11 Comments

Does it get any clearer than those tables?

Expand full comment

Thank you for your work May God continue to bless you and yours.

Expand full comment

Hi

I've shared some of your graphs, and I have linked to your article. Great work. Well done.

I am writing a book, by the way - would you mind if I reproduce some of your graphs in the book?

Expand full comment

Stunning and shocking data and graphs.

Do you have links to the original FOI requests - there should be a disclosure log number and webpage somewhere?

Expand full comment

(2 of 2) Here are some thoughts on the progression of COVID-19, the quasi-vaccines and the serious cardiac condition presentations you graph.

June- July 2020. This initial wave of recorded COVID-19 infections was mainly in Victorian aged care homes. (Terribly low, but easily raised, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.) This peaked at around 400 new cases per day: https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/victorian-coronavirus-covid-19-data . There was no discernible rise in cardiac related presentations in any age group.

There were virtually no detected COVID-19 cases in Victoria, despite a massive testing program, until late August 2021, when a wave peaking at about 1800 new cases a day, in mid-October, stretched out until the start of the really big wave of Omicron in January 2022.

Victorian quasi-vaccine injections started around March 2021. These were entirely AstraZeneca, and were reserved for older people - I recall 60+, and a few younger people with special conditions. Your graphs for age 40 and above show a small, short, dip in cardiac related presentations for that March or April. There's no sign of any rise in the few months which follow.

This could be explained by this adenovirus vector quasi-vaccine having little impact on cardiac symptoms in general, and/or neither this nor any other quasi vaccine having as much impact on cardiac symptoms in these older age groups compared to how some of them (the mRNA quasi-vaccines) impact those under 40.

There was a huge demand for Pfizer the injections as the dangers of the AZ injections became known. The widespread availability of the Pfizer injections (Moderna came later) seems to have coincided with the push to inject everyone from teenage years to the elderly, at least twice.

This is the big peak in injections per month, reaching its peak in November 2021. The TGA weekly vaccine safety reports provide these figures from early September to late December 2021:

Astrazeneca 3.4M injections (Sep-05 10.2M to 13.6M Dec-19.)

Pfizer 15.5M injections (Sep-21 10.7M to 26.2M Dec-19.)

Moderna 1.5M injections. (First mentioned Oct-03 167k to 1.5M Dec-19.)

The AstraZeneca injections mainly went to older people. The great majority - 17 million injections - went to people of all ages, down to children, with fewer going to those above 60 since many of them had already had Astrazeneca injections, and the Pfizer was recommended for those under 50, who were being mass injected for the first time.

The graphs at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/charting-australias-covid-vaccine-rollout/13197518 show that the peak of second doses was ~102,000 a day ~2021-10-22. The Jan-Feb 2022 peak was almost all 3rd doses = boosters.

This huge increase in mRNA quasi-vaccinations is strongly and precisely correlated with the tremendous rise, above long-term baseline, levels of cardiac related presentations the Victorian Health Department report for the end of 2021.

This rise is unlikely to have been due to COVID-19, since the small November peak is after the rises, and the great peak in recorded infections of January 2022, which coincides with the second, somewhat lower, peak in injections of Jan/Feb 2022 is followed by only a smaller peak in presentations.

Note that the October 2021 wave of infections was Delta, which more strongly affected the lungs, while the big January peak was almost all an early Omicron variant, which was far less harmful, since the virus was better adapted to the upper airways and less to the lung tissues.

Everything you graph, as reported by the health authorities, supports the hypothesis that the mRNA quasi-vaccines induced significant and easily recognisable increases in cardiac problems, at least in people aged 40 and under.

It would be possible to develop more detailed graphs of Pfizer and Moderna injections by month, and perhaps to find some record of the age groups who these were used on. I believe this would provide a sharper, in time, indication of how these quasi-vaccines, to a much greater extent than the AstraZeneca injections, caused heart problems for many people.

The authorities have not properly acknowledged this.

Among 20 to 29 year olds, the main spike of excess cardiac related presentations totals, over a few months, about 14,000 (my estimate from eyeballing the graph). If we assume an overlap factor of 3 (wild guess, it could be less) this is 4700 Victorians, in this age group, seriously harmed by the mandated and/or falsely promoted mRNA quasi-vaccines, in these months alone, not counting those who died, those who presented to private hospitals and those who were harmed but for some reason did not present to hospital.

The same pattern has played out over the Western World, probably with considerable variation due to how particular batches of mRNA differ, with all their variations in production, storage and transportation.

I will leave it to someone else to estimate the number of presentations above the long-term trend, for all age groups, in Victoria, and what numbers of people in those age groups were injected.

Those younger people faced little risk of severe outcomes or death from COVID-19, even with their generally terribly low 25-hydroxyvitamin D. I know of a psychiatrist who wrote directly to the Chief Health Officer about vitamin D. The head of the Department of Medicine at Monash University, who is a long-time vitamin D researcher - Prof. Peter Ebeling - mentioned the need for vitamin D3 supplements in an ABC interview in August 2020: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/is-there-a-link-between-vitamin-d-and-coronavirus/12566324 . Despite these and other efforts, Western governments have ignored this easily understood, very safe and effective, approach to suppressing transmission and severity. Yet they ignored this and went so far as to prohibit the use of ivermectin, in favour of these quasi-vaccines.

Expand full comment

(1 of 2) Thanks very much for this analysis. I checked a few representative numbers from the FOI data and found they matched those in the spreadsheet cells and the graphs in the spreadsheet, some of which appear in the article.

I am an electronic technician and computer programmer who has gone to a lot of effort since March 2020 to raise awareness of the need for 125 nmol/L 50 ng/mL circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (as measured in "vitamin D" blood tests) in order for the immune system to work properly. Without proper vitamin D3 supplementation - such as for 70 kg bodyweight without obesity, 0.125 mg (5000 IU) a day - this cannot usually be attained, since there is very little vitamin D in food, fortified or not, and the UV-B which can generate it in white skin is only naturally available from high elevation sunlight in summer, without glass, clothing or sunscreen in the way. Such UV-B always damages DNA and so raises the risk of skin cancer.

Fortunately, the scary-sounding 5000 IU a day is only a gram every 22 years, and ex-factory, pharma-grade vitamin D3 costs about USD$2.50 a gram. Please see the research articles cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/, https://brownstone.org/articles/vitamin-d-everything-you-need-to-know/ and https://nutritionmatters.substack.com.

Most people only have 1/10 to 1/2 of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D they need. If everyone had 125 nmol/L 50 ng/mL or more, there would be no pandemic transmission of flu or COVID-19, very few deaths from these, and far less sepsis, which kills 11 million people a year: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32989-7 .

In this and following comments I want to discuss some finer points of what has happened.

The numbers you use in the main line in your graphs, the sum of the VAED and VEMD numbers for each month, for each age group, are a single count for each incidence of multiple acute cardiac related diagnoses, as detailed on the last page of the FOI response PDF. The covering letter shows that you asked for the total number of these when they were both the primary (or one of the primary) reasons for presentation to hospital, and for those conditions which were recorded upon presentation when the main reason was some other condition. (The Foi Request 2023.)

I think this was a good request, and the numbers were provided from two separate bodies of data:

VAED - recorded when the patient left the hospital, or when their mode of care was changed, such as going to another hospital for rehabilitation. ("Patient separation" first page of the F23 0136 PDF.) This is for people admitted to hospital.

VEMD - recorded at presentation to an emergency department.

There are several forms of potential overlap:

Firstly, one patient, at one time, might have two or more such codes applied, so that person adds 2 or more to the numbers.

Secondly, one patient may present at the emergency department and then be admitted to hospital, whereupon the same one or more codes and/or related codes will be added to the total for that month of discharge or transfer to another hospital or mode of treatment.

Thirdly, these transfers will result in another count of codes being added for the same patient when they leave that second hospital or mode of treatment.

This is all valid, since it scales with severity of the cardiac illness. However, without some knowledge from nurses or doctors, I think it would be hard to derive from these total figures, VAED and VEMD for a month, how many patients were involved in hospital care.

Since the most visible aspect of the presentations graph is the change from the long-term, slightly rising, baseline, these overlaps are of no concern. We can easily determine, with confidence, how much of an increase there is for a given age group.

As you note, the sum of the VAED and VEMD figures does not represent people who went to private hospitals, or who were dead on arrival at hospital. Nor can it count people who had heart problems who did not present to hospital.

Heart related conditions are only a subset of injuries which are caused by the COVID-19 quasi-vaccines and actual vaccines (Novavax is a vaccine). While the dangers of the Novavax vaccine - with the sudden imposition on the body of vast numbers of lipid nanoparticles with protruding facsimiles of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins - may be significant, as far as I know Novavax has not been used much in Victoria, and was first approved by the TGA in January 2022. The TGA figures, for Australia, to 29 May 2022 https://www.tga.gov.au/news/covid-19-vaccine-safety-reports/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-02-06-2022 were:

AstraZeneca adenovirus vector 13,800,000 injections - but by early 2022 this was not so much used, due to the acknowledged deaths and other serious outcomes: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-17/covid-vaccines-booster-astrazeneca-australian-deaths/101055494.

Pfizer mRNA 40,800,000 injections, including some for children aged 5 or more.

Moderna mRNA (about twice the dose, but otherwise similar to, Pfizer) 4,400,000 injections.

Expand full comment

Oh Lord, this is beyond impressive, thank you!

Expand full comment