 2019 as the About page now says the following. Note the 10+fold increase in citations in journal articles (2,000 to 25,000).
"Trusted Authority
Worldometer was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.
Worldometer is a provider of global COVID-19 statistics for many caring people around the world. Our data is also trusted and used by the UK Government, Johns Hopkins CSSE, the Government of Thailand, the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Sri Lanka, Government of Vietnam, Financial Times, The New York Times, Business Insider, BBC, and many others.
Over the past 15 years, our statistics have been requested by, and provided to: Oxford University Press, Wiley, Pearson, CERN, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), The Atlantic, BBC, Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science & Technology, Science Museum of Virginia, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Kaspersky, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Amazon Alexa, Google Translate, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the U2 concert, and many others.
Worldometer is cited as a source in over 10,000 published books and in more than 25,000 professional journal articles."
Excellent investigation. It mentions that JHU used Worldometer data, and that this was computer modelled. Is there some source for this?
Yup all fake modelling as reliable as Dr Pants Down Fergusons! All on purpose, to create the fear needed to roll out an injection based toxic synthetic weapon. Nothing biological about so called covid. Its not even made in a lab from bats etc. Its just a weaponised synthetic protein, or other chemical poison, crafted after years of prior also fake vaccines, for fake diseases, which are all just cover stories for industrial toxins, or sanitation/malnutrition issues.
Every State Health Authority reported their “covid” numbers daily. This data was then collated by various websites and dashboards like JHU.
It wasn’t that the data was false, it was just misinterpreted. The data actually proved everything they said and did was wrong.
Are you saying it was false? Which categories?
Thank you for deep and clear analysis of details underlying JHU dashboard. Indeed, at the beginning of 2020 I thought (as millions of people around the world) that it presented number of real cases (simply speaking- people suffering from severe pneumonia caused by novel virus).
To supplement above analysis- all C19 statistics are based on massive testing of people with highly unreliable tests. As a result- official C19 data are rubbish.
@Dr Piers Robinson couldn’t this be propaganda in its own way too though?
I commented earlier too. (https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/the-dashboard-that-ruled-the-world?r=jjay2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=54145142) I'm putting my more substantial comments/questions in a new spot, so they don't get buried in the thread where I was first asking about a source link.
I'm not following what is being shown regarding the probables, the difference, and what it necessarily shows or doesn't show. It may be because, for me, "Whence the probables?" has always been a critical question of the NYC mass casualty event.
I therefore offer the following context/comments, with questions:
1) You say, "In general, both NYCH and JHU included what they called 'probable deaths' in their daily numbers."
I think it’s important to note that inclusion of the probables began at a certain point in time.
NYC was the first U.S. jurisdiction to add such deaths to its running totals. They initially did this as a "dump" of 3,700+ deaths on April 14, 2020, all of which allegedly occurred between March 11 and April 13. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-deaths.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.kk0.SU_2.O1-Kk3lN5iym&smid=url-share
The next day, the CDC told all states to follow suit. Whether this was done because of New York, I can’t say, but it very well could have been a strategy to “cover for” zealous modeling/dashboards. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/15/cdc-tells-states-add-probable-coronavirus-cases-de/
I have not investigated the role of the timing/magnitude of “probables” in all states or in other countries.
Do you have a sense of how the JHU dashboard integrated the probables across the board?
2) The addition of the NYC probables was preceded by officials and media reports/experts quoted by media saying that "coronavirus"/COVID deaths in NYC were being undercounted because totals didn't include all potential coronavirus deaths at home, there wasn't enough testing, etc. Their claims were hogwash, in my opinion, but as relevant insofar as the contemporaneous government narrative is concerned.
Is there evidence that JHU’s dashboard was (at that point) stating a higher number than NYC was stating – or stating a very high case number and using a model that pushed the forecasting for deaths higher? (What I’m really asking is if we have reason to believe that federal or local officials were shown or saw something behind the scenes and had an “uh oh” moment in need of course-correction.)
3) Andrew Cuomo fueled the "Undercount!!" fire [intentionally IMO] when he said on April 8, 2020 that the state coronavirus death numbers were coming directly from hospitals. Because New York City, at least, launched mass testing in hospitals - and tested many existing hospital patients - I'm sure that was largely true, even if numbers were inflated. Of course, it raises questions about how numbers were getting from hospitals to the state/city health departments, whether those were model based, etc., but it may explain what both JHU and other dashboards were showing, i.e., positive tests and positive-test deaths in hospitals.
I'm not suggesting JHU was accurate, mind you - only suggesting that what appears to have been happening via hospital data in NYC could've been happening elsewhere.
Related excerpt from NYT article:
Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that the official death count numbers presented each day by the state are based on hospital data. Our most conservative understanding right now is that patients who have tested positive for the virus and die in hospitals are reflected in the state’s official death count.
The city has a different measure: Any patient who has had a positive coronavirus test and then later dies — whether at home or in a hospital — is being counted as a coronavirus death, said Dr. Oxiris Barbot, the commissioner of the city’s Department of Health.
“To date, we have only been recording on people who have had the test,' she said on Thursday morning.”
Do you think it's possible that hospital systems in some cities in the U.S. and elsewhere had any new or upgraded abilities were feeding data to health departments very quickly?
4) I don't see in the article where you defined or cited a reference for "probable death" or made/observed any distinctions between NYCDOHMH's definition and JHU's.
The city's vital statistics report for 2020 (published in April 2023) gives a definition and suggests that a good portion of the probable COVID deaths are NOT included in the COVID-19 mortality section. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2020sum.pdf
I note that JHU page you linked doesn't say "probable COVID death" but rather "probable deaths."
What is your interpretation of the JHU “probable deaths”? Are those people who probably died, but may not have died at all?
5) Given the above background, I'm not seeing how "The similarities between the blue and green lines provide almost irrefutable proof that the 'probable death' numbers were artificially generated on a computer." Can you explain?
6) Finally, you said, "All of this suggests, and that rather strongly, that Covid death numbers for NYC were invented on a calculator rather than counted in a morgue."
As you may know, I believe and have written about how the New York City all-cause daily curve very likely represents a fantasy.
In your statement above, it's not clear whether you're implying a) that the deaths DID occur in real-time, as presented by official data, and were merely attributed to COVID-19 based on a model, b) some portion of the deaths did not occur in real-time, were fabricated, etc., or c) something else entirely.
Can you clarify?
Thanks.
I love this space. People who saw through the crap and kept telling the truth. Thank you one and all.
Chapter, verse and receipts on the Dempanic that somehow magically came and went with the 2020 election season.
The aggregate costs of the various models, “remediation” policies, economies collapsed, jobs lost, families split, government trust cratered, and children not educated is incalculable but certainly in the billions of dollars.
That is how much the globalists are willing - and can / have access to - to spend to crush the middle class and self-government.
Anyone thinking they won’t remove Trump from the board is not thinking.
Good work with the research on the dashboard.
Can you (Thomas) confirm that this is the source link for the confirmed/probables used in the NYC graph? https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/archive/probable-confirmed-dod.csv The source link posted under the graph goes to the total deaths and deaths by borough data, as far as I can tell.
Thanks.
Beautiful.
I'm so sick of people being obsessed with data and not reasons, but I love this.
I wonder, was Mr. Bloombag involved?
Speaking of ‘modelling’…
Here’s a recent paper claiming “The Australian vaccination campaign was successful in reducing mortality over 2022, relative to alternative hypothetical vaccination scenarios.”
Assessing the impact of Australia’s mass vaccination campaigns over the Delta and Omicron outbreaks | PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299844
Accompanying MSM articles:
- RACGP - Modelling reveals number of lives saved by COVID vaccine rollout: https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/modelling-reveals-number-of-lives-saved-by-covid-v
- New research finds Covid vaccines prevented thousands of deaths in NSW during pandemic | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/covid19-vaccines-likely-prevented-thousands-of-deaths-in-nsw/news-story/56ae19ef9f300763c0fe0dea2ffce5f6
Search for 1905 Supreme Court decision upheld Massachusetts’ smallpox inoculation requirement.
Also, if you search for recent Supreme Court rulings, you will find that the only thing questioned is the federal authority to encroach upon States authority to require medical personnel to get a vax NOT that a mandate by the State is unconstitutional.
The 1905 case declared that the mandate was constitutional and that the refuser had to pay a $5 fine (under some clause like the commerce one) which has been misconstrued ever since to claim that the court said that mandates were OK without the option of paying the fine.
The whole system which is designed and run by the judeo-masonic secret society that rules over us has been rigged against us for a century or more.
Keep fighting them!
I will have to look for it.
Given your mention of Event 201, might JHU's dashboard also have been skewed by the agenda of the WEF and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who were also co-sponsors of Event 201?
Hmmm.......
But a very well written, in depth piece.. It's a subject that needs more scrutiny.
Scroll to the very bottom of page to verify..
https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise