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.
It's probably a distortion, because we are looking at deaths/cases by date of admission, which are inaccurate. Most people who die die quickly, while those who occupy a bed for longer periods are not included in the dataset yet - only after they have been discharged or have died.
This should change when looking at accurate CFR's (by date of death/discharge).
Thank you for the compliment. Glad I can satisfy a medical coder. :)
I have some emotional distance to the data by now, but at times I was literally crying all day long, particularly when I started looking into external deaths of young people in the USA. The shots actually protected people from suicide, which I found to be the grimmest of all revelations. That hit very close to home. I remember how happy my wife was after the shot - after her 3-day nervous breakdown and the violent nosebleeds (likely thrombocytopenia - courtesy of Johnson) had subsided that is.
Vladimir Zelenko coined the term "poison death shot". I wasn't that fond of him, but gotta admit it was pretty ballsy to call em that and he was spot-on. May he rest in peace.
These are neither gene therapeutics nor prophylactics, because they have no prophylactic/therapeutic effect. They don't even lead to expression of clearly defined genes... Half the stuff pumped out by ribosomes is probably dysfunctional garbage that just poses a challenge to innate immunity more than anything else.
Yeah she's fine (except for the recurring respiratory infections). She just left me two weeks later after demanding I get vaccinated. A most bizarre development. Not gonna give up though.
That is what is needed--corraggio, as the Italians would say.
As an aside, so to speak, I recall a friend whose marriage had collapsed a few years earlier: she told me she's remained strong throughout these Covid years.
Same here, by the way, as my wife and I made the same decision early on; never regretted it for a moment.
I cannot imagine how shitty this must be for you, so: respect & stay strong!
When you say the shots protected people from suicide, what do you mean?
Terrible what happened to your wife! I've had other meds cause mania (Cardizem) so hearing the JJ garbage could cause a nervous breakdown doesn't surprise me. The doctor told me I was lucky I realized it was the med; most people don't figure it out and I think that's when suicide and murder can follow along. And I bet the jab side effects are underreported for that reason. Also, one of my sisters took the JJ jab and her platelets went sky high after chronic low levels for years. The Pfizer and Moderna garbage get most of the press but that JJ shot has really hurt people.
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.
2. The late 2020 trends are COVID-related. See the chart above the CFR difference chart for monthly SC2 incidence in hospitals.
3. Around half the people died in hospital. I just downloaded the data to take a look, added the chart to the end of this article and updated the subtitle to "This dataset tells half the story" :D
I'd love to have a look at the NZ dataset if it should float my way. However, I have found a new job in a startup focussing on programmatic medical diagnostics. The other day I was still considering teaching math to disadvantaged children because I need to pay for rent and food and then this job offer came along - kind of a dream come true, so I will have less time to perform analysis in the future.
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?
I also think that most people noticed the frequency of their respiratory infections increasing post-vaccination. While there are plenty other side effects that manifest sporadically, this one seems to occur in a high double-digit proportion of vaccinees.
Anyone who has unvaccinated individuals at their workplaces will notice, that this isn't happening to all of us, but nobody likes talking about it.
In autumn of 2023, polls allegedly showed that between a third and 40% of Germans planned to get boostered. Actual uptake for this season (August 2023 - today) is at 5% (and many of these are not really voluntary, think of people in aged care, and people having their old parents vaccinated). People know that the vaccines are useless (and not harmless) - but they won't speak about it. There are still recommendations for pregnant women to get vaccinated (although not in the first trimester...).
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.
Re Sec3: Valid point, but it's not intended to amplify the issue, it's just what it does. If I hadn't posted it someone would've probably pointed out that there were fewer births. ;)
Re Sec4: I should've figured. Changed to "corrupted-to-the-bone vaccination commitee STIKO".
Re Sec 5: It's VMED.
Re Sec 6b: Yeah, very striking indeed. Well-explained by VMED.
Re Sec 7: First of all: We are apparently in disagreement about COVID-19 being the infectious disease caused by the beta-coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, correct? I am not discussing that anymore, but will say a few more words about it.
As for how I got the CFR's:
In this article, they are based on discharge dates, which means they are not accurate, especially towards the end. That being said, when I get them by admission date they will be perfectly accurate. They are okay as they are for now.
Cases are hospitalizations, yes. Each case is a hospitalization and each death is the death of a hospitalized patient.
"Without a diagnosis of U07.1" is pretty trivial to calculate:
[Cases without a diagnosis of U07.1] = [All cases] - [Cases with a diagnosis of U07.1]
To get both [All cases] and [Cases with a diagnosis of U07.1] I am running two scrapes. So in total I am running 4: 1 for deaths with U07.1 diagnosis, 1 for deaths without U07.1 diagnosis, 1 for cases with U07.1 diagnosis and 1 for cases without U07.1 diagnosis.
As for false positives, that's just pure math. I know a theoretical physicist (Dr. Klaus Retzlaff, very active anti-bullshitter) who actually confirmed the test specificity with purely mathematical means from population level data.
But that kinda math is beyond me as of now. All we need to do here is use common sense. Yes, this assumes SARS-CoV-2 is causing COVID-19. Otherwise none of the data make any sense whatsoever, so please don't waste my time if you disagree with this fundamental assumption. I happily answer everything, but we need to have a similar frame of reference. When my entire explanation model is not accepted, I'm out. I've wasted too much time on that.
As for the CFR differences... You've got a point. I could've at least displayed the raw CFR's as well. However the point I made depended on CFR differences.
"The last bullet is no calculation, but a hypothesis – and a very doubtful hypothesis. On which grounds?"
Did you mean this: When SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is near zero, most U07.1 cases in hospital should be false positives.
If you did mean that. No, that's not a hypothesis. Don't be so quick to shoot me down before you've tried understanding it by asking me.
It's logically inferred. To make it clear, here is a similar statement - assuming the diagnostic criteria were fulfilled:
When SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is zero, all U07.1 cases in hospital are false positives.
Now that's a fact. Here's another fact:
We expect the lowest proportion of false positives among U07.1 cases when virus prevalence is at its maximum.
This forms the basis for what K. Retzlaff did. If you are interested in the math, I can ask him for it. But I expect it to be pretty heavy stuff.
In short: The higher the monthly U07.1 incidence, the lower the proportion of false positives among hospitalized patients.
This assessment allows us to look at changes in the COVID CFR to make careful assumptions about how much harm treatment caused to misdiagnosed people. But since hospitalized patients die of countless other health issues, I am using the CFR difference.
Maybe I should not limit it to isolated patients though. That was probably a bad idea. There could be other reasons for increases in the CFR at the height of waves, but I think the false positive rate is key.
Anyway, I spat this article out in 2h, including chart creation. It's just a preview. The real work is scraping the data, combining it and manually sieving through the results of systematic analyses.
I might have gone too far in my interpretation and you at least had me consider deleting the chart.
Thank you, Diane. It's not even an analysis really. I have all the CFR's calculated for all 40k or however many keys there are. I just picked a few lines from the spreadsheets and made charts in LibreOffice, finishing them with photoshop. Very basic.
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
Very interesting. Have you read my article on maternal mortality?
Also check out this spreadsheet (US data from CDC WONDER): https://substack.pervaers.com/misc/Maternal_Deaths_by_MCOD.xlsx
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.
Good observation!
It's probably a distortion, because we are looking at deaths/cases by date of admission, which are inaccurate. Most people who die die quickly, while those who occupy a bed for longer periods are not included in the dataset yet - only after they have been discharged or have died.
This should change when looking at accurate CFR's (by date of death/discharge).
Thank you for the compliment. Glad I can satisfy a medical coder. :)
I have some emotional distance to the data by now, but at times I was literally crying all day long, particularly when I started looking into external deaths of young people in the USA. The shots actually protected people from suicide, which I found to be the grimmest of all revelations. That hit very close to home. I remember how happy my wife was after the shot - after her 3-day nervous breakdown and the violent nosebleeds (likely thrombocytopenia - courtesy of Johnson) had subsided that is.
Vladimir Zelenko coined the term "poison death shot". I wasn't that fond of him, but gotta admit it was pretty ballsy to call em that and he was spot-on. May he rest in peace.
These are neither gene therapeutics nor prophylactics, because they have no prophylactic/therapeutic effect. They don't even lead to expression of clearly defined genes... Half the stuff pumped out by ribosomes is probably dysfunctional garbage that just poses a challenge to innate immunity more than anything else.
I'm so sorry about what happened to your wife, it must have been terrifying.
I hope she's fine (better)!
Yeah she's fine (except for the recurring respiratory infections). She just left me two weeks later after demanding I get vaccinated. A most bizarre development. Not gonna give up though.
Oh, my, now I feel bad for you.
Only the tip of the iceberg. :D
Yeah I didn't exactly fare well throughout the COVID days.
On the plus side, it's starting to show that I've come back stronger. And I'll keep fighting for my marriage, too.
That is what is needed--corraggio, as the Italians would say.
As an aside, so to speak, I recall a friend whose marriage had collapsed a few years earlier: she told me she's remained strong throughout these Covid years.
Same here, by the way, as my wife and I made the same decision early on; never regretted it for a moment.
I cannot imagine how shitty this must be for you, so: respect & stay strong!
When you say the shots protected people from suicide, what do you mean?
Terrible what happened to your wife! I've had other meds cause mania (Cardizem) so hearing the JJ garbage could cause a nervous breakdown doesn't surprise me. The doctor told me I was lucky I realized it was the med; most people don't figure it out and I think that's when suicide and murder can follow along. And I bet the jab side effects are underreported for that reason. Also, one of my sisters took the JJ jab and her platelets went sky high after chronic low levels for years. The Pfizer and Moderna garbage get most of the press but that JJ shot has really hurt people.
I'm sorry Fabian. I do know what that feels like.
Sigh.
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.
Thank you, Terry!
1. Jabs rolled out on December 27th, 2020
2. The late 2020 trends are COVID-related. See the chart above the CFR difference chart for monthly SC2 incidence in hospitals.
3. Around half the people died in hospital. I just downloaded the data to take a look, added the chart to the end of this article and updated the subtitle to "This dataset tells half the story" :D
I'd love to have a look at the NZ dataset if it should float my way. However, I have found a new job in a startup focussing on programmatic medical diagnostics. The other day I was still considering teaching math to disadvantaged children because I need to pay for rent and food and then this job offer came along - kind of a dream come true, so I will have less time to perform analysis in the future.
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?
I think Christian is right in his assessment.
I also think that most people noticed the frequency of their respiratory infections increasing post-vaccination. While there are plenty other side effects that manifest sporadically, this one seems to occur in a high double-digit proportion of vaccinees.
Anyone who has unvaccinated individuals at their workplaces will notice, that this isn't happening to all of us, but nobody likes talking about it.
In autumn of 2023, polls allegedly showed that between a third and 40% of Germans planned to get boostered. Actual uptake for this season (August 2023 - today) is at 5% (and many of these are not really voluntary, think of people in aged care, and people having their old parents vaccinated). People know that the vaccines are useless (and not harmless) - but they won't speak about it. There are still recommendations for pregnant women to get vaccinated (although not in the first trimester...).
https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/COVID-Impfen/FAQ_Liste_Impfung_Schwangere_Stillende.html#FAQId16696962
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.
Thank you for your input!
Re Sec3: Valid point, but it's not intended to amplify the issue, it's just what it does. If I hadn't posted it someone would've probably pointed out that there were fewer births. ;)
Re Sec4: I should've figured. Changed to "corrupted-to-the-bone vaccination commitee STIKO".
Re Sec 5: It's VMED.
Re Sec 6b: Yeah, very striking indeed. Well-explained by VMED.
Re Sec 7: First of all: We are apparently in disagreement about COVID-19 being the infectious disease caused by the beta-coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, correct? I am not discussing that anymore, but will say a few more words about it.
As for how I got the CFR's:
In this article, they are based on discharge dates, which means they are not accurate, especially towards the end. That being said, when I get them by admission date they will be perfectly accurate. They are okay as they are for now.
Cases are hospitalizations, yes. Each case is a hospitalization and each death is the death of a hospitalized patient.
"Without a diagnosis of U07.1" is pretty trivial to calculate:
[Cases without a diagnosis of U07.1] = [All cases] - [Cases with a diagnosis of U07.1]
To get both [All cases] and [Cases with a diagnosis of U07.1] I am running two scrapes. So in total I am running 4: 1 for deaths with U07.1 diagnosis, 1 for deaths without U07.1 diagnosis, 1 for cases with U07.1 diagnosis and 1 for cases without U07.1 diagnosis.
As for false positives, that's just pure math. I know a theoretical physicist (Dr. Klaus Retzlaff, very active anti-bullshitter) who actually confirmed the test specificity with purely mathematical means from population level data.
But that kinda math is beyond me as of now. All we need to do here is use common sense. Yes, this assumes SARS-CoV-2 is causing COVID-19. Otherwise none of the data make any sense whatsoever, so please don't waste my time if you disagree with this fundamental assumption. I happily answer everything, but we need to have a similar frame of reference. When my entire explanation model is not accepted, I'm out. I've wasted too much time on that.
As for the CFR differences... You've got a point. I could've at least displayed the raw CFR's as well. However the point I made depended on CFR differences.
"The last bullet is no calculation, but a hypothesis – and a very doubtful hypothesis. On which grounds?"
Did you mean this: When SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is near zero, most U07.1 cases in hospital should be false positives.
If you did mean that. No, that's not a hypothesis. Don't be so quick to shoot me down before you've tried understanding it by asking me.
It's logically inferred. To make it clear, here is a similar statement - assuming the diagnostic criteria were fulfilled:
When SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is zero, all U07.1 cases in hospital are false positives.
Now that's a fact. Here's another fact:
We expect the lowest proportion of false positives among U07.1 cases when virus prevalence is at its maximum.
This forms the basis for what K. Retzlaff did. If you are interested in the math, I can ask him for it. But I expect it to be pretty heavy stuff.
In short: The higher the monthly U07.1 incidence, the lower the proportion of false positives among hospitalized patients.
This assessment allows us to look at changes in the COVID CFR to make careful assumptions about how much harm treatment caused to misdiagnosed people. But since hospitalized patients die of countless other health issues, I am using the CFR difference.
Maybe I should not limit it to isolated patients though. That was probably a bad idea. There could be other reasons for increases in the CFR at the height of waves, but I think the false positive rate is key.
Anyway, I spat this article out in 2h, including chart creation. It's just a preview. The real work is scraping the data, combining it and manually sieving through the results of systematic analyses.
I might have gone too far in my interpretation and you at least had me consider deleting the chart.
Again, thank you for your input.
Thank you, Diane. It's not even an analysis really. I have all the CFR's calculated for all 40k or however many keys there are. I just picked a few lines from the spreadsheets and made charts in LibreOffice, finishing them with photoshop. Very basic.
The data is just amazing though.