The Australian Actuaries Institute [1] has published its latest report on mortality.
They are using a “new conceptual framework” whereby they now measure excess mortality relative to 2023, not to “pre-pandemic” years.
They also say:
As our baseline measurement for 2024 differs from that for earlier years, the measurement of the excess for earlier years is not comparable to that for 2024. Therefore, we have only shown 2024 on this chart.
So not showing earlier years on the same chart – really?
Note also that, unlike our baselines for previous years, which were based on the absence of a pandemic, the 2024 baseline includes allowance for deaths from COVID-19, which is, given the newness of COVID-19 as a cause of death, a much more approximate estimate than other potential causes of mortality, with the need to estimate both the timing and severity of waves of COVID-19.
It’s notable that the word vaccine doesn’t appear in this report at all.
You’d have thought they would at least deserve a mention – if only to comment on whatever effect on “covid” mortality the miracle injections were having and were projected to have.
Are they basically hiding increased mortality from the mRNA injections by attributing them to covid, for which they predict ongoing deaths?
I thought the vaccines were meant to save people from dying from “covid”?
They seem to want it both ways…to claim there is ongoing excess mortality from “covid” whilst also avoiding mention of the fact that the vaccines haven’t worked. [2]
Notes
- A supposedly independent professional body – though we have all seen how such institutions have become captured over the past few years, spewing out an endless series of pro-establishment drivel.
- Not that there was anything for them to have worked against. Vaccines don’t work against policy-induced maltreatment, mistreatment, neglect, abuse and euthanasia protocols.
Originally published on Sanity Unleashed
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: PANDA Read the original article here: https://pandata.org/