Excess Mortality Project - Have you seen this?

Excess Mortality Project

The data is in, and the data is damning... something is going on, and I think we all have a good idea as to what it may be. 💉 🩸 🧬

I haven't had time to go through all of it, but I was hoping some of you brighter folks here could dig into the data? 😇

One thing I noticed is that the age group of average mortality has shifted from old to young in the past 2 years... 😳

Thanks, and godspeed! 🙃

a reply to: NormalGuyCrazyWorld

An excerpt explaining the studies:

Excess Deaths Methodology Papers

In the studies below we analyse the dangers and pitfalls of using the standard measures for excess deaths and how they can lead to misguided policy decisions. In addition, we propose an alternative way of computing excess deaths based upon computing excess death rates instead of excess deaths.

We show that using prior N-year average of deaths as baseline (method 1) is inappropriate in estimating excess mortality. The volatility of the changes in deaths as well as the problem of age group populations oscillating over time, makes this measurement inaccurate, leading to severe biases. This could then lead to misguided assessments and consequently erroneous policy actions.

Death rates tend to decline over time, for a given population age cohort, as living conditions have generally been improving since after the Second World War (with some exceptions). Estimating excess mortality by computing excess death rates obtains a much clearer signal, this is, a much more accurate estimate for excess mortality. This is because changes in death rates do not trend upwards and downwards over time and are much less volatile from year-to-year than changes in deaths.

I'll wait for the smart people to comment too.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Yeah, the better you break down data into demographics and apply it to like data the more informative it is.

I mentioned it in a post yesterday that is probably TLDR for most people about studies on COVID almost all being manipulated to suit the narrative. Demographic manipulation through clustering, nonsensical breakdowns, or skewing the risk using dissimilar groups are some of the common ways they're doing it. You add that, low certainty being peddled as absolute truth, and broad conclusions about its meaning, you get results that defy even casual observation of the real world.

It's not really new, but it's just finally able to start breaking through the censorship and getting to normies that think scientific studies are all legit because they're coming from official sources with the appearance of being academic.

Anything making it to the news owned by the big six corporate conglomerates should be considered cherry-picked junk unless you review the studies they base their claims on.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: MykeNukem

Yeah, the better you break down data into demographics and apply it to like data the more informative it is.

I mentioned it in a post yesterday that is probably TLDR for most people about studies on COVID almost all being manipulated to suit the narrative. Demographic manipulation through clustering, nonsensical breakdowns, or skewing the risk using dissimilar groups are some of the common ways they're doing it. You add that, low certainty being peddled as absolute truth, and broad conclusions about its meaning, you get results that defy even casual observation of the real world.

It's not really new, but it's just finally able to start breaking through the censorship and getting to normies that think scientific studies are all legit because they're coming from official sources with the appearance of being academic.

Anything making it to the news owned by the big six corporate conglomerates should be considered cherry-picked junk unless you review the studies they base their claims on.

Thanks for that explanation, K.

I read what you post, related to Covid, but I only process maybe 50% before my eyes gloss over, lol.

Luckily, 50% is enough for me to get the jest.

To think we're here all stemming from a supposed 'excess morality project'. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... or rather marched down by the plebs following our elite masters intentions that always seem to prove diabolical.

a reply to: NormalGuyCrazyWorld

If you read the website that this originates on you'll see that they don't use any of the standard models for estimating mortality rates, instead they use an extremely poorly defined methodology of their own devising that effectively eliminates most known historic data and trends in favor of an extremely narrowly defined curve that even a casual observer will tell you covers almost exclusively with the pandemic.

In effect, they're comparing an average year to a period of high social and economic stress.

Then there's this little jem.

Death rates tend to decline over time, for a given population age cohort, as living conditions have generally been improving since after the Second World War (with some exceptions). Estimating excess mortality by computing excess death rates obtains a much clearer signal, this is, a much more accurate estimate for excess mortality. This is because changes in death rates do not trend upwards and downwards over time and are much less volatile from year-to-year than changes in deaths.

TLDR: They're wrong.

If you take a look at this link you will see that there has been an upward trend in poverty, drug use, obesity, alcohol abuse.

The trends that they are tracking aren't new, and they aren't even due to covid, they're a decade old and are due to increases in poverty, in particular poverty in what used to be middle income blue collar communities due to increases in automation and a loss of manufacturing to oversea companies, and a transition to service based economy that offers fewer economic opportunities to the blue collar sectors.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

In order for what you are saying to be true, this would need to be being done in every region of every country in the G7, because they're all coming out with more or less the same curves.

Even China has a similar curve.

Explain this to me. Iran and Israel have nearly identical data. Both nations hate each other. Both would like to see the other exterminated. So why would they both get together and fake their data when they could use the real data to expose the other and knock it down a peg?

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: MykeNukem

Yeah, the better you break down data into demographics and apply it to like data the more informative it is.

I mentioned it in a post yesterday that is probably TLDR for most people about studies on COVID almost all being manipulated to suit the narrative. Demographic manipulation through clustering, nonsensical breakdowns, or skewing the risk using dissimilar groups are some of the common ways they're doing it. You add that, low certainty being peddled as absolute truth, and broad conclusions about its meaning, you get results that defy even casual observation of the real world.

It's not really new, but it's just finally able to start breaking through the censorship and getting to normies that think scientific studies are all legit because they're coming from official sources with the appearance of being academic.

Anything making it to the news owned by the big six corporate conglomerates should be considered cherry-picked junk unless you review the studies they base their claims on.

Thanks for that explanation, K.

I read what you post, related to Covid, but I only process maybe 50% before my eyes gloss over, lol.

Luckily, 50% is enough for me to get the jest.

That still makes you far more well informed than anybody claiming these are safe, effective, or justified, no matter how qualified their education or experience makes them seem.

There has been little doubt for a year and a half, but there's now a 0% chance of those claims being true.

The final public reckoning will have implications for science and healthcare decades into the future.

a reply to: MykeNukem

In a sentence, the "project" says: if you can't persuade your audience with reason, baffle them with bullsh@t.

Everything else is waffle to bury that conclusion.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

In order for what you are saying to be true...

Explain this to me.?

I think this abstract probably explains everything anybody needs to know about your question.

It actually adds broad context to virtually all of your posts on this topic over the past three years.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

In order for what you are saying to be true...

Explain this to me.?

I think this abstract probably explains everything anybody needs to know about your question.

....

No, it doesn't, actually. Based on the fact that you quote the abstract and not the actual article, I'm guessing you didn't read the article. It discusses lying in Psychiatric settings, not in the general population. A much more relevant consideration is how often people lie in their everyday lives, since any large scale conspiracy of falsehood would require a coordinated group effort at deception, lasting over time and spanning a large range of personality types. The prevalence of lying is discussed in the following article:

"The Prevalence of Lying in America: Three Studies of Self-Reported Lies"

academic.oup.com...

About 60% of the people report telling no lies in the previous 24 hours. About 1% of the population tells 22% of all lies. In other words, most people are honest most of the time, while a small fraction of the population tells lies habitually. This is one of the biggest reasoning errors that conspiracy theorists make, in my opinion. They often make the intellectually lazy assumption that certain individuals and groups, such as politicians, business execs, etc. all lie all the time. That's not physically possible and doesn't correspond to the research data.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

In order for what you are saying to be true...

Explain this to me.?

I think this abstract probably explains everything anybody needs to know about your question.

It actually adds broad context to virtually all of your posts on this topic over the past three years.

There's a lot of deconstruction happening in that very relevant publication, but it amounts to what I said earlier. The science of putting lipstick on a pig and marketing that lipstick as barbecue sauce while editorializing the common understanding of what a "pig" is.

And that's how to debunk the myth of excess mortality so investors can confidently "buy the dip".

a reply to: 1947boomer

There's an article about missing the point that may explain your confusion.

I don't answer questions on demand anymore from people that will just ignore the response or make up nonsense to dispute the information I provide. I will gladly answer questions that are honest attempts to understand even if it's something I didn't necessarily say or endorse. I will not answer things asked simply to try injecting uncertainty, deceptively imply that I made claims I didn't, or made under the mistaken belief that I post things I don't understand in an effort to discredit me.

In this case they're asking a question that has nothing to do with my comment and doing so in a way that they believe makes it look like my comment is invalid or not based on facts. They're asking me to explain government reporting numbers rather than studies, which was the topic of my post. It doesn't have anything to do with my statements about how more specific data compared to other like data is more informative than simple aggregate data. I didn't endorse the OP or claim anything in the quoted portion I responded to was fact. If they really were interested I could explain how numbers can be manipulated at the reporting level. I actually did back in 2020, as have many others back then and often since.

I'm no longer going to waste words on somebody that is not only disingenuous, but also is widely known by those not of the COVID and pharma cult to be guilty of fabricating dozens of things over the past three years. Hence my link that has confounded you about liars, from an abstract that is only really quoted for the name. Perhaps your analytical skills would be better used looking at the studies that have been used to justify the beliefs you were told to have during the pandemic?

I didn't bother pointing out the obvious implications about aggregate excess deaths being an indicator of a crisis during the early phase of COVID. It means the cult have to now explain why the excess non-COVID deaths after the vaccine deployment, which in many cases are exceeding the height of the pandemic phase, are nothing to worry about. Nobody has yet explained why it obviously cannot be tied to the deployment of a brand new EUA therapeutic with a history of gross failures that was foisted upon the majority of the Western population where said excess mortalities are being observed.

For once, never mind.....

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: MykeNukem

Yeah, the better you break down data into demographics and apply it to like data the more informative it is.

I mentioned it in a post yesterday that is probably TLDR for most people about studies on COVID almost all being manipulated to suit the narrative. Demographic manipulation through clustering, nonsensical breakdowns, or skewing the risk using dissimilar groups are some of the common ways they're doing it. You add that, low certainty being peddled as absolute truth, and broad conclusions about its meaning, you get results that defy even casual observation of the real world.

It's not really new, but it's just finally able to start breaking through the censorship and getting to normies that think scientific studies are all legit because they're coming from official sources with the appearance of being academic.

Anything making it to the news owned by the big six corporate conglomerates should be considered cherry-picked junk unless you review the studies they base their claims on.

We need JP Sears to do a marketing analysis skit based around this "method".

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

In order for what you are saying to be true...

Explain this to me.?

I think this abstract probably explains everything anybody needs to know about your question.

It actually adds broad context to virtually all of your posts on this topic over the past three years.

And yet in the past 3 years you've not actually been able to come with a single explanation of where or how I'm wrong. You simply make statements and then never back them up.

I've laid my cards on the table, and you've not even anteed up.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Over the last couple of years I've had people accusing me of being part of a CDC coverup, or taking money from Big-Pharma, or being a Russian instigator, and of a whole bunch of stuff that's I don't even know how to describe.

I wonder if I should just get all of these people onto one message board and let them explain why I'm the thing that they think I am, rather than the thing that the others think that I am.

Maybe they could all debunk each other.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Death rates tend to decline over time, for a given population age cohort,

Ironically, in the US, this isn't actually the case due to wealth concentration. While the country as a whole has become richer, the number of people trapped in multi-generational poverty has increased. Leading to those on the higher socioeconomic rungs living longer and better, and those on the lower rungs seeing an overall decline over the last two generations.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

In order for what you are saying to be true...

Explain this to me.?

I think this abstract probably explains everything anybody needs to know about your question.

It actually adds broad context to virtually all of your posts on this topic over the past three years.

And yet in the past 3 years you've not actually been able to come with a single explanation of where or how I'm wrong. You simply make statements and then never back them up.

You never made it back to the mask discussion about the 180 studies showing you've been peddling pseudoscience for three years. That was 5 days ago and you haven't managed to respond yet, what happened there Bobo?

I also did it in just the last 24 hours. You made up something about the reason there is no vaccine mandate for the house reps and their staff in a failed attempt to give Pelosi the appearance of being a nonpartisan peacemaker.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: nugget1
I was trying to keep an open mind until congress exempted themselves from being vaccinated. That sealed the deal for me; it wasn't ever about health or saving lives.

That was purely to avoid conflict with anti vax republicans.

Almost all of the Democrats were vaxxed already, so the Democrats excempted others from something that the had already done themselves in order to prevent it from becoming yet another partisan issue.

"So here’s the thing: We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That’s just not what we can do, it is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn’t....” she told reporters.



I guess this post makes three times in the past week. If only Pfizer had an injection to prevent pathological lying.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: NormalGuyCrazyWorld

If you read the website that this originates on you'll see that they don't use any of the standard models for estimating mortality rates, instead they use an extremely poorly defined methodology of their own devising that effectively eliminates most known historic data and trends in favor of an extremely narrowly defined curve that even a casual observer will tell you covers almost exclusively with the pandemic.

In effect, they're comparing an average year to a period of high social and economic stress.

Then there's this little jem.

Death rates tend to decline over time, for a given population age cohort, as living conditions have generally been improving since after the Second World War (with some exceptions). Estimating excess mortality by computing excess death rates obtains a much clearer signal, this is, a much more accurate estimate for excess mortality. This is because changes in death rates do not trend upwards and downwards over time and are much less volatile from year-to-year than changes in deaths.

TLDR: They're wrong.

If you take a look at this link you will see that there has been an upward trend in poverty, drug use, obesity, alcohol abuse.

The trends that they are tracking aren't new, and they aren't even due to covid, they're a decade old and are due to increases in poverty, in particular poverty in what used to be middle income blue collar communities due to increases in automation and a loss of manufacturing to oversea companies, and a transition to service based economy that offers fewer economic opportunities to the blue collar sectors.

No! Again you are wrong as you try to justify the deaths on a range of well known reasons for which there is no evidence they have produced many more deaths.

Just as you were wrong with everything else you said about natural immunity, herd immunity, benefit to risk ratio, etc. Until very recently you were arguing that vaccination results in herd immunity... To have this argument repeatedly refuted over various threads. You were also arguing in your country you have achieved hard immunity long time ago.

This is the definition of confusion!

You were claiming that everyone else is wrong and you are right. And even the basic definition of herd immunity has to be wrong so you can be right.

Yes, it's the climate change, the orbital speed of earth, neutrinos, supermassive black holes, and every other factor that contributes to the excess number of non Covid deaths.