Dr. Fauci Knew Covid Vaccines Would Never Give Us Herd Immunity

A new scientific study is out, and Anthony Fauci co-authored it.

What is remarkable about that study is the derogatory language Fauci et al. employ towards influenza and Covid vaccines.

Until the emergence of COVID-19, influenza had for many decades been the deadliest vaccine-preventable viral respiratory disease, one for which only less than suboptimal vaccines are available.

Less than suboptimal vaccines is a term that leaves little to the imagination. Suboptimal means “not good.” Less than suboptimal means “useless at best.”

The article presumably discusses “next-generation vaccines.” However, the next-generation talk is empty and speculative, without specific mentions of any new technology that Dr. Fauci and his coauthors can recommend. The substance of the Cell article only explains why current influenza vaccines cannot prevent influenza and why Covid vaccines cannot prevent Covid.

Although current influenza vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death to some degree, their effectiveness against clinically apparent infection is decidedly suboptimal, ranging from 14% to 60% over the past 15 influenza seasons.1 Furthermore, the duration of vaccine-elicited immunity is measured only in months. Current vaccines require annual re-vaccination with updated formulations that are frequently not precisely matched to circulating virus strains.8 Although annual influenza vaccinations are strongly recommended for most of the general public and especially for persons in high-risk groups, including the elderly, those with chronic diseases, and pregnant women, vaccine acceptance by the general public is not ideal.9

As of 2022, after more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted.

The above sounds like this article by yours truly:

After retiring, Fauci does not mince words on Covid vaccines either:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control.

However, as variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent. The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.

Fauci and his co-authors explain why Covid vaccine had no chance of working.

First, he asks a question that many vaccine skeptics brought up many times before:

This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?

Then Tony goes on to explain why the respiratory nature of Sars-Cov-2 does not lead to even a possibility of encountering a bloodborne immune response.

In stark contrast, the non-systemic respiratory viruses such as influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV tend to have significantly shorter incubation periods (Table 1) and rapid courses of viral replication. They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue, without causing viremia, and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5–7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others. SARS-CoV-2 “RNAemia” (circulation of viral RNA in the bloodstream, as is seen with most mucosal respiratory virus infections, as distinct from viremia, in which infectious viruses can be cultured from the blood), has been reported, and RT-PCR levels of viral RNA have been linked to severe disease,23,24 similar to studies of influenza RNAemia.25,26 As a result, the non-systemically replicating respiratory viruses, apparently including SARS-CoV-2,13,14,15 tend to repeatedly re-infect people over their lifetimes without ever eliciting complete and durable protection.27

Regrettably, many of my unvaccinated readers report repeat infections with Covid-19. Even though I have had only one Covid so far, in Nov 2020, I am very cognizant that my natural immunity is far from perfect.

Another important factor to consider is that although RNA viruses share a similar inherent RNA-dependent RNA polymerase error rate,28 different viruses (and different open reading frames within their genomes) differ in their tolerance for mutation. Mutational constraints can be related to frequent overlapping open reading frames28 or functional constraints on the acquisition of nonsynonymous mutations as is the case, for example, with measles virus.29 In contrast, the external influenza A virus hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins are comparatively plastic, and positively selected nonsynonymous mutations result in immunologically significant antigenic drift,30,31 by the acquisition of nonsynonymous mutations in antigenic epitopes, as well as by altering the N-linked glycosylation patterns.32 Rapid antigenic drift affects the control of annual influenza epidemics8 and complicates the effort to produce broadly protective, “universal” influenza vaccines. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has shown a similar plasticity, with the emergence of multiple variants with altered antigenicity33 that has complicated its control through current vaccination strategies.34

Great, right? Fauci and his “science” are still injecting the original Wuhan strain-encoding mRNA, well into the fifth calendar year of the pandemic, while being fully aware that mutations have rendered those injections to be “less than suboptimal.” (the bivalent booster contains equal doses of Ba.5 and Wuhan variant-encoding mRNA)

Dr. Fauci shows great familiarity with “immune tolerance,” a condition affecting recipients of multiple mRNA vaccines:

The terms “disease tolerance” and “immune tolerance” refer to the still-incompletely characterized but distinct category of mammalian immune defense mechanisms that allow hosts to “accept” infection and other antigenic stimuli to optimize survival (reviewed in Medzhitov et al. and Iwasaki et al.). Because humans inhale and ingest enormous quantities of exogenous proteins with every breath and mouthful, the respiratory and gastrointestinal immune compartments have evolved to deal with continual and massive antigenic assaults from the outside world. (Immune responses to viral infection of the gastrointestinal mucosa have recently been reviewed, and are not discussed here.) Inhaled and ingested proteins must be identified and either tolerated or attacked and eliminated.

This is not the first time we caught Fauci being aware of immune tolerance and yet continuing to push tolerance-inducing mRNA Covid vaccines:

Fauci then speculates on what can be done to make a “new generation of vaccines.” His and his coauthors’ talk is very lame and exposes them as quacks who want to try out anything without a theoretical basis.

Appreciate the lack of any sense this passage makes:

For example, during times of significant viral circulation within human populations, can better protection be achieved with repeat dosing, or by sequential mucosal and systemic vaccination? Is frequent re-boosting a viable vaccine option, e.g., via self-administered home nasal vaccines? Also to be considered are possible ancillary roles for prophylactic antivirals, including “programmable antivirals” targeting conserved structures, antibodies, including therapeutic IgA and innate immunity stimulators as adjuncts to imperfect vaccines. It remains to be seen if vaccination and prophylaxis can be effectively combined at the population level.

It is disheartening that, during a man-made pandemic still taking hundreds of lives daily and still playing a role in excess mortality, we are led by people officially pushing for vaccines that they know to be “less than sub-optimal.”

Fauci explained in the study cited above why a vaccine-induced blood (humoral) response to Sars-Cov-2 would never stop respiratory infections. And yet, he lied to us for THREE YEARS about how vaccines would be the key to “getting out of the pandemic” and getting to herd immunity.

Witness this video from 2020, where Fauci promises us herd immunity:

It is very regrettable that our health leaders, realizing that Covid vaccine could never possibly stop the Covid pandemic, preached to us that we could reach herd immunity.

As a result, we have a dumpster fire of a pandemic and excess mortality not even explainable by official Covid death counts.

Tony, meanwhile, is collecting hefty “speaking engagement” fees:

Why would Dr. Fauci lie to us about “herd immunity” when he knew, based on very basic properties of coronaviruses, that sterilizing immunity was impossible?

Is his article a clever way to prepare us for him asking for a “pandemic amnesty” and “recognizing his mistakes”?

How can we accept his actions as “mistakes” when he knew he was lying to us in furtherance of his goals? A mistake implies honesty, after all.

Let us know what you think!


They Lied to Us About Myocarditis, too

Science and our health authorities told us that “myocarditis is much more frequent from Covid than from vaccination.”

The thing is, it was not true.

A new study from Scandinavian countries is out:

The authors worked for health departments of the four Nordic countries. They were tasked with looking at their entire populations (and their computerized records), seeking out instances of myocarditis. They had vaccination records for all people as well.

It turned out that in their countries:

  • 530 people had myocarditis from the vaccine

  • 109 had myocarditis from Covid-19

As far as deaths go:

  • 27 persons died from vaccine myocarditis

  • 18 died from Covid-related myocarditis.

So please, tell me, how could it be true that “Covid causes more myocarditis”?

Several known facts make the picture even worse than the article presents. Numerous myocarditis cases caused by vaccines result in sudden deaths and not hospitalizations.

The University of Heidelberg study shows that 20% of sudden post-vaccination deaths that they autopsied are due to myocarditis.

Those sudden deaths are NOT included in the numbers presented by the Scandinavian scientists.

Also, some of the “Covid myocarditis” happened in vaccinated people who happened to have Covid “despite” (or because of?) their vaccines. Those are counted as “Covid myocarditis,” even though vaccines played a role in these illnesses that happened to vaccinated persons.

Much talk was also directed at creating an impression that myocarditis happens only to young males. It helped Pfizer and Moderna make money by keeping older people less alarmed. However, Scandinavian researchers found that vaccine myocarditis also happens to older people.

Some people trying to debunk this story may ask, “what about the background rate of myocarditis”? What if the persons listed in the above study as having “vaccine myocarditis” actually had it for unrelated reasons?

It is not a bad question and needs to be explored.

My answer to those objections is that approximately the same number of people had Covid by the time the study period ended in 2022, as was the number of vaccinated people. So, the “exposures” to vaccines and Covid are roughly equal. And yet, the incidence of myocarditis after vaccines is about five times greater than after Covid.

Promoters of Covid vaccines always appealed to “science,” which was paid by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the NIH, both of which had a vested interest in pushing Covid vaccines.

However, officials unrelated to either of those proved that myocarditis from Covid is much rarer than vaccine myocarditis.

I have a science degree. In the past, I always was an admirer of science. Science was fascinating, world-changing, and deserving of my interest and trust. The Covid pandemic shattered these beliefs, and my default attitude to any science with social, climate or political implications is mistrust and skepticism.

Do you still trust science? Do you try to discern if perhaps there is something underhanded going on when certain topics are discussed?


NYT: Covid Vaccine Makers and Bill Gates’ GAVI Screwed Everyone

This New York Times story (no paywall link) from today is very illustrative of the current times.

It turns out that makers of Covid vaccines expertly screwed their customers, keeping a large part of the prepayment money advanced to them without shipping vaccine doses that no longer find any demand.

As global demand for Covid-19 vaccines dries up, the program responsible for vaccinating the world’s poor has been urgently negotiating to try to get out of its deals with pharmaceutical companies for shots it no longer needs.

Drug companies have so far declined to refund $1.4 billion in advance payments for now-canceled doses, according to confidential documents obtained by The New York Times.

The worst example is J&J, manufacturer of the Janssen vaccine, which was pulled from use worldwide due to blood clots. Despite that, J&J demands that more money be given to it “because of existing contracts.”

If it cannot strike a more favorable agreement with another company, Johnson & Johnson, it could have to pay still more.

Gavi and Johnson & Johnson are locked in a bitter dispute over payment for shots that Gavi told the company months ago it would not need, but which the company produced anyway. Johnson & Johnson is now demanding that Gavi pay an additional, undisclosed amount for them.

New York Times is lamenting this situation and highlights appeals to the conscience of vaccine makers:

Covid vaccine manufacturers “have a special responsibility” because their products are a societal good and most were developed with public funding, said Thomas Frieden, the chief executive of the global health nonprofit Resolve to Save Lives and a former director of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Who is Thomas Frieden? He is a former director of the CDC and also a convicted sex offender, in my opinion.

Vaccine makers resist Frieden’s appeals to their conscience because they do not have any.

Bill Gates’ GAVI is not asking Pfizer for refunds: Pfizer was paid directly by the US government. Did Bill Gates pull strings to have the US government hold the financial bag in the case of Pfizer?

If so, Bill certainly had personal financial reasons for this!

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested 55 million into Pfizer’s vaccine maker BioNTech in Sep 2019.

This investment was made when BioNTech was an obscure company with no vaccines in the pipeline. That “unexpectedly” changed mere months later when BioNTech was selected to become the largest producer of Covid vaccines. Such lucky timing for Bill!

So, Bill Gates, having a financial interest in BioNTech, did not want his own GAVI to pay for BioNTech vaccines that eventually found no buyer; instead, the US government paid Pfizer directly. Pfizer will keep the funds, giving the US government an “option” to buy vaccines that nobody wants anymore.

Under the revised deal, a total of 600 million Pfizer doses will be made available to the US by the end of the year, giving the administration more time to find countries who want them. Pfizer had originally agreed to sell a billion shots at cost by this month. 

Bill Gates-funded GAVI seems to have screwed its donors innovatively: the donors gave money towards Covid vaccinations, which fizzled. Hence, GAVI received back 1.6 billion out of 2.3 donated billions it gave Covid vaccine makers. Gavi, however, will not refund 1.6 billion to the donors and will use the money it recovered for other purposes, inflating its budget:

Had some vaccine manufacturers not been willing to renegotiate their contracts with Gavi, the costs to the organization could have been much higher. Gavi would have been on the hook for $2.3 billion for the doses it wanted to cancel, the documents show, but it saved $1.6 billion by exiting those contracts.

Donations for Covid shots substantially inflated Gavi’s budget, and the lost prepayments for canceled Covid vaccines do not threaten its regular childhood-vaccination work.

Such is the current state of the pandemic. The money is gone; vaccines do not work; people are dying suddenly; the government and Big Pharma do not want the public to pay attention.

If you, my reader, are in the United States, remember that the US government’s money is your money. Say bye-bye to it.

Will there be any real investigations?


Are You Ready for “Brain Transparency” and AI Reading your Mind?

The WEF’s annual meeting in Davos held a very important and exciting seminar discussing “Brain Transparency.” It featured new but working technology that allows scanning of the human brain via wearable devices (no electrodes needed). Such scans allow AI-enabled computers to read and interpret the wearer’s state of mind by instantly understanding recorded brain waves.

The devices they are discussing already exist.

Artificial intelligence systems paired with such devices allow unprecedented insight into the mental and emotional state of the wearer.

The picture above shows a female worker having amorous thoughts about a new male coworker (02:02 in the video). A wearable brain-scanning earpiece instantly notifies the company office about such forbidden desires, which could impair her productivity. The message “INTRA-OFFICE ROMANCES ARE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN” immediately pops up on her screen, returning her to a productive mindset and reminding her who the boss is.

A cartoonish illustration of such machinery is here:

The WEF presenter, Nita A. Farahany, is not describing future technology. She explains at 3:30 that all of the above capabilities already exist and are developing rapidly.

This is the future that has already arrived. Everything in that video that you just saw, is based on technology that is already used. Artificial intelligence has enabled advances in decoding brain activity that we never before thought possible.

You heard a lot about AI over the last few years, here at Davos it’s been the talk of the hour. But I want to talk about it in a different way, which is the ability to decode brain wave activity. All that you think, you feel, is all just data. Data, that in large patterns, can be decoded using artificial intelligence.

Consider this: the average person thinks thousands of thoughts each day. As a thought takes form, (a math calculation, you are happy, you are tired, you are hungry), neurons are firing in your brain, in tiny electrical discharges. A particular thought takes hundreds of thousands of neurons firing in characteristic patterns that can be decoded with electroencephalography and AI powered devices.

The wearable thought-reading devices Nita discusses do not look weird or unwieldy. I put two of them into one picture for convenience.

Closer to the end of the video, she talks about how important it is to “preserve safeguards.” But watch Nita laugh at 27:30 at the tongue-in-cheek moderator’s suggestion that “All CEOs will use this technology completely responsibly.”

She knows how funny it is to think this technology will be used responsibly. I do not need an AI brainwave scanner to see how hilarious the “responsible use” remark is to her!

Nita reports (6:10) that Facebook and tech companies are “investing heavily in these devices.”

Big Tech expects us to give up keyboards and computer mice.

In near term future, these [brain-scanning] devices will be the primary way in which we interact with all of the rest of our technology.

Think about this for a minute. You will need to wear a brain scanner to integrate with Big Tech’s new shiny gadgets (which will likely be supplied for free). The scanner will send your brainwave activity to Big Tech’s AI engines. AI is bulky and cannot be placed into a tablet or a phone, so your brain waves will be collected centrally by Facebook or another Big Tech company.

While being in the Metaverse’s virtual reality or doing something else using the brain scanner human interface, random thoughts may enter your mind. Perhaps you’d momentarily want to buy yourself a comfy pillow?

The brain scanner would communicate this thought to the AI. The AI would decode it and show you relevant ads, perhaps BEFORE your thought process would even be complete!

The possibilities for abuse are endless. For example, let’s say that a woke designer of such an AI, or a “disinformation governance board” bureaucrat, would decide that they need to stop people from thinking climate change-denying thoughts. (Just an example.)

If so, as soon as my train of thought wanders off Zuckerberg’s fantasyland and starts turning towards skeptical opinions on climate change, the AI would proactively show me an attractive, skimpily-clad female, a cute cat slapping a farting dog, or some other distraction to disrupt thought development.

At 21:37, Nita discusses brain wave disruption and how it could be accomplished, which confirms such a possibility.

I must admit that the WEF discussion gives lip service to human independence and even employs the term “cognitive liberty.” However, this is only lip service to obscure far-reaching plans.

Nita envisions a future where we will all be forced to use brain scanners if we are to make a living (13:10):

What if there is nowhere to go? What if everywhere has ubiquitous monitoring? … Surveillance is part of our everyday life.

The “cognitive liberty” mentioned above cannot exist if a non-transparent AI, operated by giant companies governed by a multitude of “Accountable Tech” committees, provides people with a virtual reality shaped to extract maximum revenue and exert maximum influence.

These AI engines will inevitably be programmed to influence our thinking in ways far beyond the mere commercial realm. If so, most people would likely follow the prompts and clever nudges of anonymous, unaccountable, and extremely powerful masters of human cognition.

The term “cognitive liberty” sounds attractive, but we need to recognize that everyone’s consciousness is shaped by the societies and environments in which we live. Thoughts and paradigms employed by a 14th-century peasant who never stepped outside her village are completely different from the thoughts of a modern globe-trotting scientist. We absorb our information and beliefs from the outside.

A child born to very liberal parents may think differently from another child growing up in a conservative family. And yet, as most subscribers know, parents can only influence their children so much. Children often do grow up with beliefs different from their parents’.

The upbringing, advertising, and propaganda that we all experience around us shape us in ways that are powerful but difficult to notice. Therefore, at most, “cognitive liberty” is a worthy aspiration, not a black-and-white concept.

However, with the advent of AI recording the brainwaves of millions of people and influencing them, “cognitive liberty” will become a total joke.

Let me explain why.

In the past, a child growing up in a conservative family could be thinking liberal thoughts in the privacy of her mind, without the parents knowing or interrupting the thought process. This is how children evolve into adults who can think independently.

But would a future child, growing up with a convenient brainwave scanner and immersed in virtual reality, be totally shaped by the AI-driven metaverse?

Can you imagine Socrates, pictured below, wearing a brain-scanning interface and immersed in AI-generated virtual reality? Would he ever become Socrates as we know him if not for his ability to think without interruption?

Does a regular human being have a chance of resisting a brain-scanning AI engine as powerful as millions of human brains and trained on a giant “human dataset”? Is there any possibility that a boy or a girl, growing up in a virtual reality shaped by these systems, can develop independent thinking? Not in my opinion.

Such a future may seem attractive to some. The supporters may call it “making people better by teaching them good things at scale,” the “good things” conveniently defined according to the designers’ values.

Call me an old fart, but I am scared by this because such systems place us at the mercy of anonymous thought masters and reduce our human individuality to almost nothing. And if humans are no longer genuinely individual, all shaped by the same virtual reality brain-scanning AI, are we expendable?

Brainwave scanning is becoming mainstream. The WEF loves it. Its applications are discussed at world gatherings of the most influential people.

So, tinfoil hats, which used to be jokingly evoked as attributes of the craziest conspiracy theorists, may soon become necessary to ensure the “cognitive liberty” to which Nita Farahany gives lip service. Even Socrates, if he was alive, might feel compelled to wear one. So ridiculous!

My retelling of the WEF video sounds crazy and may seem like a result of me overindulging in the wrong kind of mushrooms. Unfortunately, the crazy stuff is right there in the WEF presentation. I concocted nothing. My article is not even based on any compilation of disjoint materials! Everything that I am discussing is in one singular WEF video.

The brainwave scanners are being developed commercially and will soon be used to extract trillions of dollars from me, you, and our children. They will also be used to “shape future generations” as desired by unaccountable, unelected, and anonymous masters of the new universe.

Is that the future that we want?

Do you agree with Nita Farahany that “all that you think and feel is just data”?


Karl Lauterbach Admits “Mistakes” as Excess Mortality in Germany is 36% above Normal

The news of mortality in Germany at 36% above normal, and birth rates 10% below normal, becomes too hard to hide. The never-before-wrong, multiple-degreed health expert and German health minister Karl Lauterbach admits that “mistakes were made.”

He does not admit that closing schools was a mistake. He does not admit that force-vaccinating Germans with unproven, deadly vaccines causing 36% excess mortality was a mistake. The tiny error he is admitting is that the schools were closed for “too long.”

It gets worse from here. Who does Lauterbach blame for this?

That’s right, he blames nameless “scientists”:

The anonymous scientists gave poor Karl bad advice, which is why “mistakes were made.”

But who is Karl Lauterbach? He IS a scientist, educated at Harvard, the University of Dusseldorf, and more!

Lauterbach studied human medicine at the RWTH Aachen University, University of Texas at San Antonio and University of Düsseldorf, where he graduated. From 1989 to 1992, he studied health policy and management as well as epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, graduating with a Doctor of Science in 1992.[3] From 1992 to 1993, he held a fellowship at the Harvard Medical School, sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which is close to the CDU. Lauterbach was a CDU member for several years before joining the SPD in 2001.[5]

For a Harvard-trained epidemiologist and health policy expert, blaming other “experts” is a little disingenuous.

In the above quote, Karl said it is “difficult to ask for forgiveness” since he blames other “scientists” and does not even admit to his crime of poisoning young Germans with Covid vaccines and causing excess deaths.

But would Karl deserve forgiveness if he mustered the courage to ask for it?

Does asking for forgiveness require honest admission of fault instead of blaming nameless “other scientists”?


P.S turns out that Eugyppius also wrote about this 20 minutes ago:

Is Geert’s Prediction of a Deadlier Covid Variant Coming True?

SUMMARY: Excess mortality in Europe has been elevated at about 15% since last spring. In December 2022, excess deaths frighteningly jumped to 30-35% above normal. Even Sweden, which avoided excess mortality in most of 2022, had 20% more deaths than expected in December. Has the vaccine-selected deadly Covid variant predicted by Geert Vanden Bossche finally arrived?

I always admired Mr. Vanden Bossche for his stance against the Covid vaccine. Unlike many vaccine skeptics such as myself, Geert, a professional vaccinologist, was previously employed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and therefore had much to lose from opposing “Covid vaccines.”

Since March 2021, Geert predicted, with much dramatization on his part, that a much more virulent, or deadly, variant of Covid-19 will appear due to mass vaccination. Such a variant, he said, will affect people whose immune systems were focused by repeated vaccine shots towards the extinct original Wuhan virus. Such overboosted persons could not mount a defense against newer escape variants.

Months passed, and hopes appeared that Geert’s prediction was a mistake. (nobody wants excess deaths, right?)

Until December of 2022, that is.

Data from the EU, Germany, Sweden, and the UK show a sudden rise in overall deaths far beyond what 2022 already brought: from 10-15% excess mortality to 25-36% excess mortality compared to pre-pandemic levels.

Here are the sudden jumps in mortality:

Many Covid skeptics praised Sweden for low mortality in the past. Please be aware that Sweden, in December, had a disturbingly high 20% mortality on par with the rest of Europe.

What caused this jump in mortality?

I am against Covid vaccines. I am firmly opposed to recklessly injecting billions of people with unproven, untested genetic injections that transfect people with mRNA expressing HIV-peptide-carrying genes from a lab-made mystery virus. Covid vaccines caused 278,000 deaths in the USA in 2021 alone!

However, if vaccines alone caused excess deaths, and Covid played no role, we would not see strange up-and-down waves like in the charts above. Excess mortality waves resemble the Covid pandemic’s waves, coming up and down.

Does Covid play a larger role in excess mortality than we think? Is the interplay between waves of Covid and Covid vaccinations instrumental to explaining excess mortality of late 2022?

Fabian Spieker did excellent research comparing vaccinations against excess mortality in Germany. He produced charts for all German federal lands, one of which I modified to make my point, comparing excess non-Covid deaths in one of the German Bundeslands with vaccine doses given:

You can see that early vaccination (circled part) shows excess deaths explainable by Covid vaccines given during the same period. Fabian showed conclusively that initial vaccine shots killed people in Germany. He estimated one out of 1,642 Germans per dose given was killed by the initial Covid vaccinations, which is in line with other estimates.

However, after the initial series of shots, excess non-Covid mortality remained elevated but stopped tracking vaccine doses given. Had the vaccines been the only cause, the excess mortality curve would look relatively smooth and steady, whatever the underlying mechanism for long-term vaccine damage could be.

The wavy mortality pattern leaves me with no explanation other than thinking that Covid plays an underappreciated role in excess deaths. In other words, if Covid hypothetically disappeared in early 2022, the mortality curves would look different from what we are observing.

Mortality would not have obvious waves if an infection and variants did not play a role.

Here’s a chart of California’s excess mortality. I used California death data and calculated excess mortality as the number of deaths in a given month, compared to the average of deaths for 2017-2019. On top of the mortality chart, I overlaid the chart for wastewater Covid RNA levels for one of California’s counties. You can see that mortality roughly follows Covid infection levels.

Sweden and the UK experienced recent Covid waves and greatly increased excess mortality. They also seem to match pretty well:

If so, we can ask: are we undercounting COVID deaths? Do recent covid infections and reinfections explain many “sudden deaths”? In my opinion, yes.

Saying that Covid deaths are undercounted would be unpopular with many vaccine skeptics.

In the past, Covid deaths were overcounted for propaganda purposes.

That changed in 2022 when authorities worldwide could no longer hide the ineffectiveness of vaccines. Covid tests can now be done at home, and if someone dies of a heart attack three weeks after a Covid infection, such a death would not be counted as a Covid death without a recorded test.

This undercounting of Covid deaths is not a coincidence but a way to avoid explaining why vaccines are not working.

Except no one can hide excess mortality.

Even mild Covid infections cause deaths. This UK Biobank study (Mar 2020-2021) shows the risk of death after a mild Covid infection to be several times that of the background rate. (this estimate seems awfully high to me)

In the Veterans Administration study, reinfections were found to be even worse than initial infections, increasing the risk of post-acute death even further, with vaccines not being helpful at all:

So, Covid is a bad illness, and it is not a good thing to be reinfected.

If so, does the latest jump in deaths signify a deadlier than before Covid variant, perhaps causing more deaths than in the past? Are the deaths delayed? Is this the deadly “Geert Variant” that Mr. Vanden Bossche predicted?

There is a stereotype about viruses becoming milder because the deadlier variants do not spread as easily. It makes intuitive sense. An illness that makes people super sick would not spread as well because the sicker people tend to stay home in bed.

However, if an infection causes death well after the person ceases to be infectious, there is no evolutionary pressure for the virus to become milder.

If Covid infections and reinfections cause delayed deaths, such as “sudden deaths” described below, then it makes sense that the virus would never evolve to cause fewer such deaths. These delayed deaths seem to be recorded mostly as cardiovascular deaths by coroners.

UK data suggests that the three heart-related categories explain much of the UK’s excess mortality.

Not all excess deaths are due to recent Covid infections, but many could be.

Such sudden deaths puzzle authorities. They cannot be pinned down to vaccines taken a long time ago. Such deaths cannot even be certainly attributed to Covid. And yet they are plentiful. They include Gwen Casten, Bob Saget, Kelly Ernby, and many others:

This excess mortality is mysteriously absent in barely-vaccinated countries such as Bulgaria or South Africa.

This absence is evident when excess mortality in late 2022 is analyzed against vaccination levels. The more vaccines – the greater the mortality!

While that association was already published by me and even checked by Martin Neil and Norman Fenton, this article adds that Covid likely plays a larger role in excess mortality than anyone is willing to admit.

In other words: if Covid magically disappeared – so would many excess deaths.

Of course, Covid did disappear in countries with low vaccination rates and herd immunity, such as Bulgaria or South Africa, which experienced no excess mortality in December (see above).

The greater-than-usual excess mortality in December could be explained by one of two things:

  • Covid became deadlier than usual, as Geert Vanden Bossche predicted

  • Covid is as pathogenic as always, but repeat reinfections wear people down and make previously healthy persons susceptible to worse outcomes, due to immune tolerance.

I hope that we can figure out what is happening.

I was warning about reinfections last March:

Watch this sad one-minute video, please. A UK parliamentarian asks the health minister why people are dying at excess rates in the UK. The health minister explains that “it is not just the UK, it is in Europe also” as if that was an acceptable explanation.

What concerns me the most is that while the waves of mortality will be coming and going, they are getting worse instead of better. In addition, there is nothing that I can see that can stop this unfortunate progression.

Do you think that we will “return back to normal” when it comes to excess deaths?