Although I am a layman, I have yet to see anyone else put themselves out there as much as you have on this topic. Not only doing the hard work but then being open to public scrutiny by peers, defending your work on stage, in panel interviews, at great personal and reputational risk. Is your work referenced in this article? I didn’t find any references in the links provided. And if not referenced, why ever not? You are a subject matter expert in this area.
What did the unvaccinated have in common? Prior experience to be cautious of public health and medications/medical procedures? Many indigenous populations have a history of being experimented on...
I commented on that and other papers in the Norwegian Medical Journal (link at the bottom). Please read below.
Young people who refused the corona vaccine made the best choice
In some population groups, fewer young people got vaccinated against COVID-19 than in the rest of the population (1), but did those who abstained make a poor choice? No. Peer-reviewed longitudinal analyses of young people in England show significantly increased mortality in 10 out of 11 weeks after vaccination compared with the first week, and at least doubled mortality in three weeks (2).
The findings may seem to contradict Norwegian data showing a 30% lower mortality rate among young corona vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people, and where the difference was as much as 58% when control variables were included (3). However, the figures say little about the vaccine effect since corona-related deaths were close to zero in the relevant age group (4). What they do tell us, however, is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people initially have very different health profiles, known from England (5), and which makes direct comparisons problematic. Furthermore, the figures show that the inclusion of control variables can make results more, not less, unreliable, which is also known (for relevant references, see 5). The figures should therefore be thought-provoking when considering much of the research literature on corona vaccination.
If we study the Norwegian data in more detail, they show a relative increase in mortality among fully vaccinated young people of 13% from 2022 to 2023 (3). For the oldest age group, where the populations of fully vaccinated and unvaccinated were more stable and therefore more comparable in the two years, the increase was 41%. This is in line with English data that also show a marked relative increase in mortality among vaccinated people over time without any other explanation than fatal undesirable consequences of the corona vaccine (5).
Unvaccinated people, especially young unvaccinated people, have therefore made a good choice. A very good choice.
Literature:
1. Skogheim TS, Hussaini L. Corona vaccination among young people with an immigrant background. Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. 2024;144(5). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.24.0158
2. Aarstad J. Deaths among young people in England increased significantly in 10 of 11 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination and doubled in three. Excli j. 2024;23:908-11. doi: 10.17179/excli2024-7498
3. Dahl J, Tapia G, Boas H, Landsjoasen Bakken IJ, Lovdal Gulseth H. COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and all-cause mortality in the adult population in Norway during 2021-2023: a population-based cohort study. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058
5. Aarstad J. The Temporal Protection and Declining Health of the COVID-19 Vaccinated in England: A 26-Month Comparison of the Mortality Involving and Not Involving COVID-19 Among Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated. Preprints: Preprints; 2024. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202412.1874/v1 Accessed 24.01.2025.
I've just now reached you site, and before I dig in on what appears to be some interesting data, let me ask you -
will your data touch upon possible BBB-crossing elements to the jab ingredients, and/or the application of neurological modifying materials already known and experimented with in the decade previous to the coivd-caper? If so, give me a guide as to what part of your archive to discover those references. Thanks
Well, 1) certain injection ingredients are known to cross the blood brain barrier such as aluminum. But to induce Neuroinflammation none of the ingredients have to cross the blood brain barrier, at least in theory 2) the brain inflammation could be secondary simply to cytokines, and probably 3) some activated monocytes
The authors list no external funding source and no conflict of interests, but I can't determine what their funding source is or what "interests" they might have.
There are ways to look at statistics which influence results, of course.
You asked.... but, perhaps advisedly, did not tell. This allows for a rejoinder. But first... much respect. Your work is head & shoulders above the 'common herd' of so called 'researchers' who come into the covid debate with phasers lock n loaded on achieving - only more confusion.
This confusion exists as part of a usual element of psyops such as the western world has been subject to intensely for the past five years. Is the Norwegian data an outlier, an anomaly, a blip? None of those. It's a clear cut confirmation of DR James Hill's precis that the intention of the shots - or better said - the application/reach/disbursement of the shots is to achieve a 'culling' of a certain demographic - prior to & necessary for the advancement of the effectuates of this 'grand design' to achieve their desired goals in the middle east. Hill always places the identity of those parties in {redacted} form. I shall defer the to possible wisdom of his method, and simply suggest those in need of further knowledge consult his substack for the required data.
Good to make this critique! Good points raised.
Although I am a layman, I have yet to see anyone else put themselves out there as much as you have on this topic. Not only doing the hard work but then being open to public scrutiny by peers, defending your work on stage, in panel interviews, at great personal and reputational risk. Is your work referenced in this article? I didn’t find any references in the links provided. And if not referenced, why ever not? You are a subject matter expert in this area.
What did the unvaccinated have in common? Prior experience to be cautious of public health and medications/medical procedures? Many indigenous populations have a history of being experimented on...
I commented on that and other papers in the Norwegian Medical Journal (link at the bottom). Please read below.
Young people who refused the corona vaccine made the best choice
In some population groups, fewer young people got vaccinated against COVID-19 than in the rest of the population (1), but did those who abstained make a poor choice? No. Peer-reviewed longitudinal analyses of young people in England show significantly increased mortality in 10 out of 11 weeks after vaccination compared with the first week, and at least doubled mortality in three weeks (2).
The findings may seem to contradict Norwegian data showing a 30% lower mortality rate among young corona vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people, and where the difference was as much as 58% when control variables were included (3). However, the figures say little about the vaccine effect since corona-related deaths were close to zero in the relevant age group (4). What they do tell us, however, is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people initially have very different health profiles, known from England (5), and which makes direct comparisons problematic. Furthermore, the figures show that the inclusion of control variables can make results more, not less, unreliable, which is also known (for relevant references, see 5). The figures should therefore be thought-provoking when considering much of the research literature on corona vaccination.
If we study the Norwegian data in more detail, they show a relative increase in mortality among fully vaccinated young people of 13% from 2022 to 2023 (3). For the oldest age group, where the populations of fully vaccinated and unvaccinated were more stable and therefore more comparable in the two years, the increase was 41%. This is in line with English data that also show a marked relative increase in mortality among vaccinated people over time without any other explanation than fatal undesirable consequences of the corona vaccine (5).
Unvaccinated people, especially young unvaccinated people, have therefore made a good choice. A very good choice.
Literature:
1. Skogheim TS, Hussaini L. Corona vaccination among young people with an immigrant background. Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. 2024;144(5). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.24.0158
2. Aarstad J. Deaths among young people in England increased significantly in 10 of 11 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination and doubled in three. Excli j. 2024;23:908-11. doi: 10.17179/excli2024-7498
3. Dahl J, Tapia G, Boas H, Landsjoasen Bakken IJ, Lovdal Gulseth H. COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and all-cause mortality in the adult population in Norway during 2021-2023: a population-based cohort study. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058
4. Norwegian Institute of Public Health. FHI Statistics. Deaths by gender, age and cause of death, number 2024. https://statistikk.fhi.no/daar/4WsXdiMduftCsG6aAND9Yg?MEASURE_TYPE=Freq… . Accessed 24.01.2025 .
5. Aarstad J. The Temporal Protection and Declining Health of the COVID-19 Vaccinated in England: A 26-Month Comparison of the Mortality Involving and Not Involving COVID-19 Among Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated. Preprints: Preprints; 2024. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202412.1874/v1 Accessed 24.01.2025.
https://tidsskriftet-no.translate.goog/2025/01/kommentar/unge-som-avsto-koronavaksinen-tok-det-beste-valget?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Additionally, the data that focuses on mortality, overlooks the data on non-lethal complications, such as psychosis and paralysis https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/science-video-21-free-research-articles
I've just now reached you site, and before I dig in on what appears to be some interesting data, let me ask you -
will your data touch upon possible BBB-crossing elements to the jab ingredients, and/or the application of neurological modifying materials already known and experimented with in the decade previous to the coivd-caper? If so, give me a guide as to what part of your archive to discover those references. Thanks
Well, 1) certain injection ingredients are known to cross the blood brain barrier such as aluminum. But to induce Neuroinflammation none of the ingredients have to cross the blood brain barrier, at least in theory 2) the brain inflammation could be secondary simply to cytokines, and probably 3) some activated monocytes
The authors list no external funding source and no conflict of interests, but I can't determine what their funding source is or what "interests" they might have.
There are ways to look at statistics which influence results, of course.
"What is driving such ill-advised counsel?"
You asked.... but, perhaps advisedly, did not tell. This allows for a rejoinder. But first... much respect. Your work is head & shoulders above the 'common herd' of so called 'researchers' who come into the covid debate with phasers lock n loaded on achieving - only more confusion.
This confusion exists as part of a usual element of psyops such as the western world has been subject to intensely for the past five years. Is the Norwegian data an outlier, an anomaly, a blip? None of those. It's a clear cut confirmation of DR James Hill's precis that the intention of the shots - or better said - the application/reach/disbursement of the shots is to achieve a 'culling' of a certain demographic - prior to & necessary for the advancement of the effectuates of this 'grand design' to achieve their desired goals in the middle east. Hill always places the identity of those parties in {redacted} form. I shall defer the to possible wisdom of his method, and simply suggest those in need of further knowledge consult his substack for the required data.
https://open.substack.com/pub/willrthomson/p/dr-mark-trozzi-get-your-ass-on-the?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1ssazc
Additionally, the data that focuses on mortality, overlooks the data on non-lethal complications, such as psychosis and paralysis https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/science-video-21-free-research-articles