More On Excess Mortality And The Covid Injections

We’ve brought up the question of the relevance of excess mortality to the issue of the Covid injections in a number of posts. Most experts agree that excess mortality is the one statistic in which everything comes out in the wash. It can’t be hidden or fudged, and it demands an explanation—because mortality rates are very predictable within established and well known ranges. This is why death claims on life insurance companies are so relevant, when the total claims fall well beyond those predictable ranges.

Alex Berenson very recently did a substack post in which he discussed the disturbing numbers in British Columbia (which mirror the numbers we’re seeing here in IL). These numbers call into question the effectiveness of the Covid injections from the single perspective of Covid deaths, which is a good place to start questioning:

More disappearing Covid vaccine data

Add British Columbia to the governments trying to hide the reality that the mRNA jabbed make up the vast majority of Covid hospitalizations and deaths.

I’ll just provide the bottom line numbers:

… just over half of all of British Columbia’s 5.3 million residents are boosted, while another 31 percent have received at least two doses. Yes, vaccinated and especially boosted people tend to be somewhat older than the unvaccinated.

Still, the fact that 75 to 80 percent of all deaths occur in boosted people highlight the sad reality that the shots do little if anything to stop severe cases and death from Omicron - the final defense of vaccine advocates.

and this telling evasion:

Amazingly, a Canadian television network actually asked the Centre for Disease Control why it had pulled the charts. The agency’s response:

“As most of the population has now been vaccinated with at least two doses of vaccine and many more have been infected with COVID-19, the data became hard to interpret."

The data became hard to interpret.

And by “hard” they mean “easy.”

Now, Robert Malone recently did an interview in the Netherlands, in conjunction with a very prominent Dutch vaccinologist and immunologist, Theo Schetters. Because I believe this interview will be seen as important information for many readers, I wanted to make this very easy to deal with. With that in mind I’ve taken the transcript and summarized things to make it very to the point. Some portions have been left out, others have been paraphrased or conflated—in one spot, for the sake of simplicity, I’ve attributed the words of the moderator to Schetters—because he explicitly agrees with her. In particular, I’ve put Schetters’ words into more idiomatic English. Malone’s words are exact, but edited. If you don’t trust my judgement, follow the link—a video of the interview is also there.

Data doesn't lie: mRNA-vaccines and correlation to all-cause mortality

Marlies Dekkers speaks with with Drs. Robert Malone and Theo Schetters

During my recent travel to Holland, Marlies Dekkers of the De Nieuwe Wereld Podcast interviewed Dr. Theo Schetters and myself. Theo is a very serious, well trained, responsible virologist, immunologist and vaccine expert. He highly respected in the Netherlands, ...

Background: Dr. Theo Schetters obtained a PhD in Medicine from Nijmegen University in the Netherlands, and received a visiting scientist award from the Royal Society (London) to work on malaria immunology at the National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill, London (UK). From 1988 to 2014 he worked at Intervet International (Boxmeer, The Netherlands) where he developed a vaccine against coccidiosis in chickens (Nobilis® Cox ATM) and a vaccine against Babesia infections in dogs (Nobivac® Piro). He is inventor of an improved vaccine formulation against diseases associated with Rhipicephalus ticks. Presently, he is director of ProtActivity, a company that focuses on vaccine development against ticks and tick-borne protozoal infections. In 2004 he received the Medal of Honour of the Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Montpellier 1 in France and was bestowed Professeur Invité as recognition for his contribution to longstanding collaborative research with the Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology of the University (head Prof. Andre Gorenflot). He is an editorial board member of “Veterinary Parasitology, Trials in Vaccinology” (Elseviers Science Publishers) and “Parasitology” (Cambridge University Press).

***

Schetters: Most people in the Netherlands--about 75%--are injected. I don't want to freak them out by telling them that they let something be injected into their bodies that's going to kill them. We know that not everyone is dying within a year, but a certain percentage of people do have big problems. We have to be open about this because there will be more and more mRNA 'vaccines' coming down the road.

Malone: Influenza. Monkeypox.

Schetters: Right. mRNA technology simply isn't mature. It may be in the future, but it's not ready for prime time now. That's what we need to push back against. Because right now we have a problem with people dying after being injected as well as people being injured.

Malone: Including children, reproductive consequences ...

Schetters: Yes. The problem with this technology is that it travels throughout the body, even though physicians were told that wasn't the case. Therefore it potentially affects all organs. That's what doctors are seeing now--all sorts of symptoms, and they're wondering, Where is this coming from? The adverse effects are so diverse--not just myocarditis and coagulation problems--that it's difficult to pin them down statistically to one cause [the injection]. That's why we turn to analysis of excess mortality. By using government statistics we can establish a strong correlation between the injections and excess mortality. We can show that in the Netherlands using data from the Central Bureau of Statistics and of our National Institute of Health.

So, if you have more injections in a week you have more excess deaths. If you have fewer injections in a week, you have fewer deaths. We can't get granular data, but we know what's happening. We can't show a one to one correlation, but we can show a group correlation--especially by age group. The correlation is strong enough that we can say that as a precautionary measure we should stop the injections.

Malone: So all-cause mortality is the ultimate indicator for things that we didn't expect.

Schetters: Actually, I've done a rough calculation and it comes out to 1 in 800:

Malone: 1 in 800 is a pretty big number.

Schetters: Yes. In the Netherlands the boosts are only given to people over 60, so maybe that explains why [the elderly are showing up in high proportions in excess deaths].

Malone: This is one of the mistakes I and others made. Virtually all of the risk for death from the virus is isolated in a very small age window--really 65 and above. So we said, that's the age group that should be getting injected. But then the data came out, showing that not only is the risk of the virus stratified by age, but the risk of the vaccine is stratified by age.

Schetters: So if I break it up in three age groups, then you see that the most of the mortality is in the plus 80. But the question is, at this point in time do these people still need the injections? With Omicron there's already a good level of herd immunity. We need to ask, What is the real risk for people in these older age groups?

Malone: I stand as someone who has intimate, detailed knowledge of the technology and its risks and benefits, the nature of the formulations, the role of the pseudouridine, all of those things.

It's my opinion and that of the organization that I represent, that the data are now sufficiently clear that, in our opinion, the ongoing campaign for vaccination is no longer warranted.

Schetters: I agree.

Malone: And furthermore, it's our opinion that early (multi-drug) treatment saves lives. What matters is that these... our elders, our high-risk individuals have immediate access to therapeutics. We should not continue with this 'everything deserves the same hammer'. Such as Paxlovid, with which a recent Science magazine op-ed clearly outlines that this protease inhibitor strategy against the main protease, which is the mechanism of Paxlovid, is highly susceptible to viral evolutionary escape.

Schetters: Exactly. Drug escape.

Malone: We've known the risks with protease inhibitors for many years, going back to HIV. I sat on the committees that considered them. And it was explicitly acknowledged at that time that this single agent strategy was a total setup for evolutionary escape of the virus. You know this as a virologist. And what that means is that we should not use the drugs as single agents.

Schetters: No, but in combination.

Malone: And we have Pfizer, the manufacturer, who halted their clinical trials for Paxlovid in the normal risk individuals because it wasn't working. It was not effective in people of average risk. So we have multiple lines of evidence that one should not just blindly use this drug every time somebody gets infected, we need to use these things wisely.

Schetters: Yes. Like you have to do with vaccines.