"During Covid times, the pattern of these government-led inquiries has been to formally rebrand what was at the time a radical departure from scientific and policy consensus as the ‘future pandemic roadmap’ - the new normal."
With the exception of the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry, where perhaps Westminster's full evidence repression regime hadn't penetrated, rather than painting a proper picture of the horrors of public policy during the plandemic era the purpose of these inquiries is clearly to whitewash over the wall of inconvenient facts.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/ is the best I've seen and has the additional kudos of a suspended Twitter account https://x.com/biologyphenom. There are lots of evidence video clips in the timeline which are both informative and deeply distressing.
I've paid to comment because I put so much work into this question & Inquiry, spending over $1,500 to commission data from the ABS - it would be a shame not to follow through. With a full professional work life in actuarial science, and a decade of peer reviewed published learning on genetic inventions, I felt obligated.
I had two submissions published. I was kindly given a week's extension to the deadline for my first submission to allow for analysis of the very rich ABS data. My supplementary submission was made and published on the day the final report was uploaded.
These were certainly vaccine critical submissions, they answered all of the badly reasoned (and imo unprofessional) analyses of the Australian Institute of Actuaries, yet were not quoted in the report beyond the reference. TLDR, I came up with 40-50K excess deaths, of which 22-30K were directly from the vaccines. The covid deaths were also attributed to excess because the vaccines were meant to be effective against death. Despite both submissions being published, no reference was made to them in the Inquiry report.
I didn't want to read the final report because, expecting a cowardly or unintelligent response, I didn't want the obligation to follow through.
And yet, Rebekah, your substack came through to my inbox and I had to face it. I still haven't read the report, and I've barely skimmed this substack, but have seen a couple of statements that need reply.
Regarding the statement about 'displaced mortality'. Obviously it was displaced - we spent billions and billions of dollars to lock the whole country into covid zero from March 2020 to ~Oct/Nov 2021, with those most likely to die still in hiding. Like any health initiative, the spending of those billions of dollars extended lives against all sorts of infections (not just respiratory) and their flow on consequences. The fact that lives were extended by this superior health environment didn't mean that the lives weren't then cut short by the violent consequence of the vaccines, in the same superior health environment. I directly addressed this assertion of the actuaries in my first submission, but I was not referenced.
Regarding the statement about lives being saved by the measures in 2020, the lives were ALSO saved by the measures against infections that continued from 2020 all the way through 2021. We were at historically low % Fever & Cough levels throughout these two years, so much so that the Australian FluTracker network which publishes them has excluded BOTH 2020 and 2021 in their five year averages. And thus, when 2021 appears to be almost normal mortality, for a NORMAL year of respiratory infection, we can readily see that those deaths, in the near complete absence of covid, are the consequence instead of the vaccines. I made this point very clearly in both submissions, but the Committee did not weigh up this point in their report. There was excess vaccine mortality from the rollout to the end of 2023 of somewhere between 22,000-30,000 deaths, depending on the assumptions made.
Regarding 'covid' being the cause of deaths. Did I, or did I not hear, somewhere in the propaganda from government across Australia, and from all the conflicted and obligated government and pharma-advertising media outlets, that the vaccines were claimed to be "Effective Against Death"?? If I heard correctly, ALL deaths to covid should've been denoted as EXCESS DEATHS. We paid billions of dollars for those vaccines, and one would have to conclude that those vaccines failed, and the deaths were in EXCESS compared to the reasonable baseline expectations. Further, we know from studies coming out of Aged Care in Victoria, across 2020 and 2021, that the vaccines made no contribution to preventing deaths to covid in those most likely to die from covid. There was zero benefit.
On another factor related to the claim of 'displaced mortality', the Cause of Deaths certainly weren't of an average displacement. There was a clear leap in specific ABS Causes of Death that have also been implicated in meta-analyses in the medical literature as consequent to the vaccines - those of underlying and associated cause to Hypertension, and those of underlying and associated cause to Atrial Fibrillation are two of the glaring changes that emerged in 2021, and continued through to 2022, even after removal of these associated deaths to the underlying cause of Covid. There was no increase in deaths to these causes in 2020, which one would have expected to see if they were simply alternatives to dying from respiratory causes. These were definitely vaccine deaths, and those associated with Covid may also be the consequence of the vaccines. I showed these and other glaring changes in the Cause of Death profiles in my supplementary submission - no reference was made.
In summary, the actuaries principally failed to develop a baseline of expected deaths that accounted for the completely altered health environment - a massive professional blunder. I think the Inquiry has only cited their publication due to their supposed credentials.
Thank you Madeleine for this thorough response and thank you for the heads up about your submissions, I was not aware of your actuarial background- I will check them out.
I can’t understate how difficult it is for me to get my pictorial/logical/mathematical/ statistical understandings down onto 'paper’, in a way that readers might understand and credit. Although I spent years on analysis the writing of both submissions was only possible by the extreme pressure of deadlines. Thus, the writing is not at all polished. Contact me if a point doesn't come across.
The logic between the initial submission and my supplementary is perhaps best followed through on my progressive substacks on Excess Mortality.
The other thing that bothers me is the asymmetrical values on death in the elderly. Each individual death to covid (arguably) was mourned in the daily pressers, but not the deaths in the elderly to the vaccines, which were instead repressed.
I was one of the many who willingly locked down, and encouraged others to do so (sorry), for the sake of these elderly lives, and to see them killed by the vaccines without comment is provoking.
Did these elderly lives matter, or not? Clearly not. So what was the lockdown for? (rhetorical)
[that the vaccines were claimed to be "Effective Against Death"?? If I heard correctly, ALL deaths to covid should've been denoted as EXCESS DEATHS]
100%.
The published report states "97.7% of Australians over 16 received a COVID-19 vaccination."
No one is going to admit that the excess deaths were caused by the vaccines, so I think the only line of attack now is the one you have mentioned: if the vaccines were supposed to reduce the likelihood of death, and 97.7% of those > 16 were jabbed (not too sure about the myself) and the report has put cause of excess deaths to be COVID, then WTF was the point of the vaccine ? Of course, they'll say it would be worse without the jab, but that needs to be quantified, and I bet they can't without blowing up their entire story.
Most of the covid deaths occur in the oldest age groups, so we'd look at those vax rates.
By the time of the greatest covid death numbers the vaccination rates for 2 doses was over 95%.
We have two studies out of Aged Care regions in Melbourne that report no statistical benefit against covid death between double vaxed and no doses, so one would deduce that around 95% of the deaths to covid were in the vaccinated cohort.
So if we've paid billions of dollars for vaccines on the sales point that they are effective against death, the deaths to covid are obviously in excess of what we paid for.
Regarding the "worse without the jab" claim, there was a study out in Melbourne reporting on the 2020 (pre-vax) death rates to covid (wuhan strain) in the Aged Care Facilities (same demographics). When these rates were compared to the post-vax death rates from 2021 (Delta strain) there was no significant difference (and this was from a vaccine-thinned herd - the weakest in the vaccinated herd dying from the vaccines before Delta arrived). So there's nothing to support the claim of "worse without the jab" in the demographic that is most likely to die of covid,. False marketing, false reporting.
To roughly quote Yes Minister, "Never hold an enquiry unless you know what the outcome will be".
As I have previously stated, having spoken to many politicians over the years, it is quite extraordinary the lack of any scientific acumen possessed by the vast majority of our elected representatives.
The Greens in particular seem to be on a religious crusade, and orthodox Covid theology fits into that somehow.
To have a committee chaired by a Green will necessarily lead to an ideological, and not scientifically-based conclusion.
No surprises in any of this.
One little area of cognitive dissonance- it the "vaccines" were "safe and effective", and if most excess deaths were from Covid, how were they actually effective?
Well they just do the It WoULd HaVe beEN WoRSe argument. That's why the flawed NSW modelling study is now being cited everywhere all the time. I noticed Jim Chalmers is telling the press the economy WoULd hAve BeEN WoRSe without Labor too this week.
In the case of Covid-19, when correlation DOES always = causation, it will always be the winner. Especially when it is allowed to even “indirectly” cause deaths just by association!
Could the other submissions be sourced and loaded to another website? (Along with all the supporting scientific studies of which there are many).
We wouldn't have to work with correlations in circuitous routes if we were granted access to the linked vaccination and medical/Cause of Death data. Someone, somewhere, has access to all the information that allows them to know EXACTLY what happened as a consequence of the vaccines, and various other measures.
Fear is a powerful but unwelcome force being used in suppression of information or comments that may criticise condemn or question any item that may be seen as against the wished of certain bodies What should they fear any opposition if their aims are honest & above board There is nothing to fear but fear which can be loaded with guilt & lack of truth
A dog-shit report written by Ministry of Truth propagandists, useless even as toilet paper.
"During Covid times, the pattern of these government-led inquiries has been to formally rebrand what was at the time a radical departure from scientific and policy consensus as the ‘future pandemic roadmap’ - the new normal."
With the exception of the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry, where perhaps Westminster's full evidence repression regime hadn't penetrated, rather than painting a proper picture of the horrors of public policy during the plandemic era the purpose of these inquiries is clearly to whitewash over the wall of inconvenient facts.
Trevor can you recommend a good wrap up of the Scottish Inquiry?
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/ is the best I've seen and has the additional kudos of a suspended Twitter account https://x.com/biologyphenom. There are lots of evidence video clips in the timeline which are both informative and deeply distressing.
🙏🙏
That is horrendous. But the truth is like that.
I've paid to comment because I put so much work into this question & Inquiry, spending over $1,500 to commission data from the ABS - it would be a shame not to follow through. With a full professional work life in actuarial science, and a decade of peer reviewed published learning on genetic inventions, I felt obligated.
I had two submissions published. I was kindly given a week's extension to the deadline for my first submission to allow for analysis of the very rich ABS data. My supplementary submission was made and published on the day the final report was uploaded.
These were certainly vaccine critical submissions, they answered all of the badly reasoned (and imo unprofessional) analyses of the Australian Institute of Actuaries, yet were not quoted in the report beyond the reference. TLDR, I came up with 40-50K excess deaths, of which 22-30K were directly from the vaccines. The covid deaths were also attributed to excess because the vaccines were meant to be effective against death. Despite both submissions being published, no reference was made to them in the Inquiry report.
I didn't want to read the final report because, expecting a cowardly or unintelligent response, I didn't want the obligation to follow through.
And yet, Rebekah, your substack came through to my inbox and I had to face it. I still haven't read the report, and I've barely skimmed this substack, but have seen a couple of statements that need reply.
Regarding the statement about 'displaced mortality'. Obviously it was displaced - we spent billions and billions of dollars to lock the whole country into covid zero from March 2020 to ~Oct/Nov 2021, with those most likely to die still in hiding. Like any health initiative, the spending of those billions of dollars extended lives against all sorts of infections (not just respiratory) and their flow on consequences. The fact that lives were extended by this superior health environment didn't mean that the lives weren't then cut short by the violent consequence of the vaccines, in the same superior health environment. I directly addressed this assertion of the actuaries in my first submission, but I was not referenced.
Regarding the statement about lives being saved by the measures in 2020, the lives were ALSO saved by the measures against infections that continued from 2020 all the way through 2021. We were at historically low % Fever & Cough levels throughout these two years, so much so that the Australian FluTracker network which publishes them has excluded BOTH 2020 and 2021 in their five year averages. And thus, when 2021 appears to be almost normal mortality, for a NORMAL year of respiratory infection, we can readily see that those deaths, in the near complete absence of covid, are the consequence instead of the vaccines. I made this point very clearly in both submissions, but the Committee did not weigh up this point in their report. There was excess vaccine mortality from the rollout to the end of 2023 of somewhere between 22,000-30,000 deaths, depending on the assumptions made.
Regarding 'covid' being the cause of deaths. Did I, or did I not hear, somewhere in the propaganda from government across Australia, and from all the conflicted and obligated government and pharma-advertising media outlets, that the vaccines were claimed to be "Effective Against Death"?? If I heard correctly, ALL deaths to covid should've been denoted as EXCESS DEATHS. We paid billions of dollars for those vaccines, and one would have to conclude that those vaccines failed, and the deaths were in EXCESS compared to the reasonable baseline expectations. Further, we know from studies coming out of Aged Care in Victoria, across 2020 and 2021, that the vaccines made no contribution to preventing deaths to covid in those most likely to die from covid. There was zero benefit.
On another factor related to the claim of 'displaced mortality', the Cause of Deaths certainly weren't of an average displacement. There was a clear leap in specific ABS Causes of Death that have also been implicated in meta-analyses in the medical literature as consequent to the vaccines - those of underlying and associated cause to Hypertension, and those of underlying and associated cause to Atrial Fibrillation are two of the glaring changes that emerged in 2021, and continued through to 2022, even after removal of these associated deaths to the underlying cause of Covid. There was no increase in deaths to these causes in 2020, which one would have expected to see if they were simply alternatives to dying from respiratory causes. These were definitely vaccine deaths, and those associated with Covid may also be the consequence of the vaccines. I showed these and other glaring changes in the Cause of Death profiles in my supplementary submission - no reference was made.
In summary, the actuaries principally failed to develop a baseline of expected deaths that accounted for the completely altered health environment - a massive professional blunder. I think the Inquiry has only cited their publication due to their supposed credentials.
Thank you Madeleine for this thorough response and thank you for the heads up about your submissions, I was not aware of your actuarial background- I will check them out.
I can’t understate how difficult it is for me to get my pictorial/logical/mathematical/ statistical understandings down onto 'paper’, in a way that readers might understand and credit. Although I spent years on analysis the writing of both submissions was only possible by the extreme pressure of deadlines. Thus, the writing is not at all polished. Contact me if a point doesn't come across.
The logic between the initial submission and my supplementary is perhaps best followed through on my progressive substacks on Excess Mortality.
The other thing that bothers me is the asymmetrical values on death in the elderly. Each individual death to covid (arguably) was mourned in the daily pressers, but not the deaths in the elderly to the vaccines, which were instead repressed.
I was one of the many who willingly locked down, and encouraged others to do so (sorry), for the sake of these elderly lives, and to see them killed by the vaccines without comment is provoking.
Did these elderly lives matter, or not? Clearly not. So what was the lockdown for? (rhetorical)
[that the vaccines were claimed to be "Effective Against Death"?? If I heard correctly, ALL deaths to covid should've been denoted as EXCESS DEATHS]
100%.
The published report states "97.7% of Australians over 16 received a COVID-19 vaccination."
No one is going to admit that the excess deaths were caused by the vaccines, so I think the only line of attack now is the one you have mentioned: if the vaccines were supposed to reduce the likelihood of death, and 97.7% of those > 16 were jabbed (not too sure about the myself) and the report has put cause of excess deaths to be COVID, then WTF was the point of the vaccine ? Of course, they'll say it would be worse without the jab, but that needs to be quantified, and I bet they can't without blowing up their entire story.
BTW, also subscribed so I could comment :)
Most of the covid deaths occur in the oldest age groups, so we'd look at those vax rates.
By the time of the greatest covid death numbers the vaccination rates for 2 doses was over 95%.
We have two studies out of Aged Care regions in Melbourne that report no statistical benefit against covid death between double vaxed and no doses, so one would deduce that around 95% of the deaths to covid were in the vaccinated cohort.
So if we've paid billions of dollars for vaccines on the sales point that they are effective against death, the deaths to covid are obviously in excess of what we paid for.
Regarding the "worse without the jab" claim, there was a study out in Melbourne reporting on the 2020 (pre-vax) death rates to covid (wuhan strain) in the Aged Care Facilities (same demographics). When these rates were compared to the post-vax death rates from 2021 (Delta strain) there was no significant difference (and this was from a vaccine-thinned herd - the weakest in the vaccinated herd dying from the vaccines before Delta arrived). So there's nothing to support the claim of "worse without the jab" in the demographic that is most likely to die of covid,. False marketing, false reporting.
And blatant lying by the politicians and their apparatchiks in the bureaucracy and media who tossed around the 95% VE with gay abandon.
Yes the argument is simply that it would have been worse without the vaccines 🙄
🤑🤑🤑 + advancement in The Agenda to suppress the truth.
To roughly quote Yes Minister, "Never hold an enquiry unless you know what the outcome will be".
As I have previously stated, having spoken to many politicians over the years, it is quite extraordinary the lack of any scientific acumen possessed by the vast majority of our elected representatives.
The Greens in particular seem to be on a religious crusade, and orthodox Covid theology fits into that somehow.
To have a committee chaired by a Green will necessarily lead to an ideological, and not scientifically-based conclusion.
No surprises in any of this.
One little area of cognitive dissonance- it the "vaccines" were "safe and effective", and if most excess deaths were from Covid, how were they actually effective?
Well they just do the It WoULd HaVe beEN WoRSe argument. That's why the flawed NSW modelling study is now being cited everywhere all the time. I noticed Jim Chalmers is telling the press the economy WoULd hAve BeEN WoRSe without Labor too this week.
A case of the old political adage - never call for or allow an inquiry if you don't know the outcome!
In the case of Covid-19, when correlation DOES always = causation, it will always be the winner. Especially when it is allowed to even “indirectly” cause deaths just by association!
Could the other submissions be sourced and loaded to another website? (Along with all the supporting scientific studies of which there are many).
Exactly, only the approved correlations = causation 🙄
We wouldn't have to work with correlations in circuitous routes if we were granted access to the linked vaccination and medical/Cause of Death data. Someone, somewhere, has access to all the information that allows them to know EXACTLY what happened as a consequence of the vaccines, and various other measures.
Yes, it's a mystery whey they don't want to release it ;)
privacy, for sure ;)
The outcome was always pre-determined.
This farce is very similar to another farce underway. I recently watched an online "group (think) chat session" about the forthcoming JORC changes.
They kept saying submit your comments, we will consider them all.
But every question was met with authoritarian replies about the consensus, the expertise of the working group, and how this was good for "investors".
They accidently said it was for the lawyers at one point, which made more sense to me.
The changes will be made, no correspondence will be entered into, you will comply.
Re "consensus"... Whose consensus?
Fear is a powerful but unwelcome force being used in suppression of information or comments that may criticise condemn or question any item that may be seen as against the wished of certain bodies What should they fear any opposition if their aims are honest & above board There is nothing to fear but fear which can be loaded with guilt & lack of truth