24 Comments
Aug 1, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

Wow. The timing is just uncanny. And lest anyone try to claim that it was the virus that caused it, they cannot answer why the trend did not occur in 2020 (plenty of virus, but no jabs), but began in 2021 just after the jab rollout gained momentum for the working-age population.

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2023·edited Mar 29, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

Wow. If that's not a smoking gun, I really don't know what is! It's not the virus causing the trend, since if it was, the trend would have begun in 2020, not 2021. No other explanation for such a tight correlation with the jabs.

Expand full comment
author

Strictly speaking, statistical analyses are never "smoking guns". They indicate probabilities and possible causation but no more than that.

However, when there is strong correlation, there is at least SOME connection. It may or may not be causal, but it absolutely exists.

As a matter of good science, good medical practice, and sound medical ethics when there are a number of correlations, the number of red flags, detailing connections between the inoculations and a variety of adverse events and conditions, the inoculations should be pulled and not re-released until every last safety signal that has been raised about them is resolved.

This is not a smoking gun. It is a call to action that the inoculations get pulled from usage and not made available until all safety concerns are properly addressed.

Expand full comment
Feb 26, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

Solid stuff, thank you for the diligently assembled write-up!

Expand full comment
author

Thank you for the kind words! They are greatly appreciated!

Expand full comment

When you blindly trust authority while accepting propaganda and manipulation as fact, you are the one that suffers. Millions are beginning to discover this too late. Consider also the source of your data. None of us are immune from the corruption in place.

Expand full comment
Feb 21, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

💯✔✔👏👏👏🙌

I would strongly recommend contacting Edward Dowd and his associate re these- as they perfectly match the data that he collated from the Insurance compant all cause mortality and disabilities data they were privvy to. Having these sources plus the Insurance records data (another independent source), make it extremely hard to disassemble.🤗

Expand full comment
author

Edward Dowd is part of the Humanity Projects effort. He's already seen this data (in fact, he has at least one Twitter thread on this very topic, as I recall).

However, your point is well taken. EVERYONE needs to see this data, and compare it to any other data sets they might personally have. Having written repeatedly on this topic, the one thing I can say with certainty is that these red flags are not merely numerous, they are also interconnected; we're seeing different facets of the same "something", whatever that is (and whatever it is inextricably connected to the shots).

Expand full comment

I think there is a lot of very interesting and useful information in this article, but I would be very careful interpreting the main graph of disabilities here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=10hYu&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The units along the Y axis are "change from a year ago", and if you increase the range of years shown back to 2018 or so you will see that there was a dramatic drop during the first year of Covid (the range displayed in this article is in my opinion misleading). Depending on how these statistics are produced, it seems likely that this drop is an artifact and not real, possibly due to the same thing we see with other diseases and issues...underreporting because of Covid. If this is indeed the case then the significant increases you see after January 2021 could simply be reflecting those lowered numbers returning to more "normal" levels (remember the unit is "change from a year ago").

I think there is enough information in the remaining portions of this article to warrant genuine concern, and the findings here jive with data I've seen elsewhere regarding increases in disabilities and other health concerns increasing after Jan/Feb 2021 but not during 2020, strongly implicating the vaccination programs.

Expand full comment
author

I selected the end of the 2020 recession (which "officially" is the start of the second quarter, or 2020-04-01) for the graphs to focus on the noticeable shift in the trends in the first months of 2021.

The main thing to focus on in the graphs is that very definite inflection point. And, as you can see from a graph further on, which takes a longer view of the data, that inflection point shows a clear deviation from the historical norm.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=10ia0

Disability rates within the labor force and even among those not in the labor force are significantly above where they were before 2020. Moreover, even just looking at the raw disability levels starting in 2008, we see a definite inflection after 2020.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=10kqi

"Something" is amiss here. That's what the FRED/BLS graphs show.

As to how these statistics are produced, this is the monthly Current Population Survey which appears monthly in the Employment Situation Summary released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is part of the same data set that is used to determine employment rates, un- and under-employment rates, and labor force participation.

Unfortunately, the disability data only goes back to summer, 2008, which makes it difficult to adequately assess the impact of recession on the data (we really only have the 2020 recession to use as a guide for that).

However, as a further indication of a non-trivial anomaly, when you look at the year on year change over the longer time frame the pandemic/post-pandemic era stands out as the only extended period of rising disability rates where the disability rates within the labor force outpaced the disability rates among those not in the labor force. There is a noticeable uptick in disability rates from December 2010 to September 2013, for example, but the workforce demographics experienced a much lower rise than the not-in-labor-force demographic. We see this relationship completely inverted after 2020, where the workforce demographics greatly outpace the not-in-labor-force demographics when disability rates rise.

Regardless of the data on inoculation, the BLS data shows there is a non-trivial change in disability rates within the population and within the labor force. That much is undeniable.

What the Humanity Projects folk assert is that this non-trivial change correlates with rates of serious adverse events as reported in VAERS. Barring a mathematics error by the Humanity Projects Team, that is a difficult assertion to dismiss.

Expand full comment

Again, I don't disagree with your main point which is that there has been an increase in disabilities after the vaccines were rolled out. And I agree with just about everything you are saying.

Your graph (first link in your comment here) which goes back further in time does indeed show a sudden increase in disabilities in the workforce and the employed, after rollout of the vaccines. But don't you think it's interesting that both of these also show a rapid decline after 2020, presumably due to a combination of a recession as well as Covid (or rather our response to Covid)?

That decline in my uneducated opinion could very well be a statistical artefact. And it could be the cause of the sudden increase in the following graph (which is the one I am challenging):

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=10ia0

In this graph the Y axis is "Change from a year ago", so it is dependent on previous values. A sudden decrease in 2020 could explain the later increase in 2021, could it not?

It concerns me that you seem to be conflating these two graphs, saying that one "takes a longer view of the data". It does not, this is not the same data.

The portion of the "Change from a year ago" graph which you display does show something very dramatic, but if you widen the view you expose a possible confounder...namely that the decreases in 2020 explain much of the increases in 2021.

Expand full comment
author

It is important not to overstate the data or take the analysis farther than the data will allow.

With respect to the BLS data, where we can take the data is exactly as I stated at the end of that section of the article:

"“Something” is crippling individuals in this country, and doing so primarily within the labor force."

I do not take the analysis farther than that, and neither does the Humanity Projects Team.

The regression analyses they performed indicate that the rates of SAEs from the mRNA inoculations correlate very strongly to the disability rates--so strongly that a causal connection is arguably on display.

As I state within the article, the Humanity Projects Team presents a case--a compelling case, in my view--that the "something" affecting disability rates is the mRNA inoculations.

And we should also note the conservative stance they take on their findings. Far from arguing that their analyses show clear and unambiguous causal connections, they state there is a very strong possibility of a causal connection, and that therefore the inoculations should be subjected to a new round of clinical trials, or there should be an expanded program of autopsies with a focus on COVID related pathology work to determine what the actual connection might be.

As regards the FRED graphs, yes, they are the same data. The graphs are different presentations of the data, but they are all based on the exact same data sets compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The longer view graph uses indexing to show the magnitude of change over time, and what that graph shows is that post-pandemic the disability levels within the labor force in particular are significantly higher than the historical norm.

If you recast that same graph to present using Change From A Year Ago, you still get the same post-pandemic surge, and levels of disability significantly above historical norms.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=10my4

What gets lost in that presentation, however, is that the raw change for the Civilian Labor Force and Employed demographics represents a MAGNITUDE of change that is far above the magnitude of change presented by the raw change for the overall population, for the intuitively obvious reason that the population figure is significantly larger from the outset.

What the index graph shows, therefore, is that there is a proportionally much greater change within the Civilian Labor Force and Employed demographics than within the overall Population and Not In Labor Force demographics.

This is the disturbing phenomenon the BLS data presents. This is the disturbing phenomenon the Humanity Projects Team has correlated to SAEs from inoculation administration, indicating a very strong correlation and even a causal connection between the two phenomena.

Expand full comment

This all needs to be viewed through the lens of risk-benefit ratio, and it is obvious that there are *zero* benefits. If these shots were protecting vulnerable people from serious illness as is claimed, then "COVID-19" and "SARS-CoV-2 test positive" would not be the number one and number two symptoms listed in VAERS reports of serious adverse events.

Expand full comment
author

As I detailed last year, the epidemiological data is unequivocal: the shots are a failure at stopping community spread of the virus.

https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/no-return-to-normal-in-sight

Which was why they've tried to memory hole all the claims of the shots being the magic bullet against COVID.

And why we must never ever let anyone forget that original Big Lie.

https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/remember-big-pharmas-big-vaccine

Expand full comment

I will be cross-posting. Thank you Tim Lundeen for sending this to me. - JLW

Expand full comment

Please see my comment below along with the conversation with Peter, I would use his first graph with caution.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks!

Expand full comment
Feb 21, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

Would that this data and corroboration make it into every newspaper, TV news outlet, medical journal...

Expand full comment

Wow. They say correlation does not equal causation. But the data suggest that in this case, that premise certainly merits closer scrutiny!

Suggestion: randomly sample disability claims for the following:

m = manufacturer of injectable

n = number of jabs of said injectable

w = full weeks passed post most recent jab and onset of symptoms associated with disability

x = any extra information

That would establish whether there might (or might not) be causation.

Expand full comment
author

Causation is difficult to categorically establish statistically. There are Bayesian techniques that can show a high probability of causation, but to explicitly prove causation is ultimately a non-statistical exercise; it requires stating the mechanics of how phenomenon A produces phenomenon B. This analysis is not ever going to do that.

That being said, the greater the correlation, and the more dimensions on which there is correlation, the more likely it is that the actual relationship is a causal one.

At this juncture, just the number of other red flags independently developed over the mRNA inoculations makes a pretty compelling argument for inferring causation between the inoculations and disability rates within the labor force.

Expand full comment

A vax uptake rate among the random sample of disabled which exceeds that of the general population would suggest causation, imho.

Expand full comment
Feb 22, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

I often say:

"Correlation may not be causation, but it is high proba

Expand full comment
author

An argument I have put forward many times is that correlation is not causation BUT it is connection.

Which is substantially the argument being advanced by the Humanity Projects Team. Their conclusions, simply stated, are that there is a connection between serious adverse events from the mRNA inoculations and disability rates within the labor force. With that in hand, the prudential course should be to pull the inoculations and conduct a thorough review, perhaps including new clinical trials (with much more transparency than the original Pfizer and Moderna trials), to establish exactly what these shots are doing once they are injected into a human being.

The most benign view of the current state of understanding about the inoculations is that NOBODY (not even Big Pharma) truly grasps what gets unleashed inside the body after an injection. That's a BIG problem.

Expand full comment
Feb 22, 2023Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

Exactly right.

The basics of human understanding and general enquiry, be it scientific or gut feeling, starts with an observation.

"Hey, that thing caused another thing. Lets stop, go back and do that thing again to see if the same thing happens again".

Expand full comment