A raft of new evidence has killed off claims COVID-19 vaccinations caused a greater than expected number of deaths during the pandemic.
Australia and WA, in particular, were perfect case studies to understand the global phenomenon.

As one of the world’s most vaccinated countries, Australia had one of the lowest rates of excess deaths, ranking 60th put of 66 countries with populations above one million.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics, which has keenly studied excess mortality since the start of the pandemic, has provided information to a Federal parliamentary inquiry. In simple terms, it compared the number of deaths with the number expected had the pandemic not occurred.

WA was especially interesting, because it was a relatively COVID-free bubble until hard border restrictions were lifted in March 2022, and it led the country in booster doses after opening up.

No excess deaths were recorded in WA until the State faced its wave of Omicron in 2022. The ABS reported the first peak of excess mortality in the first full week of May that year.

Paul Griffin, an expert in infectious diseases and Professor of Medicine at the University of Queensland, said excess deaths would have occurred before then if vaccines were the culprit.

what would have helped is "personal responsibility" to get yourself in the best shape you could .

but then lazy people like carl would have had to sweat and lose weight and eat salads

Carl D wrote on Jul 30^th, 2024 at 6:17pm:


It's amazing that this actually needs to be explained to people.

aquascoot wrote on Jul 30^th, 2024 at 8:40pm:


Yeah, I can see how well that's working out here.

Quote:


Carl is nearly 67, weighs 90kg and walks to and from the shops (about a 2km round trip) several times a week.

But I'm not too keen on the idea of eating salads most of the time.

Withdrawn: A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths after COVID-19 vaccination

This Article-in-Press has been withdrawn at the request of the Editors-in-Chief.

Members of the scientific community raised concerns about this Article-in-Press following its posting online. The concerns encompassed.

• Inappropriate citation of references.

• Inappropriate design of methodology.

• Errors, misrepresentation, and lack of factual support for the conclusions.

• Failure to recognise and cite disconfirming evidence.

The concerns were shared with the authors, who prepared a response and submitted a revised manuscript for consideration by the journal. In consideration of the extent of the concerns raised and the responses from the authors, the journal sent the revised manuscript to two independent peer-reviewers. The peer-reviewers concluded that the revised manuscript did not sufficiently address the concerns raised by the community and that it was not suitable for publication in the journal. The authors disagree with this withdrawal and dispute the grounds for it.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at
https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal

Still available on the wayback machine thank god They'll probably try and get that nobbled

https://web.archive.org/web/20240621213400/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...