Demystifying the Swedish Data...
An addendum to my presentation at the Better Way Conference and a really nice validation
First of all, a shout out to Norman Fenton, Martin Neil, Clare Craig, Josh Geutzkow, Joel Smalley, Scott McLachlan and Jonathan Engler who worked incredibly hard to write, and even harder to publish, this piece from last December that you can find here. Here is also a previous write up on my Substack below about the article. My name’s on there too but I didn’t do anything except provide comic relief.
The work is an analysis of the most recent age-stratified UK ONS vaccine mortality surveillance report to determine potential links between patterns of mortality and the injections. One of the explanations for the very odd (significantly lower) non-COVID-19-related mortality rate observed in the injected group (IG) across all age groups when compared to the uninjected group (UG) was systemic miscategorisation of deaths between the different categories of uninjected and injected. In a nutshell, it looked like they were classifying people who were injected as uninjected since they were ‘before the day 14 mark post 1st injection.
But, the Swedish data shows and even WORSE misclassification that truly does vilify those involved in my opinion. You will find an article entitled, “Swedish Public Health Agency reporting has distorted mortality rates for the unvaccinated and the vaccinated” here. Please read it. It is exceedingly easy to understand and I am grateful for these reporters for that. They claim that:
The Swedish Public Health Agency has misled the public about the benefits of vaccination against Covid-19 by recording Covid-19 deaths amongst the vaccinated as unvaccinated. Over 900 deaths with Covid-19 have been misrepresented as occurring in the unvaccinated, thereby greatly distorting the effectiveness of the vaccination programme, for which the Swedish Public Health Agency is responsible. We demand that the original data relating to this case be reported in full. We also demand that independent and fully transparent evaluation is conducted for mortality rates among the fully unvaccinated versus different subgroups of the vaccinated.
Now here’s the truly impressive part. We were correct, yes, but we didn’t know HOW correct we were. Not only did the Swedish Public Health Agency’s (SPHA) weekly report count people as uninjected up to 14 days after receiving a first dose, they counted them as uninjected up to 14 days after the second dose! That’s. NUTS.
Here’s how representative Britta Björkholm from the SPHA responded when presented this ‘problem’ by Per Shapiro:
[When] journalist Per Shapiro asked the following pertinent question to the Swedish Public Health Agency’s press conference on 27th January 2022: ”So why are you blurring the real control group and when are you going to report on how the unvaccinated have actually fared compared to the others?” Britta Björkholm replied, ”I don’t know what to say. We have a lot of data, we have a lot of figures, we follow up in many different ways. I think we are transparent and report what is relevant”.
Wow! She could be reading from the same script as Walensky, right? I am surprised she didn’t mention getting hit by a car!
The authors had requested COVID-19 death counts in 2021 from the SPHA for four groups of people:
Completely unvaccinated (G1)
Partially vaccinated: those who had received dose 1 and less than 21 days had passed (G2)
Partially vaccinated: either at least 21 days had passed after dose 1 but dose 2 has not been administrated or dose 2 had been given but less than 14 days had passed and (G3)
Fully vaccinated: dose 2 or 3 had been given, and at least 14 days had passed after dose 2. (G4)
This data included only deaths following the initiation of the injection roll-out and is extremely revealing because we can see how the numbers fit into each ‘category’.
If someone was looking at this data, they may conclude quite simply that the unvaccinated are dying way more the vaccinated. Wow! What an ‘effective vaccine’! See all those unvaccinated people who died in column G1? But wait. There’s more to it.
The claim here based on the FOIed data that they received from the SPHA is that G2 and G3 were counted as unvaccinated people. This would mean that 919 extra data points were attributed to the unvaccinated group and not to the vaccinated group.
Nota bene: Qualifying as being injected or uninjected is far more descriptive of the outcome of the physical and physiological outcomes of the injection than ’vaccinated’ or ‘unvaccinated’. Perhaps if we were calling things what they actually are, this confusion about defining what it means to be ‘vaccinated’ would disappear. We must, in defining a ‘vaccinated’ person, consider BOTH efficacy and safety considerations. Which means, that at the moment the plunger in the syringe is depressed, the clock starts ticking. That person is now INJECTED. When counting deaths, and considering that these products (as yet) in the experimental phase of their life cycles are associated with tens of thousands of reported deaths in government databases, it is imperative to make this distinction of UNINJECTED vs INJECTED when counting and analyzing (death) data. This is NOT simply about calculating Vaccine Efficacy (VE): this is about Safety. And trying to avoid potentially dying from the shots.
They report here that the SPHA “transferred deaths in the partially vaccinated (group 2 = 666 and group 3 = 253) to the unvaccinated group”. I reproduced their bar chart that compares the latest death data provided by the SPHA in the unvaccinated group, with the data they had received. To be clear, columns G2 and G3, when added together, represent the difference between the unvaccinated data from the FOI request from the SPHA (column G1) and the weekly official reported unvaccinated data. The monthly tallies are not exactly equal to the values in the article chart and this is likely because of noise that arises from miscounts near the ends and beginnings of monthly counts.The greatest discrepancy, however, is 6 so nothing to worry about it.
This means definitively that the SPHA were reporting the data wrongly and in a bigly way. Ruh roh.
One thing missing in this fabulous article are the normalized plots of the data. That is, what happens to the bar plots in the case of the ‘presented data’ versus the ‘real data’ when it is normalized using the populations of people who were vaccinated and unvaccinated per month, according to Statistics Sweden and Our World in Data.January is very noisy since it is when the roll-out began so this month is left out of the plot. Basically all you are missing by not seeing the January data is an enormous relative amount of people dying in the vaccinated group in January (~1 in 8 people - likely not reliable/denominator-related).
This is probably the most important plot I have made so far in all of this freedom fighting baloogle. These two plots show the data as it is presented by the SPHA (top) and the data as it actually is (bottom), normalized to the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.I normalized the data per million vaccinated / unvaccinated.
The biggest and most obvious whoopsie is the inversion of the entire conclusion which, by the way, makes their efficacy claims completely backwards. In the top plot, which is how the data is presented by the SPHA, shows that 6.1 times more people die in the unvaccinated group in February. This gives the vaccines a pretty good Vaccine Efficacy (VE) percentage (84%? - please check this). In the bottom plot however, which represents the data as it actually is as confirmed by the data requested, we see that 14.7 times more people die in the injected group in February than in the uninjected group! Wait now. Doesn’t this turn the VE calculation on its head?
The trend in the top plot shows that the unvaccinated generally die more until June and then deaths pretty much drop off and even out. Everyone’s dead who will die, I guess. The trend in the bottom plot shows that the vaccinated generally die more until June until, again, most people who are going to die will have died. There are far fewer shots being administered as well.
So, this proves that the data is being fudged and that the conclusions about the data are completely wrong. Well done guys!
The data is reported as a weekly count and the data from the FOI request was reported as monthly totals.
To calculate the unvaccinated populations per month, I subtracted the number of people who were vaccinated from the total population per month. I understand that since children were not injected these numbers per month are estimates but the conclusion would not be altered, in my opinion.
Jessica, This is well done. Considering its unusual origin in a press FOI request, is this getting the kind of mainstream press coverage in Sweden that it deserves? Or will it remain out in the interstices of Substack for a handful of the great unwashed to peruse?
Many of us are looking for things to do/promote/see other than speaking amongst ourselves. So just wondering.
You have to wonder just how much data fraud is required before a conviction of some sort? Or at least, for the dumb masses to realise what's going on?