Now the death rate of children is beginning to come in. These people are sick.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (19)
sorted by:
Can you provide a link to this study? I'd like to use it in my 'red-pill' arsonal.
Possible source posted in my comment in the thread.
I’m always getting duped by the clickbait crap...
I was trying to look for the source of the image and first came across it being posted in a forum here:
https://www.muftisays.com/forums/96-covid19/13775-covid-vaccine-yes-no-maybe.html?pg=2
I found it in a Twitter post on this account posted on July 14 and it mentions it was by the Expose:
https://nitter.net/starknakedbrief?cursor=HBaGwKX14szu%2BioAAA%3D%3D
The Expose seems to be a news site with the url: expose-news.com. The article that has this image was written on July 12. The site has annoying popups when you visit it:
https://expose-news.com/2022/07/12/distracted-boris-uk-gov-revealed-vaccinated-highest-covid-death-rate/
The article states that the chart was produced from data provided by ONS (Have no idea what that is:)
From the article, here is the link to the source data:
Site: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
Anyway, you can follow that trail if you want to dig deeper. All I did was a Google image search and dug through Twitter until I saw the tweet with the image and mention of the site where it came from. The Expose itself did not appear as one of the results of the Google image search.
ONS
The Office for National Statistics is the executive office of the UK Statistics Authority, a non-ministerial department which reports directly to the UK Parliament.
Click on "Reader View" in Firefox or Safari web browser to eliminate junk.
I don't have the popups or ads but I didn't know that reader view would do that. Thank you!
The data behind this conclusion consists of relatively small study groups for the vaxxed groups—because not a ton of 10-14 year olds have been vaxxed yet. So they are comparing deaths across millions of person-years in the unvaxxed and a few thousand person years in the vaxxed.
Small numbers can be very volatile. I would not be surprised if the results changed dramatically over the next few months. Better, worse, can’t say because volatility doesn’t care.
As an early indicator, these results are terrifying and should be enough to halt vaxxination and follow the existing sample group for a while to see if things get worse.
Of course, this is what 5-10 year phase three trials are supposed to figure out.
*** The expose-news.com has source link under each and every graph. Just click on ""sources"" or "Source Data" link under under a graph or table to download the source data directly from UK Government website www.ons.gov.uk
IT IS MURDERED. There is NO Covid 19. It’s the name of the game. “Victims of”. They’ve never ever separated and singly found a Covid 19 virus. It’s never been discovered and never been seen under a microscope. There is no such thing. They’re getting away with murder.
link?
Possible source posted in my comment in the thread.
Reading through the comments trails and checking data sources myself. The TIL version is
Yes it's legit data and it's from the UK Government.
It’d be clearer if it were adjusted via percentage too.
If 98% of 100 English kids were vax’d and one kid from each group died of roners then this graph would show two bars of equal height, y’see.
0.3 dead per 100k purebloods 3.2 dead per 100k jabbed 41.2 dead per 100k jabd n boosted
No it would not.
These graphs are per 100k person years, so they’ve normalized them for different sized groups.
Interestingly, in the source data they show the vaxxed group has zero deaths from covid while the unvaxxed group has several. Okay, score one for the vaxx. However, on all-cause death, the vaxxed group is dying at a rate 45 times faster than the unvaxxed group… which is what OPs graph is showing.
No the graph clearly says “Covid-19 death rate,” not total deaths from being vaccinated....what am I missing?
Yes the title is basically shit, but, what repeatoffender is saying is very much accurate.
It may be, but the graph is undermining it as posted.
Number per hundred thousand is a ratio, just like a percentage, which would be per hundred. Need only divide by 1,000 to get percentages.