Source: American Institute for Economic Research.
I posted a note on the OneAmerica insurance company actuarial data some time ago, and took heat for suggesting that the reported 40 percent pandemic death surge might eventually be attributed to factors no one today wants to believe.
Since I am just a dummy, my suggestions aren’t worth much. Here, though, is a medical subject matter expert who thinks the Covid vaccines might be responsible for the surge, possibly in a direct way due to the known toxicity of the spike protein the vaccines cause our bodies to produce.
To be fair, the writer doesn’t argue that the hypothesis is actually correct, only that the CDC doesn’t provide the kind of data needed to test the hypothesis. The value of the essay lies in showing how a doctor thinks about vaccine safety numbers, not in claiming that the Covid vaccines are unsafe. The first few lines of the last paragraph are of particular interest:
The appropriate method to assess vaccine efficacy and safety is all cause mortality. Deaths from all causes are compared between the vaccine group and a control unvaccinated group. This method has not been used. Rather, the CDC and FDA determine on a case-by-case basis whether reported adverse events can be attributed to the vaccine. If a footballer drops dead during a game, one would not be inclined to attribute the cause to a vaccine given 10 weeks earlier. However, when 5 footballers drop dead every week, one will be looking for ANY common denominator between the dead footballers.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
A doctor who is “a faculty affiliate with the Free Market Institute.” He appears more aligned with marketing than medicine.
AEIR has been anti-vax form the start. Or I should say they have been less than supportive of vaccines initiatives. They found one of their own to come up with something that resembles reality. But as with most Libertarian ideas, they are lost to reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where is the article wrong?
LikeLike
“Rather, the CDC and FDA determine on a case-by-case basis whether reported adverse events can be attributed to the vaccine. ”
Case-by-case basis concerning vaccine related deaths makes a hell of a lot more sense than this quack doctor/economist.
Anti-vax folks have been trying to find ways to discredit the vaccines from the jump. This is just another attempt to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Case-by-case basis concerning vaccine related deaths makes a hell of a lot more sense than this quack doctor/economist.”
The way I understand the comment, looking at individual cases in isolation can be a way of ignoring trends.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You don’t see that looking at cases individually and then grouping them based on similarities is a way to SHOW trends? Kind of narrow thinking on your part.
LikeLike
I take the doctor at his word when he notes: “If a footballer drops dead during a game, one would not be inclined to attribute the cause to a vaccine given 10 weeks earlier. However, when 5 footballers drop dead every week, one will be looking for ANY common denominator between the dead footballers.”
Looking at cases individually wouldn’t necessarily produce a real trend under these circumstances. But a real trend exists in the data the doctor shared.
LikeLike
But NO footballers have dropped dead. It is an advancement of a story on right wing sites that vaccines are causing death to athletes. NOT HAPPENING, but the story continues to gain steam in some circles. The use of that particular example is further proof that the good doctor is trying to manipulate things to his narrative. That is not what a scientist should do.
You left out the part where I said “and then grouping them based on similarities”. Conveniently overlooked by you.
The only trend in what the doctor shared is the tendency to cherry pack data to meet a preconceived idea.
LikeLike
RE: “You left out the part where I said ‘and then grouping them based on similarities’. Conveniently overlooked by you.”
Nothing overlooked. Let’s say 100 soccer players drop dead and every death is examined by a doctor, and every examination fails to cite vaccination as a cause of death. In that case, the grouping by similarities would fail to reveal the trend. But if a researcher looks for similarities among the 100 deaths and finds that, say, 60 of them were soccer players who had been vaccinated, then vaccination would be a trend worth investigating.
The trend the doctor cites is: “Deaths attributed to Circulatory diseases include strokes, heart attacks, and heart failure (including myocarditis). The Circulatory diseases category is clearly the most important category for excess deaths during 2020 and 2021.” The increase in Circulatory diseases immediately followed the start of mass vaccination.
So, nothing left out. Just noting that the case-by-case assessments taken at face value can easily overlook real causes.
LikeLike
You have narrowed it down to this economically, not scientifically, inclined doctor who writes for an anti-Vax organization is the only right way to determine casue.
I say narrow minded thinking is dangerous and does not allow for all possibilities. You may THINK what he has said broadens the discovery,: I disagree,
LikeLike
A couple of caveats.
COVID is initially a respiratory disease, but many, if not most, of the deaths are the result of vascular effects.
Second, assume that the toxicity of the spike protein is indeed the cause of increased deaths by ambiguous causes.
So? You will have to deal with a greater load of spike proteins from an infection during the time your naive immune system takes to ramp up antibodies than from the vaccine itself, or even a breakthrough infection if you are vaccinated.
Any harm done by the vaccine would sooner or later come to you by route of infection many times worse. Sars-Cov2 is here to stay. So, avoiding vaccination guarantees that sooner or later you will encounter a heavier spike protein insult than you would have had you been vaccinated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Any harm done by the vaccine would sooner or later come to you by route of infection many times worse.”
Yes. The question isn’t whether the vaccines are safe, but how to account to the observed 40% surge in deaths from all causes in the actuarial data.
LikeLike
…”account to the observed 40% surge in deaths from all causes in the actuarial data”
Then do the research to find out. Don’t claim that it is the vaccines in some off-handed way. Asking the question in this manner is just another ploy to put doubt in people’s minds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Then do the research to find out.”
Nothing would make me happier.
RE: “Don’t claim that it is the vaccines in some off-handed way.”
No one has done that. The doctor stated a hypothesis derived from the data he shared. In his own words, “The data is not proof, but it is certainly a red flag.”
Is it so important to assume the vaccines are safe that we can’t talk about safety-related issues?
LikeLike
“No one has done that. The doctor stated a hypothesis derived from the data he shared. In his own words, “The data is not proof, but it is certainly a red flag.”
I disagree. That is exactly what is being done. I don’t think it is appropriate to throw out some sort of hypothesis without working it out yourself. I also think he is cherry picking data, which is something many people do these days wen they want to cause unnecessary uproar.
The article comes off as lazy writing if you throw out an hypothesis and then do NOTHING to prove it.
“Is it so important to assume the vaccines are safe that we can’t talk about safety-related issues?”
If you are going to question the safety or raise safety related issues, then get off your dead ass and show proof of your assertions.
And the safety has been proven. Millions of doses given with no proof of widespread, vaccine related issues regarding safety.
LikeLike
RE: “And the safety has been proven. Millions of doses given with no proof of widespread, vaccine related issues regarding safety.”
You apparently think so, but you can’t account for the 40% surge in deaths by all causes observed in the insurance actuarial data. More to the point, you can’t even talk about it because you haven’t solved the puzzle on your own. By your own rules, you are no position to question the doctor’s hypothesis, even to assert that safety has already been proved.
LikeLike
My conclusion, based on what I have read here in this thread and from the good doctor is that you are both full of it.
300 million plus doses and no ties to death by vaccine proven. I feel a lot more confident in the safety of the vaccines then you do in the doctor’s hypothesis.
LikeLike
RE: “300 million plus doses and no ties to death by vaccine proven.”
That’s one way to look at it. Of course your confidence is based on CDC/FDA data that obscures the ties you claim don’t exist. No one can tell you you’re wrong, but then no one can tell you you’re right, either.
LikeLike
“No one can tell you you’re wrong, but then no one can tell you you’re right, either”
Back atcha, bub!
LikeLike