‘COVID-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work and Possible Causes of Injuries’. That’s the title on the agenda today (December 7, 2022), as Senator Ron Johnson holds a roundtable discussion of doctors, medical experts, and researchers in an effort to shed light on the current state of knowledge regarding the Covid-19 shot.
Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
An enlightening speaker today was Josh Stirling, a highly-recognized insurance research analyst. And what he brought forth was “the one chart that tells the entire story.” Here it is:
MORE NEWS: Fmr. Police Officer & Teacher Cancelled Because ‘Having Conservative Views Is A Threat To Democracy’
“The UK Government, until this summer, was reporting a data series that showed the relative mortality rates for the vaccinated and unvaccinated by the number of doses of the vaccine,” stated Stirling.
“We’ve done what we think is really professional work with this. And we think it simplifies down to a conclusion that says that through the last available data set, the people in the UK who took the vaccine have a 26% higher mortality rate. The people who are under the age of 50 who took the vaccine now have a 49% higher mortality rate. And worst of all, the people who only took one dose of the vaccine at approximately 145% worse mortality rate.”
“That last data point is on its face confusing.” 
“It just doesn’t make a ton of sense unless you realize that what’s going on with this really is that the people who took the dose, the first dose in the United States — that’s about 12% of people — but then stop taking any other doses, those people, through their choice to stop, disproportionately [were] the ones who are harmed,” explained Stirling.
“And so, what we’re concluding is that if you happen to be an unlucky person who was in some fashion, even moderately injured [or] with a minor injury [and] have decided not to continue, the statistics, the best statistics we have show that you’re gonna have, at least through today, maybe it’ll get better … but if that doesn’t happen we’d have to assume that this is now the baseline, there’s going to be 145% higher mortality. And if you were to take these numbers and just apply them to the United States, that ends up being something like 600,000 excess deaths per year in the United States from this higher vaccine-induced mortality.”
If you’d like to tune into the rest of this eye-opening roundtable discussion, you can watch the entire video below.
COVID-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work and Possible Causes of Injuries
Thanks for Reading. If you’d like to ditch the ads, support the author (Vigilant Fox), and gain access to exclusive content, try out RVM Premium for just $1.
Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
I agree that this is the chart that tells it all. To make statistics based on “covid deaths” has always been difficult since the criteria that defines those deaths are flawed, and easy to manipulate. I think the statistician obscures the main point however by focusing on the 145% excess mortality rate in the one-shot category. The most vulnerable people will naturally die first (if we stipulate that the vaccine is harmful). Most people will however “survive” the first shot and go on to the take a second and third. There will be more people and more deaths in the latter categories, only not in terms of percentage. Some could interpret the exchange in congress to mean that you would be “safer” after taking the second and third shot compared to one shot, when the reality is quite the opposite.
When the reality is quite the opposite, exactly, thanks
I agree that this is the chart that tells it all. To make statistics based on “covid deaths” has always been difficult since the criteria that defines those deaths are flawed, and easy to manipulate. I think the statistician obscures the main point however by focusing on the 145% excess mortality rate in the one-shot category. The most vulnerable people will naturally die first (if we stipulate that the vaccine is harmful). Most people will however “survive” the first shot and go on to the take a second and third. There will be more people and more deaths in the latter categories, only not in terms of percentage. Some could interpret the exchange in congress to mean that you would be “safer” after taking the second and third shot, when the reality is quite the opposite.
I agree with the other post – the 145% could be twisted by pro-V people (& cherry-picking media) to mean that the more jabs received the better someone’s survival chances. If someone was scared or guilted into that initial round, this sounds rather dooming. I know so many who “wised up” after first one… they would find this new study disturbing and disheartening. I’d like to see a better explanation from the researchers on why the 145% anomaly (if it is one) exists.
The high ranking expert making a show of removing her mask did fair until she reapplied a used mask. Masks are a one-use item. If removed must be disposed of or sterilized…and a dirty mask should never be placed on furniture.
What I don’t understand is why the unvaxed always are documented in one group while the vaxed are always divided into three which has to distort the numbers. Like this graph suggests the ones that only took one dose are at greater risk than those boosted but in reality the first dose kills off the most vulnerable so it is only reasonable to expect ones taking the booster will be less. you can not take the boosters without first taking the initial jab so by not including all who have been jabbed in one group you are missing the most important comparison and distorting the conclusion.
For a proper comparison of vaxed to unvaxed you need to add the three vaxed columns together and that makes it look pretty darn dire.
I’m confused by the one jab ppl having 145% whatever. I have friends that got one jab & I encouraged them not to get any more & they said they aren’t going to get anymore. They got their jabs over a year ago & so far are ok. The way I figure it, it’s like Russian roulette with this bio-gene shot masquerading as a vaccine, Why keep pulling that trigger?