In your fourth paragraph, eighth graph down, CFR of people 30-39 vs month/year, what do you make of the big upsurge in CFR in 2023? Wasn't the jab rate in Germany way down by 1/2023 in this age group? And this rise is preceded by a lower rate during 2022. I may have missed something obvious here.
I love your analyses. Maybe because the numbers somehow create an emotional distance from the tragic abuse inflicted with the "poison death shots". Thanks, Fabian.
Brilliant work Fabian. I took your advice and use Libre Office all the time now.
When did the jabs roll out in Germany? I see some trends as early as late 2020 in your charts? I would love to see you work on the NZ hospital data, if we can get it. You are correct about the hiding of trends when you use annual v weekly, or monthly data. How many people didn't die in a hospital? I believe it is many. Many die in nursing homes that have a reasonable level of medical support.
While the obvious inference in the young hospitalized getting their contrast-agent MRI's would be as a response to symptoms of myocarditis, another issue of the higher rate of MRI scans is deposition of gadolinium.
The reason that there is more than one half-life for gadolinium in general, is that when it gets into tissue, it is eliminated more slowly.
The reason that this can matter is that -- with, say, a microgram of gadolinium per gram of bone tissue -- your susceptibility to electromagnetic fields goes up, increasing your risk of methemoglobinemia (and subsequent hypoxemia) during a worst-case "bone concentration elimination half-life" of about 72 days (1% daily).
It is biomedically conceivable that you could remain at risk for methemoglobinemia for a few months post-MRI.
Excellent information Fabian- I will be sending this to my German friends. A couple of questions: What is the general mood in Germany about the “vaccines”? A saw a little traction about the DNA contaminants in the vials but I wasn’t sure if the normal population has even begun to relate covid vaccine injuries to cardiac events? Also, are pregnant women still being highly encouraged to get the covid vaccine- I was curious if you have any idea if the uptake has fallen back?
Sec 3: I would not care too much with Figure 3c (the 3rd in Section 3). It is supposed to amplify the issue. But such calculations usually generate additional variability. Fig 3a is sufficient, 3c nice to have and confirming.
Sec 4: The attributes “formerly independent” prior to “German vaccination committee STIKO” are ridiculous! They were never really independent. Doubt? Then take a look at article of “Arzneitelegramm” on vaccines prior to 2020, when this journal also appeared to be independent. But you are right, since 2021 this got much worse.
Sec 5: The series of death of children with “COVID-19” and J96 are very disturbing. Artefacts due questionable coding, attribution to C19? But the sentence on grandparents ... very good!
Fig 6b: Please look at the nadir in July 2021! That time, nobody from this age group was vaccinated, but again from end of August onwards.
Section 7:
I disagree with this quote: “... who were misdiagnosed with COVID-19 (false positives) ...”. You well know that C19 was almost exclusively based on a positive PCR-test. There is little rationale for supposing that the majority of hospitalised patients with some respiratory or other illness were false positives in terms of the PCR test, but maybe nevertheless falsely classified as C19. What about e.g. influenza or any bacterial pneumonia? The latter was the reason for sepsis in almost all Chinese patients attributed to C19. Are you or anybody else sure that the primary cause of "C19", namely the pneumonia, was a virus or bacteria? Doubtful! As your calculations were based on such questionable assumptions ...
The bullet list of calculations of the CFRs are disturbing as well.
Did you take all or only hospitalised patients as denominator?
How could you “calculate the monthly CFR of patients without a diagnosis of U07.1”? The only thinkable way is to confine this to hospitalisations. Are hospitalisations individuals?
I would not trust in differences of ratios, better to take rate ratios.
Again “proportion of false positives ...”! How can you get them? Please do not disturb “falsely positives” with “negatives”. Or did you mean something else?
The last bullet is no calculation, but a hypothesis – and a very doubtful hypothesis. On which grounds?
Unfortunately, Section 7 is in sharp contrast to the other work. Better rework this section completely.
Saw this recently at my hospital.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dee746/p/covid-news-from-the-frontlines?r=1g1b1r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
In your fourth paragraph, eighth graph down, CFR of people 30-39 vs month/year, what do you make of the big upsurge in CFR in 2023? Wasn't the jab rate in Germany way down by 1/2023 in this age group? And this rise is preceded by a lower rate during 2022. I may have missed something obvious here.
I love your analyses. Maybe because the numbers somehow create an emotional distance from the tragic abuse inflicted with the "poison death shots". Thanks, Fabian.
Brilliant work Fabian. I took your advice and use Libre Office all the time now.
When did the jabs roll out in Germany? I see some trends as early as late 2020 in your charts? I would love to see you work on the NZ hospital data, if we can get it. You are correct about the hiding of trends when you use annual v weekly, or monthly data. How many people didn't die in a hospital? I believe it is many. Many die in nursing homes that have a reasonable level of medical support.
While the obvious inference in the young hospitalized getting their contrast-agent MRI's would be as a response to symptoms of myocarditis, another issue of the higher rate of MRI scans is deposition of gadolinium.
The reason that there is more than one half-life for gadolinium in general, is that when it gets into tissue, it is eliminated more slowly.
The reason that this can matter is that -- with, say, a microgram of gadolinium per gram of bone tissue -- your susceptibility to electromagnetic fields goes up, increasing your risk of methemoglobinemia (and subsequent hypoxemia) during a worst-case "bone concentration elimination half-life" of about 72 days (1% daily).
It is biomedically conceivable that you could remain at risk for methemoglobinemia for a few months post-MRI.
Excellent information Fabian- I will be sending this to my German friends. A couple of questions: What is the general mood in Germany about the “vaccines”? A saw a little traction about the DNA contaminants in the vials but I wasn’t sure if the normal population has even begun to relate covid vaccine injuries to cardiac events? Also, are pregnant women still being highly encouraged to get the covid vaccine- I was curious if you have any idea if the uptake has fallen back?
Excellent job!
Sec 3: I would not care too much with Figure 3c (the 3rd in Section 3). It is supposed to amplify the issue. But such calculations usually generate additional variability. Fig 3a is sufficient, 3c nice to have and confirming.
Sec 4: The attributes “formerly independent” prior to “German vaccination committee STIKO” are ridiculous! They were never really independent. Doubt? Then take a look at article of “Arzneitelegramm” on vaccines prior to 2020, when this journal also appeared to be independent. But you are right, since 2021 this got much worse.
Sec 5: The series of death of children with “COVID-19” and J96 are very disturbing. Artefacts due questionable coding, attribution to C19? But the sentence on grandparents ... very good!
Fig 6b: Please look at the nadir in July 2021! That time, nobody from this age group was vaccinated, but again from end of August onwards.
Section 7:
I disagree with this quote: “... who were misdiagnosed with COVID-19 (false positives) ...”. You well know that C19 was almost exclusively based on a positive PCR-test. There is little rationale for supposing that the majority of hospitalised patients with some respiratory or other illness were false positives in terms of the PCR test, but maybe nevertheless falsely classified as C19. What about e.g. influenza or any bacterial pneumonia? The latter was the reason for sepsis in almost all Chinese patients attributed to C19. Are you or anybody else sure that the primary cause of "C19", namely the pneumonia, was a virus or bacteria? Doubtful! As your calculations were based on such questionable assumptions ...
The bullet list of calculations of the CFRs are disturbing as well.
Did you take all or only hospitalised patients as denominator?
How could you “calculate the monthly CFR of patients without a diagnosis of U07.1”? The only thinkable way is to confine this to hospitalisations. Are hospitalisations individuals?
I would not trust in differences of ratios, better to take rate ratios.
Again “proportion of false positives ...”! How can you get them? Please do not disturb “falsely positives” with “negatives”. Or did you mean something else?
The last bullet is no calculation, but a hypothesis – and a very doubtful hypothesis. On which grounds?
Unfortunately, Section 7 is in sharp contrast to the other work. Better rework this section completely.