40% Increase in US All-Cause Mortality is Easy to Hide

A reply to a post regarding an alleged 40% increase in all-cause mortality tied to mass COVID vaccination would be “hard to hide or be unnoticeable”.

I thought about that for a minute and decided to crunch some numbers as my hypothesis is a 40% increase in overall mortality wouldn’t be hard to cover up at all.

I looked at CDC mortality/birth data for 2018 as it’s easily available data and pre-pandemic. Logic being that a lot of health data has been manipulated since the pandemic began (probably was before, but definitely is manipulated now). I view 2018 data as a reasonable proxy for current date from a conceptual standpoint.

The US had 3,383,729 deaths in 2018, or ~9,271 deaths per day or about 185 deaths equally distributed across each state.

www.cdc.gov...

3,788,235 births occurred in the US in 2018.

www.cdc.gov...

~404,496 people to the good on an absolute basis, or about 8.1k new residents/state purely on the basis of mortality and birth.

Obviously, distributing these figures across states uniformly is silly, I did so to provide uniform scale. When you consider greater Los Angeles is ~3x the size of the state of oregon by population then, obviously, some areas would experience greater death by count than others on an absolute basis.

There is much talk of the global elite wanting to “cull the herd”. While I get that concern, I also can say they aren’t wrong. The planet, with our current consumption levels and growth rate, will in fact reach peak human capacity at some point in time.

My comment about not being wrong doesn’t mean I say “cull the herd!”, it just means that mathematically there is a point where our current consumption levels can’t be maintained with a much larger population engaging in that consumption.

To avoid having to exterminate a huge number of humans if we reached “peak human”, the “elites” are probably getting in front of that scenario and a potential solution to do so is the COVID vaccines. Why get in front of it? Because having to enact population control measures in terms of eliminating humans at scale would be highly, highly problematic for social stability and all the elites reign over - that scenario must be avoided for very practical reasons.

“Official” data regarding the vaccine is tainted, to a point that I hesitate to reliably quote much of anything. I wouldn’t trust the CDC to hold my beer at this point, for instance (and that’s on them for destroying public trust). I will say the vaccine impacted me permanently in a negative way. I also was hearing about heart issues occurring from the vax back in the spring of 21 from medical professionals. Adding to the vaccine’s questionable nature is an enormous amount of information that, as time goes on, tends to at minimum raise points that are unfavorable for vaccine’s effectiveness and it’s side effects.

Rather than debate the vax, my focus here is to simply answer the question, “Could we actually increase the all-cause mortality rate in the US by 40% and have it go unnoticed by the masses?”

If the vax is indeed intended to help cull the herd, it would have to overcome the birth rate by a material amount. The death rate would have to keep increasing, too, to offset the ever increasing size of the population from births and immigration - until such a point is reached we flip to a negative headcount trajectory (birth + immigration < mortality + emigration). That need to avoid further population growth isn’t really a “conspiracy theory” so much as it is mathematical reality.

If people get healthier and medical technology keeps people alive longer, we have an even larger problem from a population and resource consumption standpoint. So, the human game becomes making medications to keep pharma getting paid, not explaining positive lifestyle modification, don’t educate people about healthy practices or holistic medicine, and feed them fast food for $5 a meal. This keeps the population sick, dehydrated and on track to early mortality relative to what’s possible in the 21st century - population levels somewhat controlled.

If the above is the aim, the vaccine causing “side effects” could be the vaccine accelerating underlying medical conditions and bringing forward deaths that would have occurred in the future. Pulling these deaths forward, or increasing the probability of earlier mortality, definitely helps if the aim is reduction of resource utilization and overall population.

So, if the claims of “40% increase in all cause mortality” are correct, what would that look like?

Using 2018 data, 3,383,729 people died that year. 3,383,729 x 1.4 = ~4,737,220 deaths. That would mean an increase of 1,353,491 deaths. Or, an additional 3,708 deaths a day nationally, or ~74 additional deaths per state per day.

That’s nothing - even for a small state like Oregon, as an example. Oregon’s population is 4,325,290.

worldpopulationreview.com...

An additional 74 deaths/day would mean losing an additional 0.00001715 of the Oregon state population a day across all communities in the entire state. That would be like having one half of one floor of my office building pass away every day, in every state, state-wide. Broken down across Oregon counties and we’re talking an additional a few additional deaths/day, using a small population state as the example. 74 additional deaths in Los Angeles would be equate to a couple of addition deaths per hospital in the area - not alarming at the local level.

74 people dying additionally every day is not shocking. Many people don’t think critically, which means a fairly basic filter is used for most of the information they consume. “Well, they were old so it makes sense they die”. There are other factors that could explain away the increased mortality from the aging Baby Boomer population, to the increased number of octogenarians, to a fluke. Easily explained away and at the hospital/city/county levels these numbers would be easily overlooked or not know to anyone but the health authorities (who are exceptionally corrupt).

At scale, those 74 additional deaths per state add up to a major change in the direction of US population headcount. Births would have to increase +10% to offset the increased death rate - maybe more - and that would be very challenging to cover up, too. You’d be hearing for more talk about another “baby boom”.

74 additional deaths is not a huge number, when scaled, as we now know. That begs the question… what is? 100 additional deaths per day, per state? 150? 500?

Who is dying and what is reported as the COD play material roles in defining what the right number is for maximum effectiveness before “getting caught”. But, let’s assume that who is dying and from what are all kind of “normal” or “under the radar” people and causes.

I bet you could do 225 additional deaths per day, per state, and stay off the radar. I pick 225 (or so) because let’s assume that each decedent has a family where 4 people, on average would be impacted as family by their death. That’s additional 900 people per day impacted by death - who then tell 10 people each about what happened and now 9000 more people are aware of a death than normal. But, the deaths are “natural” and/or not shocking because the people who died weren’t notably healthy, for instance - or the death “kinda makes sense”.

But, that death is only news when that death happens to people who are:

- Young
- Healthy
- Notable

A 58 year old obese white male dying of a heart attack is not news. It’s an obituary that’s put in the paper.

So, if 225 additional deaths/day could probably squeak by given the local impact is minimal but the aggregate impact is substantial, I suspect a 40% increase in all cause mortality at an additional 74 deaths/day/state is reasonable to get away with.

If that’s true, and we have an increase in all cause mortality after telling all people to all take the same thing, it’s not illogical to deeply consider the common link that causes increased all cause mortality is the vaccine.

Thanks for reading.

Does the CDC mortality data include only us citizens?

It looks like the vaccines were designed to increase illness and sickness amongst the population in general. Exactly what the medical and pharmaceutical community thrives on.

Considering the effects of the shots on young women (and some say men too) and their reproductive parts, won't the birthrate be changing too?

Most pregnant women who took the shots had miscarriages. Some dissenting doctors say that while an injected woman may get pregnant again, she will not be able to have a successful pregnancy because the shots effect the placenta significantly.

a reply to: Salander

Birth rate has increased for the first time in 7 years.

The National Center for Health Statistics analysis of 99.94 percent of registered birth records from last year found that births rose by 1 percent compared to the 2020 numbers, the first upswing since 2014.

From 2014 to 2020, births declined by approximately 2 percent every year, according to the numbers processed by the National Vital Statistics System.

The Hill

originally posted by: carewemust
Does the CDC mortality data include only us citizens?

It looks like the vaccines were designed to increase illness and sickness amongst the population in general. Exactly what the medical and pharmaceutical community thrives on.

Good question - I’m not sure. It could be based on death certs and hospital reporting - or SSN’s that are moved to death status. Unsure.

Citizenship status doesn’t mean much here though - I’m only answering the question (out loud for myself) that a 40% increase in all-cause mortality is entirely doable in a largely unnoticed way. You wouldn’t notice until a year later and the annual mortality figure jumps.

Pretty brilliant - you could see a 2x increase in the mortality rate and all you have to do is blame COVID. Then blame the unvaxxed to push more vaccinations - which leads to more people getting sick and dying - which you then blame on COVID. Sickly brilliant strategy.

a reply to: frogs453

No reflection whatsoever on you, but I'm very skeptical of what's written in The Hill, and even more skeptical of any data published by CDC, FDA, Pharma and the rest.

Purely anecdotal, but I know 2 young women who lost pregnancies from the shots, and one who seems to have delivered a slightly deformed child.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Salander

Birth rate has increased for the first time in 7 years.

The National Center for Health Statistics analysis of 99.94 percent of registered birth records from last year found that births rose by 1 percent compared to the 2020 numbers, the first upswing since 2014.

From 2014 to 2020, births declined by approximately 2 percent every year, according to the numbers processed by the National Vital Statistics System.

The Hill

Children of the Quarn!

a reply to: VulcanWerks

You offer a perfect explanation for filling the US with mostly healthy young people crossing the southern border; a new supply of workers to take the place of the older and unhealthy population dying off!

As for the increased birth rate, over 2 million 'migrants' have been transported across the US in the last two years, coming from a country known to have extremely large families. No more 'anchor babies' needed. They also get a lot of government financial support, so don't need to worry about the issues plaguing the millions of US citizens who have been added to the extreme poverty list.

@ Slander:

Purely anecdotal, but I know 2 young women who lost pregnancies from the shots, and one who seems to have delivered a slightly deformed child.

Interesting that immigrants/migrants have been exempted from being vaccinated, or even taking a covid test. It's almost like they want to keep the infection rate going as a good cover for all the vax deaths happening.

If the goal is population control then why would the Supreme Court entertain overturning Roe V. Wade?

Between that and the influx of immigrants it's going to be very hard to see the population in America decline.

a reply to: Salander

Ok, but yet the OP is using CDC statisitcs?

Anecdotally I know of other ATS members including myself who had miscarriages well before any Covid vaccination and I know of four women who had babies in the last year and 2 due this summer.

a reply to: frogs453

Regarding the OP and citing CDC, I am basing my judgment on reports from the life insurance industry.

Yes, I know miscarriages existed before the clot shots. People had strokes and heart attacks before the shots too. Myo and pericarditis existed before the shots too, but not like it's showing today with the injected youngsters.

In the case of the OP, at least there is non-governmental data from the life insurance industry that tends to corroborate the OP's points.

originally posted by: CloneFarm1000
If the goal is population control then why would the Supreme Court entertain overturning Roe V. Wade?

Between that and the influx of immigrants it's going to be very hard to see the population in America decline.

Roe versus Wade is political, pandering to a voting base that is in serious jeopardy of loosing control. The DNC will do everything possible to remain in power.

This isnt true, my wife got pregnant months after her second shot, the boy is due in 2 months and no noticeable issues.

a reply to: Salander

a reply to: Salander

The link to the pdf from the National Center for Health Statistics is in the article, but I will provide the link to the pdf directly.


pdf link

a reply to: VulcanWerks

We're almost at peak population and face rapid decline over the next 100 years simply due to birth rates. Most European countries actually face a population crisis and reduction of over 60% without any intervention or "cull".

There's plenty of planet and resources for us all and future generations, this is about bringing us under control, monopolisation of those resources and feeding the greed of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

Quite simply our technology is now at a stage that we can extend life, we can also create and edit genetics in the lab. TBTB simply don't need us for labour or reproduction anymore.

We have aging populations and it's easier to kill us off rather than pay those pensions.

a reply to: frogs453

Millions of unvaccinated illegal immigrants having babies could account for that bump.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Salander

Birth rate has increased for the first time in 7 years.

Likely because people were locked in their homes with nothing else to do except eat and have sex...

“ You offer a perfect explanation for filling the US with mostly healthy young people crossing the southern border; a new supply of workers to take the place of the older and unhealthy population dying off!

As for the increased birth rate, over 2 million 'migrants' have been transported across the US in the last two years, coming from a country known to have extremely large families. No more 'anchor babies' needed. They also get a lot of government financial support, so don't need to worry about the issues plaguing the millions of US citizens who have been added to the extreme poverty list.”


If you can’t reduce the population…you need to get the population to utilize fewer resources. Replacing the existing USA population (heavy resource consumers) with impoverished migrants who are used to doing without….means fewer resources will be utilized.


a reply to: nugget1

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Salander

Birth rate has increased for the first time in 7 years.

Likely because people were locked in their homes with nothing else to do except eat and have sex...

Correct. The press even got cutesy about it, like it was a benefit of lockdowns, that there would be a COVID baby boom.

Nobody is pointing out that heart attack numbers are likely flat because the most heart attack prone group was recorded as COVID for COD, which masked that the atypical heart attack deaths increased after broad approval of vaccination. I haven't mentioned it before, but I think that's where the next round of unfavorable data will be. Hopefully it's temporary.

They've been using nebulous figures like all cause mortality because you can build whatever story you want around that number, any aggregate garbage statistic that has no correlation to anything. Deaths down? It's because the vaccine works. Deaths up? It's because of anti-maskers and COVID being super deadly.

It doesn't even mean it's wrong. It's just not definitive and easy to manipulate. They don't have to prove anything so much as convince people they have proven something. Ultimately, my story has just as much validity because it's based on the same facts. I merely refuse to ignore confounding factors. I believe we need more data. The more data we have the less they can explain around it.