How are they ever going to explain the excess mortality data in Australia?
Australia didn't have a lot of COVID deaths until after they rolled out the COVID vaccines. Now excess deaths are out of control. Something is causing those deaths. Any guesses??
Consider the following 3 figures from Wilson Sy’s summary paper, The cure is the disease: Australia’s iatrogenic pandemic:
Clearly, the excess mortality has skyrocketed in late 2021. This is hard to explain, especially for the 0-44 year-olds in Figure 3.
There has to be something causing this effect, it has to be novel, and it has to be something that is affecting a huge number of people in that age group at that time.
Interestingly, it seems that the boosters rolled out in Australia in December 2021 (drag the timeline slider to see this). So it could be the vaccine. We can’t rule it out. Is there a more likely alternative explanation?
In Sy’s underlying paper he uses the Bradford Hill criteria to explain how the COVID vaccine is causing this effect.
A possible explanation for the effect
In Singapore, they changed the definition of a stillbirth which caused the numbers to go up.
This opens up the question: could a definition change for “death” have caused this effect in Australia?
This poster believes that might be a viable explanation!
N.B.: In case you missed it, that was a joke.
How they are gaslighting the Australian people
I’m looking forward to the analysis from the public health officials showing a stronger association with long COVID than the vaccine using the Bradford Hill criteria. Can anyone point me to their analysis?
I’m particularly looking forward to the part explaining how long COVID hit everyone at once causing death, and only in Australia and that it lasted for most of 2022.
The elephant in the room
The elephant in the room can be summarized as follows:
Is there an alternate hypothesis for the sudden increase in excess deaths among all age groups, but especially the 0 - 44 year olds, that is more likely than Sy’s hypothesis, i.e., where the Bradford Hill criteria shows a stronger signal?
There are only two possible answers to that question:
If there is a better hypothesis, then why are the Australian health authorities keeping it secret from the public? Shouldn’t they be notifying people?
If there is not a better explanation, then why aren’t the Australian health authorities saying anything to warn the public of the risk?
Wilson Sy’s background
Wilson Sy of Investment Analytics Research has published 62 papers on ResearchGate in the last 48 years. Here is his background.
He has no conflicts of interest and is self-funded.
Background of this analysis
Sy recently published a paper, Australian COVID-19 pandemic: A Bradford Hill analysis of iatrogenic excess mortality which uses the Bradford Hill causality criteria to prove that the COVID vaccines are causing massive excess deaths in Australia. AFAIK, there are no papers showing any alternative explanations. Therefore, the health authorities in Australia, should follow the precautionary principle of medicine and assume the paper is correct until such time as another paper can apply the Bradford Hill criteria using a different hypothesis and show a stronger association.
Sy’s paper is summarized by Julian Gillespie, a former attorney, here. He wrote that the paper “needs to be placed before every politician and health bureaucrat who continues to perform their head-scratching silent theatre when asked about Australian Excess Deaths.”
More importantly, he said that Sy provided him with a shorter summary of the paper which can be found here: The cure is the disease: Australia’s iatrogenic pandemic. That shorter summary has the 3 figures included above.
It didn’t get much play on Twitter
Amazingly, the paper didn’t get much attention on Twitter, e.g.,
Here are the other Tweets, most all with a much lower number of views.
The New Zealand data shows the vaccines aren’t protecting against death
Furthermore, the death data from New Zealand shows that the % of unvaccinated people dying each month (from the FOIA request) is roughly proportional to the % of people who are unvaccinated suggesting that the vaccines are having a negligible impact on all-cause mortality. In short, if they are paused, no harm will be done.
And we know from the Cleveland Clinic study that the vaccines increase your likelihood of getting COVID.
Bottom line: If the vaccines are paused, the public will not be missing out on any “benefits.”
The hand-waving argument
See this opinion article in the BMJ: Covid-19 in Australia: How did a country that fought so hard for extra time end up so ill prepared?
Their explanation: it was all COVID!
Which is amazing because no government will release the vax-death records all matched up. So how do you know?
Omicron doesn’t cause a 20% increase in all-cause mortality, even if everyone is unvaccinated.
The Australian authorities should take Sy’s analysis very seriously, until proven otherwise.
Do you think the mainstream media in Australia will ever ask the health authorities to show us their hypothesis?
There are a lot of excess deaths happening in Australia.
The most likely explanation is that these deaths are being caused by the jabs.
If this is not the case, why are the Australian health authorities hiding the true cause from the people of Australia?
If this is the case, how come they aren’t pausing the jabs in the meantime until this can be sorted out?
Updated to give the full link to the short paper with the access control added so it will work. Sorry about that.
They are not going to explain it, or talk about it, and no one is going to be asked about it. It's a sold game, people being paid to shut up.