Hi "A MidWestern Doctor", I appreciate your analysis and I really appreciated you documenting the adverse events you personally saw in 2021. I read that article when it came out and it was one of the first documented evidence of harm I had seen. However, I need to point out a mistake I believe you made in this article. First, I will quote the deepl translation of the rebuttal you linked at the end of the article. Quote:
"Statement on the press conference of the AfD parliamentary group in the Bundestag
Yesterday, the AfD parliamentary group held a press conference to comment on billing data for panel physicians that had been evaluated and made available to them by the National Association of Panel Doctors (KBV). To this the chairman of the board of the central institute for the panel doctor supply (Zi), Dr. Dominik von Stillfried explains:
"The excitement about possibly increased deaths in 2021 lacks any basis. In fact, the development of the annual crude diagnosis prevalence after evaluation of the complete SHI-accredited physician billing data for the years 2012 to 2022 shows no conspicuities for the individual diagnosis codes highlighted by the AfD (ICD-10 codes R96-R98, I46.1, I46.9) in the entire period. There is no contradiction with the data used by the AfD. Rather, the phenomenon observed by the AfD is a logical consequence of the data evaluation. To our knowledge, Martin Sichert, a member of the Bundestag, requested contract physician billing data from the KBV in three steps:
In the first step, the data of all statutorily insured persons with health insurance who received an ICD coding for vaccination side effects (codes T88.1, T88.0, U12.9, and Y59.9) in 2021 were requested. For the insured population identified in this way, the second step was to list the frequencies of all diagnosis codes by quarter for the period 2016 to 2021. In the third step, the frequencies of all diagnosis codes for the remaining insureds with statutory health insurance (minus the insured collective covered under step 1) should be counted by quarters for the period 2016 to 2021.
In order to be able to compare the collectives in steps 2 and 3, the entire data set must refer to insured persons who have used at least one medical service in at least one quarter in 2021. Of these, logically, insureds may not die until 2021, for which corresponding codes cannot then be assigned until 2021. Thus, the apparent increase in codes for deaths is a logical consequence of data selection and methodologically known as the cohort effect. On the other hand, with the very rare occurrence of some codes for deaths in preceding years, this cohort may just be errors in entry or transmission."
End quote
What it sounds to me that they are saying, is that the sudden death codes (the plots you showed indicating a ~70 sigma increase) are simply an artifact of the way the reports were gathered. They are claiming that the numbers for the previous years should be 0 and if they are not then they must be errors in reporting because in order to get that data the researchers requested codes for those currently insured. Obviously you cant be currently insured if you are dead so its not an apples to apples comparison.. This would explain the absurdly high increase you saw (which is a consequence of this artifact in reporting, not a true indication of increase due to vaccines). It sounds like this issue would persist as well for the non-fatal codes, because you can imagine people having died since they had one of these codes, and thus not being included in the tally for the years 2016-2020. We would need that full historic dataset to get the true picture of any statistical increases (if any) seen. This is, of course, assuming what the rebuttal is saying is correct (which based on the sudden death codes, it does).
"I wish we had an American political party stating the same."
Well, we don't, and that's NEVER going to happen.
Once people ask themselves why not, and then figure out who's behind the "why not," then we can start making more progress.
The government is not your friend. It's terminally disturbing to see so many of "the awake" working for it and supporting its demonic activities both domestically (as in domestic enemy) as well as globally. But hey, as long as all we care about is wealth/money, I guess we reap the rewards of our own personal choices.
Once people begin to see who really controls our country, then perhaps there will be some hope. Our government employed people are merely their executive officers, the pawns and stooges that they are, regardless of how "high" up the ladder.
Thanks to Dr. Midwest for recommending Kendrick. I highly recommend "Doctoring Data" for anyone interested in the games that the medical profession plays. Some of the examples in the book had personal relevance to me. I used to take rosuvastatin (Crestor). These clinical papers seem to deliberately hide certain data and it takes some skill to unmask it. In fact, Kendrick acknowleldges another doctor for helping him decipher the JUPITER study.
As a general rule, the paper (and the resulting promotions) will proudly proclaim (say) "33% reduction in heart attack and stroke" if patients take the medication. This is always a relative figure. If one looks at the absolute benefit, it is often a percent or two, or even less. I'm not claiming these drugs have no benefit, but it's much more modest, in most cases, than what Pharma would have one believe. They (usually) aren't lying, but they ARE being deceptive. You'll improve your chances of winning the lottery 100% by buying two tickets instead of one. But in most lotteries, you still have only a minuscule chance of winning.
I'm usually interested in finding the all-cause mortality in a trial. To me, that's an acid test: if a primary prevention treatment doesn't reduce overall deaths, what's the point in using it? (That said, there clearly are cases where a treatment's benefits might outweigh even serious side effects. For example, if I had to trade freedom from severe pain for my life expectancy being reduced by few years, I'd probably take it.)
In the rosuvastatin case, the was NO difference in overall deaths!
Since then, with the tools I've learned to use, I've looked at these meta-analyses and found similar conclusions. It's worth noting that these are VERY BIG studies, indeed among some of the largest done to date, so they claimed.
Primary prevention: almsot none (annual all-cause death reduced by 0.03%). Secondary prevention: this was an oddity in the study. Nowhere does it give that figure. I was able to derive it, but it was well hidden. I came up with 0.48%. What's weird is that aspirin is better at secondary prevention. So why would they hide its figure?
Do hypertension drugs as primary prevention really help? Not very much.
I come up with 0.18% annual all cause death risk reduction.
These are but two examples. You'll find a similar case with statins and no doubt many other treatments. As prevention, certain drugs may help, but the absolute numbers are often very tiny, even for secondary prevention. And rarely are adverse effects known, which might well swamp any small benefit.
Again, by no means saying all medicine is useless. I still brush and floss and see my dentist regularly, even though that's mostly "prevention." But absent convincing evidence, I'm done with "primary prevention" of hypertension, cholesterol and such.
I think you are incorrect. Aside from the massive and corrupt liability waiver, the system is supposed to be set up to prevent what we are seeing happening all around. As recently as 2010, it proved effective at halting a swine flu vax campaign after a small handful of deaths (fewer than ten I believe). Many drugs are recalled every year by the fda ... pharmacovigilance as a discipline has never required causal proof to formally reassess new drugs. There are, in place, layers of protocol to save us from what is happening all around us now. What the hell is going on??? Why have we suddenly departed from normal precaution? I have some ideas
Q: I have seen people saying that the vaccines permanently impair the immune systems of everyone who has gotten them and that each additional shot increases the degree of damage.
The cardiac CHEST PAIN (not deaths) case data was so bad for Scotland post dose of the under 40's Public Health Scotland COMPLETELY ERASED it !! No data now post July 2021. It has never been updated since. Unlucky for them i kept the old data before it was 1984'd. THIS is what we're up against ! +115% increse in chest pain cases IMMEDIATELY following dosing of the under 40's age range.
"Because of this lag, it is possible to refute the commonly cited argument that these changes were due to COVID-19 or the lockdowns, as these only occurred in 2020 (the only possible exception I can think of is that Delta emerged near the end of 2020)."
I suspect they will still make this argument and cite the case numbers
They will just say these cardiovascular events are from "Long Covid" so they take months to a few years to form.
If the "vaccine" peddlers were serious about the safety & efficacy of their products, there would be double-blind RCTs all over the place in multiple countries by neutral parties. Instead we get only a few short-term RCTs, one of which Pfizer is being sued over by a whistleblower, with no proper adverse event reporting, and the authors of the studies were paid by Pfizer and/or Moderna and have investments in the companies. Conflict of interest much? And the results - which, in some cases, were outright unfathomably amazing: massive improvement with virtually 0 side effects (right...) - ended up being so definitive that the control group was hurriedly vax'd up like most of the rest of the population.
If their product was as great as they claimed it would be, there wouldn't have to be so much pressure to take it.
"You really don't want the jabs? Oh well, your loss!"
Nope. They didn't want any unjabbed controls around.
Thank you again for your important and well researched articles. I certainly wish that we had an strong advocate here in Australia to counter the increasingly totalitarian approach of our federal and state governments and the TGA (our equivalent of the FDA)! I am really concerned about this development: https://www.theepochtimes.com/muzzling-medical-free-speech_4910748.html
I am saddened to just learn that a dear friend died of accelerated progressive cancer after the vax, age 65y, a wonderful caring oncologist. Last year a near relative died of aggressive metastatic colon cancer after decades of remission, following the vax.
Thank you for this thoughtful presentation of the data. When I see the graphs, I think of the massive number of individuals represented by the increases in injuries and death. I’m so sad that this has happened and so shocked that so many people have been complicit in allowing it to happen. I keep thinking that surely the end is near but there doesn’t seem to be an end.
More charts for my wall. Thank you, and also on behalf of my patients. Like a high school student doing a science project, I am considering creating a montage presenting ALL available data and just putting it in the waiting area.
Hi "A MidWestern Doctor", I appreciate your analysis and I really appreciated you documenting the adverse events you personally saw in 2021. I read that article when it came out and it was one of the first documented evidence of harm I had seen. However, I need to point out a mistake I believe you made in this article. First, I will quote the deepl translation of the rebuttal you linked at the end of the article. Quote:
"Statement on the press conference of the AfD parliamentary group in the Bundestag
Yesterday, the AfD parliamentary group held a press conference to comment on billing data for panel physicians that had been evaluated and made available to them by the National Association of Panel Doctors (KBV). To this the chairman of the board of the central institute for the panel doctor supply (Zi), Dr. Dominik von Stillfried explains:
"The excitement about possibly increased deaths in 2021 lacks any basis. In fact, the development of the annual crude diagnosis prevalence after evaluation of the complete SHI-accredited physician billing data for the years 2012 to 2022 shows no conspicuities for the individual diagnosis codes highlighted by the AfD (ICD-10 codes R96-R98, I46.1, I46.9) in the entire period. There is no contradiction with the data used by the AfD. Rather, the phenomenon observed by the AfD is a logical consequence of the data evaluation. To our knowledge, Martin Sichert, a member of the Bundestag, requested contract physician billing data from the KBV in three steps:
In the first step, the data of all statutorily insured persons with health insurance who received an ICD coding for vaccination side effects (codes T88.1, T88.0, U12.9, and Y59.9) in 2021 were requested. For the insured population identified in this way, the second step was to list the frequencies of all diagnosis codes by quarter for the period 2016 to 2021. In the third step, the frequencies of all diagnosis codes for the remaining insureds with statutory health insurance (minus the insured collective covered under step 1) should be counted by quarters for the period 2016 to 2021.
In order to be able to compare the collectives in steps 2 and 3, the entire data set must refer to insured persons who have used at least one medical service in at least one quarter in 2021. Of these, logically, insureds may not die until 2021, for which corresponding codes cannot then be assigned until 2021. Thus, the apparent increase in codes for deaths is a logical consequence of data selection and methodologically known as the cohort effect. On the other hand, with the very rare occurrence of some codes for deaths in preceding years, this cohort may just be errors in entry or transmission."
End quote
What it sounds to me that they are saying, is that the sudden death codes (the plots you showed indicating a ~70 sigma increase) are simply an artifact of the way the reports were gathered. They are claiming that the numbers for the previous years should be 0 and if they are not then they must be errors in reporting because in order to get that data the researchers requested codes for those currently insured. Obviously you cant be currently insured if you are dead so its not an apples to apples comparison.. This would explain the absurdly high increase you saw (which is a consequence of this artifact in reporting, not a true indication of increase due to vaccines). It sounds like this issue would persist as well for the non-fatal codes, because you can imagine people having died since they had one of these codes, and thus not being included in the tally for the years 2016-2020. We would need that full historic dataset to get the true picture of any statistical increases (if any) seen. This is, of course, assuming what the rebuttal is saying is correct (which based on the sudden death codes, it does).
Thanks for your attention.
"I wish we had an American political party stating the same."
Well, we don't, and that's NEVER going to happen.
Once people ask themselves why not, and then figure out who's behind the "why not," then we can start making more progress.
The government is not your friend. It's terminally disturbing to see so many of "the awake" working for it and supporting its demonic activities both domestically (as in domestic enemy) as well as globally. But hey, as long as all we care about is wealth/money, I guess we reap the rewards of our own personal choices.
Once people begin to see who really controls our country, then perhaps there will be some hope. Our government employed people are merely their executive officers, the pawns and stooges that they are, regardless of how "high" up the ladder.
Thanks to Dr. Midwest for recommending Kendrick. I highly recommend "Doctoring Data" for anyone interested in the games that the medical profession plays. Some of the examples in the book had personal relevance to me. I used to take rosuvastatin (Crestor). These clinical papers seem to deliberately hide certain data and it takes some skill to unmask it. In fact, Kendrick acknowleldges another doctor for helping him decipher the JUPITER study.
As a general rule, the paper (and the resulting promotions) will proudly proclaim (say) "33% reduction in heart attack and stroke" if patients take the medication. This is always a relative figure. If one looks at the absolute benefit, it is often a percent or two, or even less. I'm not claiming these drugs have no benefit, but it's much more modest, in most cases, than what Pharma would have one believe. They (usually) aren't lying, but they ARE being deceptive. You'll improve your chances of winning the lottery 100% by buying two tickets instead of one. But in most lotteries, you still have only a minuscule chance of winning.
I'm usually interested in finding the all-cause mortality in a trial. To me, that's an acid test: if a primary prevention treatment doesn't reduce overall deaths, what's the point in using it? (That said, there clearly are cases where a treatment's benefits might outweigh even serious side effects. For example, if I had to trade freedom from severe pain for my life expectancy being reduced by few years, I'd probably take it.)
In the rosuvastatin case, the was NO difference in overall deaths!
Since then, with the tools I've learned to use, I've looked at these meta-analyses and found similar conclusions. It's worth noting that these are VERY BIG studies, indeed among some of the largest done to date, so they claimed.
The very few benefits of aspirin therapy:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715005/
Primary prevention: almsot none (annual all-cause death reduced by 0.03%). Secondary prevention: this was an oddity in the study. Nowhere does it give that figure. I was able to derive it, but it was well hidden. I came up with 0.48%. What's weird is that aspirin is better at secondary prevention. So why would they hide its figure?
Do hypertension drugs as primary prevention really help? Not very much.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00590-0/fulltext
I come up with 0.18% annual all cause death risk reduction.
These are but two examples. You'll find a similar case with statins and no doubt many other treatments. As prevention, certain drugs may help, but the absolute numbers are often very tiny, even for secondary prevention. And rarely are adverse effects known, which might well swamp any small benefit.
Again, by no means saying all medicine is useless. I still brush and floss and see my dentist regularly, even though that's mostly "prevention." But absent convincing evidence, I'm done with "primary prevention" of hypertension, cholesterol and such.
I think you are incorrect. Aside from the massive and corrupt liability waiver, the system is supposed to be set up to prevent what we are seeing happening all around. As recently as 2010, it proved effective at halting a swine flu vax campaign after a small handful of deaths (fewer than ten I believe). Many drugs are recalled every year by the fda ... pharmacovigilance as a discipline has never required causal proof to formally reassess new drugs. There are, in place, layers of protocol to save us from what is happening all around us now. What the hell is going on??? Why have we suddenly departed from normal precaution? I have some ideas
Q: I have seen people saying that the vaccines permanently impair the immune systems of everyone who has gotten them and that each additional shot increases the degree of damage.
Is that correct?
I'm afraid I no longer trust "science," I trust you though. And reading/scanning was very enlightening thanks.
The cardiac CHEST PAIN (not deaths) case data was so bad for Scotland post dose of the under 40's Public Health Scotland COMPLETELY ERASED it !! No data now post July 2021. It has never been updated since. Unlucky for them i kept the old data before it was 1984'd. THIS is what we're up against ! +115% increse in chest pain cases IMMEDIATELY following dosing of the under 40's age range.
"Because of this lag, it is possible to refute the commonly cited argument that these changes were due to COVID-19 or the lockdowns, as these only occurred in 2020 (the only possible exception I can think of is that Delta emerged near the end of 2020)."
I suspect they will still make this argument and cite the case numbers
Our World in Data, Germany: https://i.imgur.com/TK4ljd2.png
They will just say these cardiovascular events are from "Long Covid" so they take months to a few years to form.
If the "vaccine" peddlers were serious about the safety & efficacy of their products, there would be double-blind RCTs all over the place in multiple countries by neutral parties. Instead we get only a few short-term RCTs, one of which Pfizer is being sued over by a whistleblower, with no proper adverse event reporting, and the authors of the studies were paid by Pfizer and/or Moderna and have investments in the companies. Conflict of interest much? And the results - which, in some cases, were outright unfathomably amazing: massive improvement with virtually 0 side effects (right...) - ended up being so definitive that the control group was hurriedly vax'd up like most of the rest of the population.
If their product was as great as they claimed it would be, there wouldn't have to be so much pressure to take it.
"You really don't want the jabs? Oh well, your loss!"
Nope. They didn't want any unjabbed controls around.
I would like to recommend Charles Eisenstein's substack for anyone interested in understanding the bigger picture. https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/handfuls-of-dust-and-splinters-of-16c
Thank you again for your important and well researched articles. I certainly wish that we had an strong advocate here in Australia to counter the increasingly totalitarian approach of our federal and state governments and the TGA (our equivalent of the FDA)! I am really concerned about this development: https://www.theepochtimes.com/muzzling-medical-free-speech_4910748.html
I am saddened to just learn that a dear friend died of accelerated progressive cancer after the vax, age 65y, a wonderful caring oncologist. Last year a near relative died of aggressive metastatic colon cancer after decades of remission, following the vax.
The work of The Ethical Skeptic astutely examines these data related to huge excess deaths from malignancies. https://theethicalskeptic.substack.com/
-Laura Kragie MD biomedworks.substack.com
Amazing data. Awful.
Thank you for this thoughtful presentation of the data. When I see the graphs, I think of the massive number of individuals represented by the increases in injuries and death. I’m so sad that this has happened and so shocked that so many people have been complicit in allowing it to happen. I keep thinking that surely the end is near but there doesn’t seem to be an end.
More charts for my wall. Thank you, and also on behalf of my patients. Like a high school student doing a science project, I am considering creating a montage presenting ALL available data and just putting it in the waiting area.
You are an amazing and patient writer with such thorough information that a lay person can relate to and understand. I thank you Midwestern Doctor !!
I was waiting for someone to post the German data with translations. People here in the USA are usually too lazy to do translations.
By the way, have you or anyone else responded to the RCTs done on the mRNA shots? This is of course considered the "Gold standard"
Here are 2 meta-analyses, citing 4 total authors having done RCTs on the mRNA shots
https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00878-5
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33691913/
- Baden et al 2020
- Polack et al 2020
- Mulligan et al 2020
- Walsh et al 2020