Pro-vaxxer tacitly admits: They cannot find an error in Norman Fenton’s paper

One of the most convincing analyses to show that the vaccine is causing excess deaths (i.e., the opposite of what the experts claim) is the Devil’s Advocate article by my good friend UK math Professor Norman Fenton.

I’ve challenged all the pro-vaxxers to find an error in the analysis.

Pro-vaxxer Liza Dunn, MD just posted on Twitter that Fenton’s analysis has appeared on Twitter “a gazillion times” her claim that it doesn’t show the excess deaths were in the vaccinated. It’s mind blowing to me she thinks this disproves Fenton’s conclusions as he never claimed this. He only claimed that the more you vaccinate, the higher the excess mortality.

I’ll dissect her claims below.

Bottom line: They can’t attack Fenton’s analysis. We win decisively.

Click the image to read Fenton’s analysis, but in a nutshell, he looks for all of the commonly listed “excuses” for the excess mortality in countries and finds that there is only statistically significant correlation with the vaccination program. Fenton NEVER says that the increased mortality is in the vaccinated. He simply proved that increased vaccination is correlated with increased excess mortality.

Dr. Liza Dunn doesn’t dispute Fenton’s conclusion that higher vaccination causes higher deaths. She claims only that Fenton cannot prove it was the vaccinated who died!!!

She doesn’t argue he’s wrong about the correlation. So the vaccine program increased deaths where it was supposed to decrease deaths. The vaccine is a FAILURE. We don’t even have to get into the issue of who died. Even if she is right that it was the unvaxxed who died, who cares? The vaccine is supposed to save lives, not kill people.

So her argument is a complete red-herring.

If you want to go into the details of whether it was the vaccinated who died or the unvaxxed, we have other studies to resolve that question. Read my article on the safety signals if you are wondering if the deaths are correlated with the vaccines. It has lots of examples.

And we also have a plausible “mechanism of action” as has been explained many times before and documented in the peer reviewed journals, such as the Schwab paper.

Interesting theory. Three major problem:

  1. Not a single pro-vax person in the world is claiming that vaccination is killing the unvaxxed at a rate proportional to the vaccine doses delivered.

  2. There isn’t any data anywhere that backs up her hypothesis; there is no evidence of vax causing deaths in unvaxxed (except when unvaxxed get a blood transfusion from a vaxxed donor)

  3. She doesn’t provide any evidence either. It’s a complete hand-waving argument with no evidentiary support.

  4. There isn’t even a hypothetical mechanism of action for how this could work. There are no papers in the literature examining a dead body of the unvaccinated and tying the death to someone else who got vaccinated.

Liza thinks the shots are killing the unvaccinated, but she never posits a mechanism of action to explain how that is possible.

It’s never happened in history.

Liza: where is the mechanism?

Here’s the key chart from the Fenton paper:

Korea is 86% vaccinated

Chile: 92.6% fully vaccinated

Look at the excess mortality numbers for these two countries: they are in the upper right.

If we are getting a huge 30% excess mortality rate, there are simply too few people in the unvaccinated group to make this plausible.

Again, where is her data?

If the line in the graph above sloped the other way, Liza would say, “See, this proves the vaccines save lives.”

When the data goes in the opposite way, she still clings to her belief system and says, “well you can’t prove it was the vaccinated who died.”

It seems no matter what the data shows, Liza interprets it through her belief system eyes and she lacks the discipline to require actual evidentiary support for her hypothesis.

I was right. They cannot poke holes in Fenton’s analysis. The more you vaccinate, the higher the excess mortality. Even Liza with her blue-pill colored glasses doesn’t argue that point is incorrect.