11 Comments
author
author
Feb 18, 2023·edited Feb 18, 2023Author

More regurgitation of the same story;

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/why-are-more-people-dying-in-australia-many-questi

See their comment section for GPs questioning the “narrative”.

Expand full comment
author

New Researchgate paper:

Australian COVID-19 pandemic: A Bradford Hill analysis of iatrogenic excess mortality

February 2033

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368426122_Australian_COVID-19_pandemic_A_Bradford_Hill_analysis_of_iatrogenic_excess_mortality

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author
Dec 26, 2022·edited Dec 26, 2022Author

Interesting. The way the comments section looks, it appears to be open but has no comments. They used to allow comments but I think too many academics were getting their asses handed to them on a plate with informed comments against their narrative. There used to be some rigorous debate.

Expand full comment
Jan 16, 2023Liked by Ivo Bakota

You’re on to something with Western Australia excess deaths due to them having nearly zero Covid before the vaccines & also they had maybe 3 day’s lockdown possibly twice. So the excess deaths from lockdown CAN NOT be possible. I only mentioned this yesterday to someone else!

Expand full comment
author

I’ve had a quick look. Problem is lack of data for WA.

https://krap.substack.com/p/holy-krap-western-australia-excess

Expand full comment
Feb 14, 2023Liked by Ivo Bakota

Very interesting assessment, thanks. It is a pity about the lack of data being made available, especially from ABS. They appear to not only be far less timely but also leaving out valuable metrics. The actuaries appear to have better luck. I have found ABS approach in dropping 2020 but including 2021 in the baseline as troubling despite their rationale. I also wonder about this parsing of the cohorts into from and with covid. My impression was that there was no delineation as per WHO guidelines but I stand corrected. That said, what is the justification then of pooling 'from' and 'with'? Surely if 'with' is not causation then those numbers should be pooled with other causes or removed from the analysis if there is doubt. On a similar trajectory NSW Health reports show covid deaths, even if adjusted for cohort size have death rates highest for 4 jab, then three, then one then zero then two jab. Cohort size of one jab is v small so the correction may excessively adjust but otherwise it is a disturbingly concerning correlation.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for your comments.

With regards to ABS providing data in timely manner. I used to be suspicious of this, but looking back at their previous reports, they appear to be about as timely as they’ve always been. You could criticize the government for not funding or directing them to “work faster” given the “national emergency” situation but they seem to be moving at the normal speed of bureaucracy like they always have. I agree they leave out key metrics. I think it’s on purpose but that’s just speculation on my part.

Totally agree with your comments regarding WHO, pooling etc. It’s all a bit of a definitional shell game, but I think ABS is pretty fair with their “from” and “with” definitions. I even think the WHO “from” definition is too wide, it says, “Therefore, always apply these instructions, whether they can be considered medically correct or not.”

https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/international-guidelines-for-certification-and-classification-(coding)-of-covid-19-as-cause-of-death

The NSW correlation is definitely concerning, I wish they’d publish it with age stratification but they don’t, so everyone just keeps speculating on the correlation.

Expand full comment
Feb 14, 2023Liked by Ivo Bakota

I have to say it is very refreshing to find a commentator who appears to be chasing facts and not entrenched in one tribe or the other. So thanks for that. Your speculation re ABS is arguably close to the truth. I have a friend who works there and directives from above on 'framing' the data does happen. This is a bit like NSW health. They give age strat on vax but not on ICU or death and they are dropping VAX status from future hospitalisation-death. It may simply be that vaccination is not protecting the most vulnerable/elderly multi vaxxed but maybe anybody who has had covid or vaxxed has some chronic compromise that puts them at risk. Tragedy is that officialdom doesn't seem to have the slightest interest in investigation of covid or other deaths. Does my head in.

Expand full comment
author
Feb 14, 2023·edited Feb 14, 2023Author

Exactly, the official lack of interest or curiosity also does my head in. We’ve probably got one of the worlds best health care record keeping systems in place through Medicare and the National Immunization Register and it wouldn’t be too hard to find out exactly what’s going on. I’m pretty sure they’ve done the numbers and it doesn’t look good. They may just be lazy and incompetent, but I doubt it, they seem to know exactly what to leave out so there is no conclusive evidence either way.

Thanks for the complement, my initial gripe with the main stream narrative was the way they used misleading statistics to demonize the unvaxxed, at the time I had no opinion either way, if anything I’d describe myself as a vaccine advocate being vaccinated against all the usual childhood vaccinations, plus some others due to occupational exposure, but I knew they were twisting the figures to suit the narrative. They weren’t flat out lying, just framing it in a way that was disingenuous.

Expand full comment