Australian Health Authorities Claim ‘Vaccine’ Saves Lives, Data Shows Exact Opposite

Today we'll discuss a couple of Australian entities who claim the COVID 'vaccines' save lives - but when confronted with an FOI requester who refuses to go away (yours truly), the only data they have shows most people dying from 'COVID' are in fact 'vaccinated.' We'll also look at UK data that shows the 'vaccinated' are dying off at far higher rates than the unvaccinated.

The Rise of the Evil Nerds

Among the many regrettable outcomes of the so-called pandemic was the rise of the COVID bureaucrat. These were the overpaid busybodies who fronted the press daily, reciting grim case counts and telling us to "follow the science" (i.e. do as the government tells you) - while they themselves spouted pure nonsense with no foundation in science whatsoever. Here in Australia, our COVID celebrities were a bunch of socially inept evil nerds known as "Chief Health/Medical Officers."  The likes of Nicola Spurrrier, Kerry Chant, Brett Sutton and Brad Hazzard were largely unknown bureaucrats prior to COVID, but quickly became household names as they fronted the media each day to report the number of largely asymptomatic people testing 'positive' for a largely inconsequential and alleged new flu known as "COVID-19."

Several keys facts were absent from these daily propaganda exercises:

  • The 'novel' PCR test being used to detect these so-called 'positive' cases was an egregious fraud, exhibiting numerous critical anomalies whose authors and publishers still doggedly refuse to explain (see here and here).
  • Sars-Cov-2," the alleged virus that causes the alleged "COVID-19," was not a novel virus nor a bioweapon from China but simply the regular seasonal flu re-branded. A careful read of the numerous farcical papers whose authors laughably claim to have 'isolated' the 'novel' coronavirus confirms there is no such thing as "Sars-Cov-2" nor any of its so-called 'variants.' No scientist has really isolated a virus called Sars-Cov-2 nor have they administered this alleged isolate to animals or humans under controlled experimental conditions and observed the development of "COVID-19" (or any other disease). I know this will be a difficult contention for many sheeple to swallow, but it is an unassailable fact.
  • The average age of a "COVID" death in Australia throughout the 'pandemic' was 86 years of age, 2-3 years longer than the national average life expectancy (the most recent figures put the median age of a 'COVID' death in Australia at 85.4 years). Innocent people's freedoms were crushed and the country reverted to a prison island because of a re-named flu whose so-called 'victims' were in fact outliving most of their peers. A similar situation existed all around the world, including so-called COVID "hotspots" like Italy.

Despite the fact everything our grossly overpaid bureaucrats said about COVID was complete nonsense, most Australians hung on their every word. Thanks to the constant media attention and adulation from gullible and scared Aussies, the likes of Spurrrier, Chant, Sutton and Hazzard came to view themselves as celebrities. Their formerly starved egos grew like aggressive tumors as the gushing mainstream media used superlatives like "Saint Nicola" to describe the distinctly unsaintly Spurrrier, and even tried to paint Brett Sutton as a "sex symbol."

Excuse me while I puke. Violently.

The skinny-flabby Brett Sutton, pretending to get the vaxxxine. As you can see, the bar for sex symbol status in Australia is set exceedingly low.

Hazzard's arrogance during the 'pandemic' grew faster than a baby on steroids, while the South Australian media's constant gushing convinced Spurrier she was beyond reproach. South Australia's main newspaper, The Advertiser, even described Spurrier as having a "cult following."

That's true: If you believe anything the truth-challenged Spurrier says, you are indeed a hopelessly gullible cult follower. Since the great corona con kicked off in earnest, Spurrier has issued a never-ending string of utterly absurd statements about "COVID." On 28 July 2021, I wrote to Spurrier and asked her to furnish me with the science supporting her hopelessly untenable claims.

My letter went unanswered, which is not surprising: You can't provide valid science to support claims that are sheer nonsense.

(Similar letters to Brad "The Health Hazard" Hazzard and Frank Pangallo, the former TV reporter turned anti-freedom MP who vocally demanded people either get vaxxxinated or be forbidden from leaving their homes, were also met with complete silence).

Spurrier and her attention-loving ilk are happy to spout pseudoscience in support of medical tyranny, but not so keen to provide the evidence to back up their claims.

What Have You Got to Hide, SA Health?

And so, on 8 September 2021, I tried a different route. I filed a Freedom of Information request with SA Health, the bloated, inefficient and hopelessly corrupt bureaucracy that oversees South Australia's rapidly decaying health system.

That FOI submission requested "documentation held or accessible by the SA Department for Health and Wellbeing / SA Health (referred to herein as “Department”) or other relevant government departments, state or federal on the following:

  1. Documentation proving isolation of the SARS-COV-2 virus and/or the SARS-COV-2 Delta strain confirmed by means of a purified viral sample imaged with an electron microscope;
  2. Documentation (a controlled scientific experiment in humans or animals) where the isolated SARS-COV-2 virus sample and/or the SARS-COV-2 Delta strain sample (mentioned in point 1) was exposed to healthy humans or animals and shown to cause the disease "COVID-19".
  3. Details on the method of testing (and re-testing/confirmation in the case of 'positive' results) for "COVID-19" in South Australia (SA). If more than one testing method is employed, please list each one and also; 1) brief description of the rationale behind its use in SA; 2) the proportion each method comprises of total tests administered to date in SA.
  4. Who conducts this testing? Please list the various entities conducting "COVID-19" testing (and re-testing) of SA “COVID-19” test samples.
  5. If Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing is part of the aforementioned testing, please include the cycle threshold (Ct) counts; 1) recommended by Department guidelines; 2) actually employed in testing throughout SA. If Department has no recommendations pertaining to Ct counts, please detail whose Ct guidelines are being followed by those conducting "COVID-19" testing of SA “COVID-19” test samples. If there is no standardised Ct threshold being used for these tests, please explain why. If Ct counts employed in testing of SA “COVID-19” test samples have varied over time, please detail when and why.
  6. The SA Health online COVID-19 "Dashboard" currently claims 4 deaths in SA due to COVID-19. Please provide details of the measures employed to ensure these 4 deaths were directly caused by "COVID-19" and were not simply deaths in people who tested positive for "COVID-19" within a certain time frame prior to their passing. What measures have been taken by Department and any other relevant entities to rule out the possibility these 4 deaths may have in fact been caused by other co-morbidities, such as pre-existing chronic health conditions?
  7. Please detail the criteria used to determine a "COVID-19" death in South Australia. If this has changed over time, please detail the changes, the dates they occurred, and why.
  8. Who manufactures and supplies the testing apparatus (PCR test kits, rapid lateral flow tests, etc) being used to test for "COVID-19” in SA? Please detail brand and manufacturer/supplier location.
  9. PCR tests require unusually invasive penetration of the nasal or throat cavities. Please explain why such unusually invasive penetration is required to obtain genetic material for what has been incessantly portrayed as the most dangerous and virulent pathogen in human history? If "COVID-19" is truly so virulent, why aren't less invasive methods of penetration, such as those employed for allegedly far less dangerous and virulent viruses and bacteria, sufficient?"

The South Australian Freedom of Information Act 1991 states that outfits like SA Health must respond to FOI requests "as soon as practicable (and, in any case, within 30 days) after it is received." If they require longer than 30 days to fulfill the request, or refuse to fill the request, they are required to notify the applicant in writing.

But I heard nothing back from SA Health. The email address I sent the FOI request to was as provided by Department’s FOI page. I received no acknowledgement or reply to my request.

Concerned that I was being ignored (and I was), on 20 September 2021 I rang 08 8226 6145 - the phone number provided at Department’s website FOI page.

I tried ringing this number twice to inquire about the status of my FOI request. On both occasions, I was met with a voice message stating "extension 66145 is not activated." Pressing 0 on the first call redirected me, not to an operator as promised, but to a voicemail. Pressing 0 on the second call simply resulted in a terminated call signal.

That same day, I sent another email to asking why Department’s website displays a FOI number whose "extension" is inactive and why the message at this number falsely gives the option to speak to an operator? I also asked in that email “can you kindly confirm receipt of my FOI request of 8 September 2021.”

That email was also ignored.

And so, on 7 October 2021, I submitted another FOI request. I again requested the above-mentioned documentation, and also asked why SA Health and Spurrier had ignored my previous communications.

I asked why SA Health, an organisation with annual income of $6.4 billion ($4.33 billion of that coming directly from taxpayers, according to its 2019-2020 Annual Report) maintained such an appalling FOI request handling system, one that seemed designed to inhibit rather than facilitate access to information?

In addition to sending the request by email, I also printed it out and mailed it by registered mail (the tracking information show the letter was received by SA Health).

Once again I was ignored.

Australia is the convict-descended country where Third World levels of corruption combine with First World pretensions of propriety and orderliness to create an extremely obstructive and anti-transparent system of governance (one where a bloated degenerate PM like Scott Morrison can repeatedly claim "that's not my job" when in fact it is his job because he's secretly appointed himself, dictator-style, to five ministeries without telling anyone).

Australian bureaucracy is not about transparency, but ignoring, obstructing and frustrating you in the hope you will eventually give up and go away.

As I noted earlier, the SA Freedom of Information Act stipulates that FOI requests must be answered within 30 days.

So what is the penalty decreed by the FOI Act for agencies like SA Health who are required to respond to FOI requests but fail to do so?

There is none.

In the textbook classic fashion of self-serving Australian legislation (created by governments to protect their own interests), an unanswered FOI request is simply deemed to have been refused. Just like that. No penalty, no consequences, no accountability.

But I wanted answers.

So the next step in such a circumstance is to file an internal review under the Freedom of Information Act 1991. This is where you write to the very same entity that ignored or refused your initial FOI request, and ask them to reconsider their decision.

Yeah, I know.

By now, it will probably come as no surprise that, after submitting an application for internal review on 31 December 2021, I again heard nothing back from SA Health.

At this point, my attention turned to an overseas trip. I had long wanted to study Spanish immersion-style in a Spanish-speaking country, and so mid-February I flew out of Auscatraz bound for Mexico.

After returning to Australia months later, I still hadn't heard anything from SA Health. And so on 16 May 2022 I filed yet another FOI request.

It read thusly:

"This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1991.

SA Health recently claimed individuals who are 'unvaccinated' are "more than three times as likely to die" from "COVID" than individuals who have received three doses of the novel 'vaccines.'

News outlets widely repeated this claim, and quoted the Chief Public Health Officer of South Australia, Nicola Spurrier, as saying this "was clear evidence of the need for full vaccination ahead of winter" and that "Vaccination saves lives" (for an example, see

I submit that these claims are a brazen fabrication and that SA Health knows it.

Please provide the documentation held or accessible by the SA Department for Health and Wellbeing / SA Health (referred to herein as “Department”) or other relevant government departments, state or federal on the following:

1. The data used to calculate the COVID mortality figures cited by Department and reprinted by outlets such as the ABC. Please include with this data the exact time frames for which these mortality figures were calculated, separately for each demographic ("Three or more doses received", "Two doses received", "One dose received", "Unvaccinated"); the criteria used to determine a “COVID” death for each category; all co-morbidities the individual deceased in each category suffered.

2. The number of South Australians who had received "Three or more doses", "Two doses", "One dose" or were “Unvaccinated” during the time frame/s for which the aforementioned COVID mortality data were calculated.

3. All-cause mortality data for South Australia during the same time frame/s for which the aforementioned COVID mortality data were calculated. Please include overall all-cause mortality and all-cause mortality for each category ("Three or more doses received", "Two doses received", "One dose received", "Unvaccinated").

As part of this application, I also request answers to the following questions:

4. Why does Spurrier claim ‘vaccination’ saves lives, when Pfizer’s own data showed a higher death rate among clinical trial participants who received its COVID ‘vaccine’ compared to those who received saline placebo? (see p. 23, 8 November 2022 FDA release, "Summary Basis for Regulatory Action",

5. Why does Department - who now insists only three or more doses of a COVID ‘vaccine’ qualify one as ‘fully vaccinated’ - employ the patently dishonest habit of grouping "unvaccinated, partially vaccinated or [those who] have an unknown vaccination status" in the same category when presenting its daily "COVID-19 update"? Pardon my bluntness, but only a complete idiot would consider someone who has had zero injections of a poorly tested gene therapy to possess a similar ‘vaccination’ status as someone who has received 1 or 2 injections of said drug. Are the people at Department who compile these updates complete idiots, or is this simply an attempt by Department to water down the inconvenient fact that the overwhelming majority of people "with COVID-19 in hospital" are those who have been injected with a COVID 'vaccine'?

As per the Freedom of Information Act 1991 you are required to provide the requested information within 30 days.

Please do not cite privacy concerns to disingenuously deny this application, as I am of course more than happy to receive individually de-identified data.

Please do not disingenuously cite lack of resources, be it money or manpower, to deny this application. With an annual budget of over six billion dollars (courtesy the taxpayer) to cover an entire state population of only 1.7 million, and plenty of funds to spend on frivolous and patently misleading COVID advertisements, Department should have more than enough resources to meet its legal obligations in answering FOI requests.

Furthermore, SA Health, by its own admission to the media, has already implicitly admitted to compiling the data I request in points 1, 2 and 3. Forwarding this data to me should be a very simple and straightforward endeavour.

I have made two previous FOI requests to Department on related matters. Despite the requirements stipulated in the Freedom of Information Act 1991, Department has not even acknowledged my FOI requests, let alone furnished the information requested. I am well aware I am not the only person to have experienced Department’s anti-transparent behaviour – even federal senators have had extreme difficulty in obtaining COVID-related information under the Act from Department.

In the absence of any other tenable explanation, the only conclusion a rational observer can arrive at is that Department does not want the requested information made publicly available because it would reveal ample dishonesty and malfeasance within Department.

Should you fail to answer this FOI request with the information I seek, I will assume Department is being wilfully dishonest when it claims those who are “triple jabbed” have a three-fold lower COVID death rate than those have not been injected with highly controversial ‘vaccines’ produced by corporate criminals like Pfizer (an extremely dubious outfit with a long, long history of fraud and the recipient of the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States).

I will further assume Department and its employees are being wilfully dishonest when they claim “vaccines save lives”, and that they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the highly unflattering hospitalisation data among those unfortunate enough to have been injected with the novel gene therapies that are disingenuously being presented as ‘vaccines.’

Please see enclosed concession details for my exemption from any prescribed fee for access.

Any notices pursuant to the Act can be sent by email to [censored from spammers].

Thank you

Anthony Colpo."

As you've probably surmised by the tone of my letter, my patience with SA Health was starting to wear thin. I make no apologies for this. Judging by the lack of automated replies to my follow-up emails, it appears SA Health was actively filtering my emails. To get around this, I began using different email addresses to send FOI requests to SA Health. On 23 May 2022, I sent a further two emails containing a truncated version of the above FOI request using additional email accounts.

Finally, a Response

On 8 July 2022 - some ten months after I sent my first FOI request to SA Health - I finally received a response, in the form of two releases: One from SA Health, and one from the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

On 4 August 2022, I received a further release in the form of largely useless minutes and an interim report from two South Australian government COVID committees. Both committees were comprised of politicians and bureaucrats with little-to-no scientific aptitude and, not surprisingly, delivered nothing remotely resembling science.

The RAH release revealed that SA Pathology - which incessantly boasts on its website about its world class facilities, cutting edge technology, "highest calibre" scientists and international collaborations - has not isolated Sars-Cov-2, has not observed said virus via electron microscopy nor exposed animals or humans to said virus to observe whether or not it really does cause a disease called COVID-19.

Instead, it simply takes the World Health Organization's word for it.

The 8 July 2022 release from SA Health was also insightful - as much for what it did not contain as what it did. The overwhelming majority of what I requested was not provided.

Here are some of the highlights:

  • In South Australia, anyone who died with confirmed or probable COVID-19 was classed as a COVID death. The sole exception was someone who died of "a clear and alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 (e.g. trauma)." In other words, if you died after getting the sniffles or testing positive on the fraudulent PCR test for COVID - and you didn't suffer violent, fatal trauma (think car wreck or getting your head blown off) - then you were tagged as a COVID death.
  • To add to the absurdity, COVID could still be assigned as the cause of mortality even up to "28 days between complete recovery from COVID-19 and death"! (Bold emphasis added). According to SA Health, you can die of COVID even after having completely recovered from it!

  • SA Health, with its elephantine six billion dollar budget, says it could not provide co-morbidity information due to a lack of data. Comorbidity information, SA Health admits, was not completed by a large proportion of cases. Which means, even if Sars-Cov-2 really existed, SA Health's COVID death figures would still be so unreliable as to be meaningless because they didn't even begin to account for comorbidities.

In response to my query as to why SA Health idiotically grouped those untarnished by gene therapies together with those receiving 1 or 2 doses of the quaxxxine, check out their non-response:

I asked a simple question - why they were grouping two medically distinct groups into one - but instead of giving me an answer, they delivered evasive waffle about emerging pathogens and ATAGI.

Nice try, SA Health.

And now comes the pièce de résistance.

Remember how I asked for the data behind the Spurrier and SA Health claim that the unvaccinated are "more than three times as likely to die" from 'COVID' than individuals who have received three doses of the novel clot shots?

The below table is the only 'data' SA Health delivered to me relevant to that query:

All this table demonstrates is that the majority of people hospitalized for, and dying of, 'COVID are those who have been 'vaccinated.' Of 444 people whose death certificate bore the highly dubious diagnosis of 'COVID, at least 339 were vaxxxinated.

That right there destroys the 95% effective claim we were bombarded with for Pfizer's toxic mRNA shot.

But SA Health and Spurrier would no doubt retort that most South Australians have received the vaxxxine (as of 22 September 2022, the claimed triple vaxxx rate in SA is 75.7%). And therefore, on the above table, the unvaxxxinated are disproportionately overrepresented considering their minority status in SA.

But as we know, diagnosis of a COVID case is either purely subjective or based on fraudulent testing. Attribution of a death to COVID is also a farcical exercise, in which people who have completely recovered from this alleged novel influenza can still be listed as COVID deaths. Diagnosis of COVID in such a setting is completely unblinded, because everyone involved in ascertaining cases knows who is vaccinated and who isn't. As a result, the hospitalization and death figures for COVID can be very easily manipulated, and I have no doubt they are.

If Spurrier and SA Health disagree, they are more than welcome to provide the actual data that was used to compile the above graph - just as I requested. I've repeatedly asked SA Health for the actual data underpinning their claim that the unvaxxxinated have a higher death rate from 'COVID,' and they have repeatedly failed to comply. Instead they send me a single table unaccompanied by any supporting dataset whatsoever.

I submit that the figures in that graph are either heavily manipulated or a complete fabrication, and my stance will remain unchanged until SA Health fronts up with the data.

Dear Overall Mortality Figures, Where the Bloody Hell Are You?

Another way to determine what effect the vaxxxines are having on the health of South Australians would be to check the overall mortality rates among the unvaxxxinated versus vaxxxinated.

I like overall mortality. As an efficacy measure, that is. You see, it's easy to manipulate death rates from a specific cause (like COVID-19), because you can simply reassign cause of death in the agenda-friendly group to other causes. Given the current political environment, there is every possibility that doctors who are brainwashed, cajoled or threatened into believing the unvaxxxinated are at higher risk of "COVID" will be more likely to ascribe that as the cause of death in a vaxxx-free patient.

But overall mortality doesn't play that game. Bureaucrats and hen-pecked doctors can manipulate the cause of death, but they can't bring the deceased back to life. If a patient is dead, they're dead. If the vaxxxed are dying at a higher rate than the unvaxxxed, then the cause of death is ultimately irrelevant - the fact remains that the vaxxx is causing people to die at a faster rate than the unvaxxxed.

If you recall, I requested overall mortality from SA Health but, lo and behold, the six billion dollar juggernaut charged with running the state's health system replied it doesn't keep all-cause mortality figures for South Australia.


Data From Other Sources Shows the Jab is a Poison Prick

SA Health is clearly too busy running the state's health system into the ground to bother with such trivialities as tracking overall mortality.

But there are other entities who do compile overall mortality data, and what it reveals is muy interesante.

Let's start with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which has released Provisional Mortality Statistics for this year up to 30 June 2022. The ABS has also published comparative all-cause mortality data for the period 28 June 2021 through 28 June 2022.

In Australia, there were 92,699 deaths that occurred by 30 June and were registered by 31 August. This is 13,524 deaths (17.1%) more than the baseline average. The baseline average is calculated from the years 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021. The figures from 2020 - the year the so-called pandemic broke out but before the vaxxxines were rolled out - were not included because they were unusually low.

And, no, the death figures for 2022 are not higher because of increases in population. Population growth for Australia, where the birth rate is already well below replacement rate, dropped below 1.0% during 2021 and 2022 (the last time this happened was 1994). Nor was there any influx of elderly immigrants that would have suddenly pushed the death rate higher.

You see, in addition to the overall numbers, the age-standardized death rate in Australia is also significantly higher than the baseline average.

When you open the ABS "monthly dashboard" file for the latest mortality data release, Table 2.3 contains the following age-standardized death rate calculations.

This table contains a number of interesting observations. If you look inside the area I've outlined in yellow (you may need to click on the image for an enlarged version), you can see the monthly age-standardized death rate in 2022 so far is consistently above the baseline average.

Another curious anomaly is the divergent trajectory of the two averages. Being a southern hemisphere country, Australia's winter begins on 1 June, by which point the weather here has already cooled considerably. Just like the rest of the world, mortality rises every year during the cold weather as people exercise less, receive less sunshine and vitamin D and suffer respiratory ailments at a highly elevated rate. This is reflected in the above baseline mortality average, which remains fairly stable until May, at which point it rises noticeably.

But check out the 2022 mortality average - there is a pronounced spike in the death rate in January, smack bang in the middle of the Australian summer. The separate figures for males and females show a similar divergence between the baseline and 2022 age-standardized mortality averages.

As you can see from Table 2.3, the mortality rate for January 2022 is similar to the rate for May and June 2022. In sunny January 2022, Australia was experiencing winter-like death rates.

Something is elevating the death rate in Australia and distorting the usual overall mortality pattern.

Gee, I wonder what that might be?

Death Among the Unvaxxinated vs the Vaxxxinated

The ABS hasn't presented any separate death figures for the unvaxxxinated versus vaxxinated. But over in Mother England, the Anglo-dominant country that provided the starting seed for Australia's Anglo-dominant population, such figures are available. Sort of.

And they show the unvaxxxinated have the lowest death rate.

However, to get to the truth of the matter, you need to be able to see through the bollockery being practised by the UK's Office for National Statistics.

You see, death rates for a given period are almost invariably presented as deaths per 100,000 people in a country's population. But that's not how the ONS presents their unvaxxx vs vaxxx figures. Instead, they present the figures in terms of deaths per 100,000 person years. This measure is fine for epidemiological cohort studies, where individual participants may participate in a study for different periods of time. For example, you might agree to participate in an epidemiological study that runs for 10 years. However, you might only participate in the study for 5 years before moving to a different country. Your neighbour might participate for the full 10 years, while your sister-in-law who signed up the same time you did may have accrued only 2 years of follow-up before losing interest and dropping out. In such a study, using a per person years measure makes sense, because it compensates for the fact that different participants participated for different periods of time.

But the UK is not an epidemiological study - it's a country.

So why did the ONS choose to use per 100,000 person years instead of the usual per 100,000 people?

To hide the unpalatable truth.

While the ONS won't share straightforward deaths/100,000 figures, it does provide absolute all-cause death figures. And elsewhere on the UK government's website, we can access the percent of the UK population that allegedly received at least 1 dose of the vaxxxine as of 31 May 2022. Analyzing both pieces of data allows to perform a back-of-the-envelope calculation that gives us a more useful insight as to how the vaxxxed are really faring compared to their unmolested brethren.

Let's start with the figures below, which show the monthly number of all cause deaths in the UK during April and May 2022, the most recent for which data are available (I was also able to squeeze some of the March figures into the screenshot). The full data for the period January 2021 - May 2022 can be viewed in Table 8 of the recently published dataset collated by the UK Government agency, the Office for National Statistics.

I have highlighted the figures for May as they are the most recent. All up, some 1,517 unvaxxxinated people died in the UK in May 2022, compared to 33,597 "ever vaccinated" people. That means the unvaxxinated comprised 4.3% of the 35,114 people who died in the UK in May 2022.

By 31 May 2022, the UK Government claims that 93% of the UK population had received at least 1 dose of the vaxxxine.

This means that by 31 May 2022, some 7% of the UK population were unvaxxxinated. Yet during May, the unvaxxxinated comprised only 4.3% of deaths. The previous months tell a similar story.

Which means the vaxxxinated are over-represented in the UK's monthly death toll.

Which further indicates that the vaxxxinated comprise the excess mortality that is also being observed in the UK.

For the week ending 7 October 2022 (the most recent for which figures are available), 1,372 excess deaths were recorded in England and Wales, a 14% increase over the five-year average. Only 400 deaths "involving" COVID-19 were recorded during that week, so even a staunch belief in non-existent viruses can't explain away the overwhelming majority of the excess.


When bureaucrats like Spurrier tell you the vaxxxines "save lives," they are lying. They cannot provide any proof when asked, and the available data in fact indicates it is the vaxxxinated that are dying off at a higher rate. Which is exactly what was observed during the cynical trial for Pfizer's myocarditis-inducing pseudovaccine.

If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip

This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated.

Send a Tip via PayPal

The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.