Regarding NZ adjusting its excess death downwards: I was comparing Births & Deaths 2022 v 2023, and noticed that the 2022 data has been adjusted with 138 live births removed, and 522 deaths removed. I was scratching my head trying to work out why. Regardless, when I plotted a 'Natural Increase' graph, the results still looked pretty bad ('Increase' is currently a misnomer).
The 'adjustment' of statistics appears to have become an increasingly arcane process in the age of "transparency" of institutionalisation of mis/dis-information.
Definitions of 'live births' and 'deaths' would appear to be fixed concepts while their numerical adjustment should presumably be unidirectional, or subject to very slight trivial adjustment downward, justified as 'correction'.
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
"....if it didn't signify something so bloody awful."
Once they started buggering around with redefining "vaccine" and "immunisation," ditched controls, used models for "effectiveness" and the MSM for relentless psyops, all while co-opting medical bureaucracies and wider business, Orwell was spinning in his grave in risus sardonicus.
The thing is - they've been doing this sort of thing for a long time, right? Nutrition 'science' (for both people and domestic pets) and cardiovascular medicine were some of the many canaries in the mine. Politically-charged, corporately corruptible dogma masquerading as science. The final ingredient was a mechanism of disseminating a massive avalanche of disinformation, in bite-sized pieces, to vast numbers of cognitively vulnerable people simultaneously: social media + covid - boom: scientific armageddon. I hope it ends well. I have a daughter. I'm pretty nervous though.
Chronically anxious since 2020, it feels as though one is living on the inside of a dystopian aquarium gazing out at the farce that pretends to be business as usual.
Despite its sanity on lockdowns, Sweden was so gung ho on the bioweapon shots. So what explains its lower excess mortality? Less depression and suicides?
Multiple arms of the greatest social experiment in human history, an experiment that also embodied the apparent habituation of the World to shots with wide intramural shot variation, potentially accountable either by planning or by wilful incompetence, or both?
Regarding NZ adjusting its excess death downwards: I was comparing Births & Deaths 2022 v 2023, and noticed that the 2022 data has been adjusted with 138 live births removed, and 522 deaths removed. I was scratching my head trying to work out why. Regardless, when I plotted a 'Natural Increase' graph, the results still looked pretty bad ('Increase' is currently a misnomer).
2022: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-ended-december-2022-including-abridged-period-life-table/
2023: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-ended-september-2023
The 'adjustment' of statistics appears to have become an increasingly arcane process in the age of "transparency" of institutionalisation of mis/dis-information.
Definitions of 'live births' and 'deaths' would appear to be fixed concepts while their numerical adjustment should presumably be unidirectional, or subject to very slight trivial adjustment downward, justified as 'correction'.
All is not what it appears to be, n'est ce pas?
I'm starting to think that very little is what it appears to be when it comes to definitions in science and data.
I was searching for something on mis-categorisation in vax studies in my files this morning and stumbled across this disinformation gem:
"Household transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Denmark" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33328-3)
If you scroll down to Table 2 and click "Full Size Table'' you will get a pop-up with the author's definitions of 'vaccinated' vs 'unvaccinated.' '
Unvaccinated' includes people who have been vaccinated, and 'vaccinated' includes people who have not been vaccinated.
I would fall off my chair laughing if it didn't signify something so bloody awful.
"a Unvaccinated includes individuals with partial vaccination."
"b Fully vaccinated includes unvaccinated individuals with previous infection."
In summary: Orwell.
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
(MJA 2000; 172: 148-149)
"....if it didn't signify something so bloody awful."
Once they started buggering around with redefining "vaccine" and "immunisation," ditched controls, used models for "effectiveness" and the MSM for relentless psyops, all while co-opting medical bureaucracies and wider business, Orwell was spinning in his grave in risus sardonicus.
I just wonder how this all ends?
The thing is - they've been doing this sort of thing for a long time, right? Nutrition 'science' (for both people and domestic pets) and cardiovascular medicine were some of the many canaries in the mine. Politically-charged, corporately corruptible dogma masquerading as science. The final ingredient was a mechanism of disseminating a massive avalanche of disinformation, in bite-sized pieces, to vast numbers of cognitively vulnerable people simultaneously: social media + covid - boom: scientific armageddon. I hope it ends well. I have a daughter. I'm pretty nervous though.
Some reassuring info ....
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
https://protonmagic.substack.com/
Chronically anxious since 2020, it feels as though one is living on the inside of a dystopian aquarium gazing out at the farce that pretends to be business as usual.
Oh I listened to an interview with Sam just the other day!
Despite its sanity on lockdowns, Sweden was so gung ho on the bioweapon shots. So what explains its lower excess mortality? Less depression and suicides?
Multiple arms of the greatest social experiment in human history, an experiment that also embodied the apparent habituation of the World to shots with wide intramural shot variation, potentially accountable either by planning or by wilful incompetence, or both?
Not quite... this is the actual plan https://www.headsupster.com/forumthread?shortId=220
Fear is not good for the body.
In the age of data fudging ( convid started with fake death charts) can make up a graph and have it support anything.
The boomer gen are in a check out part of their cycle .
Each one of us are responsible for our inner state.
Collectively it spreads out , the same as insanity( fear) spreads so can wisdom( and love)