The FDA does not (and certainly the CDC does not) have interest in presenting vaccination dangers in a way to fully communicates them. The CDC is a vaccine distribution PR organization, and has been so for (frankly) decades. (I know we disagree on this point!) As such, these "mistakes" are not errors, but simply part of the narrative that supports the outcome they want. And now, if you will excuse me, I need to return to polishing my Tin-Foil Hat. Conspiracy Analysis tends to tarnish it!

Expand full comment

Yeah at the CDC they are not virologists - they are vaccinologists....

Expand full comment







Read about it here: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1184


The data is from the British/English government agency UKHSA (United Kingdom Health Security Agency).

Let's look at the (covid-19) death data for those over 80 years of age, both vaccinated, and un-vaccinated, from week 3, 2022 (the week of the great fraud) onwards:

The following table has 4 "columns".

Column 1 lists the period/week of 2022.

Column 2 is deaths among those vaccinated per 100,000

Column 3 is the deaths among the un-vaccinated per 100,000

Column 4 tells the number of deaths saved/lost (i.e, Column 3 minus Column 2) due to the vaccines per 100,000.

week03 39 309 => the vaccines save 270 deaths per 100,000

week04 57 322 => the vaccines save 265 deaths per 100,000

week05 78 326 => the vaccines save 248 deaths per 100,000

week06 103 324 => the vaccines save 221 deaths per 100,000

week07 114 280 => the vaccines save 165 deaths per 100,000

week08 120 243 => the vaccines save 124 deaths per 100,000

week09 120 190 => the vaccines save 70 deaths per 100,000

week10 110 152 => the vaccines save 42 deaths per 100,000

week11 101 141 => the vaccines save 40 deaths per 100,000

week12 90 134 => the vaccines save 44 deaths per 100,000

week13 84 122 => the vaccines save 37 deaths per 100,000

week14............. they suddenly decided to stop publishing the data.


So Column 4 is the number of deaths that are prevented for every 100,000 people who are vaccinated. If this number is negative then it records the number of deaths caused by the vaccines (per 100,000 vaccinated).

Graphing Column 4 we can see that as it approaches zero it levels off (from week 10 onwards). This is due to those presenting the data finding some fraud to keep the data positive, or simply making up the data. Anything, to keep the data from proving that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving.

Image/Graph http://www.preearth.net/images/deaths-caused-saved-by-vaccines.png

I must emphasize that the above data only records deaths due to covid-19. It does not record any deaths due to adverse reactions to the vaccines.

Anyway, after manipulating the data for the weeks 10, 11, 12, and 13, the evil people decided that the data was henceforth always going to show that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving, so they stopped publishing the data. To provide an excuse for this they had to arrange for the UK Government to stop paying for covid-19 testing, so that is what they did. In the week 14 surveillance report they state:

"From 1 April 2022, the UK Government ended provision of free universal covid-19 testing for the general public in England, as set out in the plan for living with COVID-19. Such changes in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor covid-19 cases by vaccination status, therefore, from the week 14 report onwards this section of the report will no longer be published."

The relevant data from the reports can be found in the following PDF:


Previously, this very data was used to justify the vaccine mandates. The argument was that the vaccines were saving more than they are killing. This is no longer true. What is now true, is that; The vaccines are killing more than they are saving.

Expand full comment

You're much more disciplined than I am. I just toss my tin-foil hat when it gets tarnished and get myself a new one.

Expand full comment

I have so appreciated the humor of these posts. Gets me through this clown show. Thank you!

Expand full comment

my tin-foil hat has rusted away and now I have a tin-foil head

Expand full comment

To extend your analogy, there are reports that people who make it to the bunker may be subject to increased risk in the months and years ahead because the enemy is possibly working on a weapon—the Advanced Defense Eviscerator (ADE), which is specially designed to kill people inside the bunker, but not very good at killing people outside the bunker. And it may even have a feature whereby it seeks out people and kills them even after they've left the bunker.

It's a little harder to quantify the risk because we're not sure whether the enemy is going to produce the ADE, or how effective it will be if they do. But it seems that soldiers should be told about it. Especially since they could risk that lasts even longer than the current battle.

Expand full comment

Sadly, your analogy is especially apt as soldiers lack the agency to refuse the bunker without being discharged or worse.

Expand full comment

the ucmj is in the united states codes (not changed by demented exec order) which governs discharges under other than honorable is a set approved by congress. the bumbler in chief and his controller of trump's nuke football have no authority bc raising and regulating the army is the job of congress.

the first soldier offered any thing other than honorable discharge is entitled to a court martial.....

i would demand a direct order from a field grader and respectfully decline and ask for a court!

Expand full comment

Hard same here. I strongly suspect this approach is entirely betting on the vast swathes of young E's to a) not know that they CAN refuse or b) be peer pressured by their company or c) just be intimidated.

Since refusals ARE already happening, the anecdotes I have heard is that if you're close to the end of a bid, they just don't renew you, and others are being told they'll get "other than honorable."

These are purely anecdotes, though. I think if this was happening right now in numbers affecting readiness, we'd be hearing about it in the media. Or maybe not?

Expand full comment

Not if Mareks disease analogy holds

Expand full comment

clever and clear

Expand full comment

Thank you for vindication, word-for-word, my back of napkin theory I've held for about two months now. I honestly waited all day, eagerly, for this article. Now persuade people more powerful than me to punish what should be an obviously evil and corrupt LIE.

It isn't even worthy of being called dissembling or deliberately misreading data. It is a knowing torture of language, 1984-style: dead + vaccinated = unvaccinated.

It is a murderous lie by people who are so invested in never, EVER admitting fault that they would sooner die than do so. Maybe after enough of us have suffered for it, they'll get their wish.

Expand full comment

Super important point you are making. This data manipulation is so criminal. 😡

Expand full comment

And the unsaid lesson is that data manipulation is quite common in the medical and nutrition fields. Most of those trained to practice in those professions are not taught how to spot the problems but to accept the dogma from "the experts," or pretty boys and girls with trinkets.

How many of the populace will translate this lesson to review and take charge of their diet and health (the first influences the second)?

Expand full comment

Doesn't this mean that COVID is more of an opportunistic disease due to a suppressed immune system rather than simply being in the presence of someone who has COVID and you catch it? This is also testimony to the nurses and doctors who worked with COVID patients for 1 year without catching it. To catch it, you need a weakened immune system.

Expand full comment

I would not know the specific answer. makes me wonder about the PCR test, definition of a case, etc. Anecdotally I have heard of super healthy people testing positive post vaccine. In fact where I work there seems to be a (bizarrely proud) sense among those who’ve broadcast their vax status that it is normal to feel terrible after getting vaccinated. But your question prompts another: why is there no discussion — apart from dissenters in a few corners of the internet — about, well, health and healthy living and the immune system and the “terrain”? which you might expect to be the first priority of agents of “public health.”

Expand full comment

I’ve also noticed people who feel less side effects pride themselves as so fit and healthy and that only unhealthy folks get side effects 🤦‍♀️. I feel like I’m stuck in a bad 1970d dystopian sci-fi.

Expand full comment

Well, look at the RCTs themselves for case counts

Expand full comment

They caught it. mild cases, as per usual

Expand full comment

It is, in fact, improper clinical trial analysis to not date and assign all bad outcomes to first second of onset of dosing. Everyone who has ever worked in the pharma business knows this- you would never get this sort of thing by the FDA in a normal clinical trial or a post market surveillance report. It is quite stunning corruption, and makes me ashamed I was ever a medicinal chemist in this country.

Expand full comment

Hey, that's dangerous misinformation! The vaccines were FDA approved, so this clearly didn't happen! Ipso facto hippo!

Expand full comment

I think it's worse than your analogy. The "bunker" is only an illusion and the "vaccine" is not simply elevating risk but causing you direct harm. Your analogy implies there's this sniper out there shooting at you, and the vaccine makes your chance of getting hit by him increased. I believe a more correct analogy is that taking this "vaccine" is more like playing Russian roulette on your way to the illusion of a bunker.

Expand full comment

Russian roulette with an autoloader, even.

Expand full comment

PCR testing: I'm sorry to report sir, you have been shot.

But I don't feel like I'm shot.

No, you have definitely been shot. Go back to the foxhole. Try to get to the bunker, if you don't die.

Maybe I'll just put on some armor and stay in the foxhole

No we strongly suggest you make it to the bunker, going to require it now

My armor works just fine but whatever

Expand full comment

excellent analogy. I'm deeply annoyed that if they were going to mandate vaccines, why didn't they do it early summer when cases were way down? Now they want to mandate through the Fall and Winter? when cases are going up? they want to mandate first doses on 80 million people?!? are they nuts?!?

Expand full comment

No, it is intentional. The virus targets the old, infirm, obese, frail, unhealthy, low immunity people. The goal is depopulation and always has been. Gates has been speaking about it for decades. The Georgia Guidestones. The Plandemic. So many more red flags. They think we are stupid (and many are, sad to say). I will not put MY head in their chopping block.

Expand full comment

GREAT ARTICLE. Best explanation of a complex issue.

Expand full comment

Excellent. The writing/analysis too but the cat diagrams are priceless.

Expand full comment

Thanks for writing this. The FDA has become captive like the SEC. Everyone is on their own.

Expand full comment

have been for quite a while. It was many years ago, they declared Fritos a health food.

Expand full comment

El Gato you've just been quoted again by the UK's Daily Sceptic site (17th Sept daily update, scroll down to News Round Up).


If you read this after 17th Sept that link will take you to the wrong page but they have a calendar on their site (access through a computer not a phone to easily find it) where you can pick the day.

This is becoming a regular occurence, and a great thing that an eminent internet feline is being published in a site that we know a number of UK MPs and other prominent UK lockdown sceptic journalists and medics etc follow 😼

Expand full comment

It also inflates the REWARD. If the vaccine's first dose is leading to more people getting infected, then they are heading into the "fully vaccinated" category already having natural immunity

Expand full comment

I posed this concern previously but it was after most of the discussion and not sure many others saw it. It would seem those with natural immunity may, since they already have immunity, not have seen the same spike in cases immediately after vaccination. If that were to be the case, this situation is even worse. The 25-40% of the data set (far lower percent in the initial Pfizer studies) that already had covid would be able to get to the safety of the bunker without crossing the field. They would have lower risk and lower benefit (still not a compelling case).

This would actually skew the apparent risk downward relative to the data presented here. In that case, the risk to those naive to covid-19 is even higher during that initial window.

Expand full comment

but then if ADE...

Expand full comment

Also, What if it's a bunker that is crumbling and will eventually lead to you being in another fox hole about to make a run for another bunker?

Expand full comment