Given that the 65-84 non-NH group shows large excess deaths (~10% or more) in 2021-2023 (which is consistent with the overwhelming majority of excess mortality data sources around the world), but the NH group of the SAME AGE RANGE shows a very sudden, sharp (~20%), and SUSPICIOUS decrease in deaths starting in 2020, isn't it extremely plausible that there is a built-in mechanism for underreporting/undercounting NH deaths? If TPTB want to cover up vaccine-induced deaths by systematically undercounting total deaths, then the NH population would be the most logical and ideal target for undercounting since that's where a large fraction of deaths occur no matter what- and of course they might apply the undercounting to 2020 onwards rather than 2021 onwards to deflect suspicions about what they're doing. While this may not be easy to prove and some may automatically reject this theory even without disproving it, I think it is quite likely unless it is conclusively disproven.
The nursing homes got crushed in 2020. Also seems like in MN nursing homes had some real excess in 2019 too. So we'd expect there to be a mortality deficit in NH deaths after 2020, which there is in raw numbers.
It also might be the case that the incoming pop of seniors went down a bit too as people were (understandably) more reluctant to go to a NH or send a parent to a NH bec of what they saw in 2020+.
However, there are conditions where there is excess even in nursing homes
I see what you're saying, but if it's due to excess overall NH deaths in 2020 reducing the susceptible NH pool for cancer deaths thereafter, then how come that steep drop in NH cancer deaths already showed up IN 2020 to its full extent according to the data, and there was no further decrease in 2021 onwards? Also, I think the "pull forward effect" concept is somewhat exaggerated, especially considering that COVID is not ultra-ultra-deadly to ANY population: only a small fraction of the super-vulnerable actually got infected in 2020, and even among them, the virus itself may have had a 10-20% mortality rate at worst which may have risen to 30-40% due to the deadly euthanistic protocols in place, but still the low infection rate in 2020 means only a small fraction of the super-vulnerable could have actually died of COVID in 2020. And even the overall NH deaths in 2020 according to the data, while elevated, are not SO substantially elevated to explain a subsequent persistent deficit of this size. Anyway, I just find it extremely suspicious and unlikely when two groups with quite a bit of general overlap have totally OPPOSITE trends in the data- I think it's more likely that those opposite trends are a data inaccuracy for whatever reason.
I think you put it well though: I suspect my theory will be right TO SOME DEGREE, but it certainly isn't the entire explanation. In fact, I will say that my real-world observations SOMEWHAT match the odd patterns in the data: nothing TOO amiss in younger people such as under 50, while the 60-84 (+/-) age group, especially the more fit/active people in that age range, appear to have been VERY HARD HIT with unexpected deaths and near-fatal cardiovascular events since 2021, but then in the very old and frail, again nothing seems to be TOO amiss. So if that's the reality then what would be the biological explanation: younger people are generally too strong/healthy to be killed by the vaccine, while perhaps the very old and frail don't mount enough of a response to be killed by it, so that's why that middle group of 60-84 year olds gets very hard hit from having the "worst of both worlds" in this context? Interested in everyone's thoughts.
Given that the 65-84 non-NH group shows large excess deaths (~10% or more) in 2021-2023 (which is consistent with the overwhelming majority of excess mortality data sources around the world), but the NH group of the SAME AGE RANGE shows a very sudden, sharp (~20%), and SUSPICIOUS decrease in deaths starting in 2020, isn't it extremely plausible that there is a built-in mechanism for underreporting/undercounting NH deaths? If TPTB want to cover up vaccine-induced deaths by systematically undercounting total deaths, then the NH population would be the most logical and ideal target for undercounting since that's where a large fraction of deaths occur no matter what- and of course they might apply the undercounting to 2020 onwards rather than 2021 onwards to deflect suspicions about what they're doing. While this may not be easy to prove and some may automatically reject this theory even without disproving it, I think it is quite likely unless it is conclusively disproven.
The nursing homes got crushed in 2020. Also seems like in MN nursing homes had some real excess in 2019 too. So we'd expect there to be a mortality deficit in NH deaths after 2020, which there is in raw numbers.
https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/the-state-of-mortality-in-minnesota
It also might be the case that the incoming pop of seniors went down a bit too as people were (understandably) more reluctant to go to a NH or send a parent to a NH bec of what they saw in 2020+.
However, there are conditions where there is excess even in nursing homes
e.g. https://ashmedai.substack.com/i/145001949/minnesota
There is a lot of suspicious stuff going on with cancers (see Ethical Skeptic on twitter/X)
So it could be that you're right to some degree
Either way, the goal of this series is to document the trends such as they exist so people can see what's going on
In a sane world, the (real) experts would be doing the sorts of proper & rigorous analyses that could get to the bottom of this
I see what you're saying, but if it's due to excess overall NH deaths in 2020 reducing the susceptible NH pool for cancer deaths thereafter, then how come that steep drop in NH cancer deaths already showed up IN 2020 to its full extent according to the data, and there was no further decrease in 2021 onwards? Also, I think the "pull forward effect" concept is somewhat exaggerated, especially considering that COVID is not ultra-ultra-deadly to ANY population: only a small fraction of the super-vulnerable actually got infected in 2020, and even among them, the virus itself may have had a 10-20% mortality rate at worst which may have risen to 30-40% due to the deadly euthanistic protocols in place, but still the low infection rate in 2020 means only a small fraction of the super-vulnerable could have actually died of COVID in 2020. And even the overall NH deaths in 2020 according to the data, while elevated, are not SO substantially elevated to explain a subsequent persistent deficit of this size. Anyway, I just find it extremely suspicious and unlikely when two groups with quite a bit of general overlap have totally OPPOSITE trends in the data- I think it's more likely that those opposite trends are a data inaccuracy for whatever reason.
I think you put it well though: I suspect my theory will be right TO SOME DEGREE, but it certainly isn't the entire explanation. In fact, I will say that my real-world observations SOMEWHAT match the odd patterns in the data: nothing TOO amiss in younger people such as under 50, while the 60-84 (+/-) age group, especially the more fit/active people in that age range, appear to have been VERY HARD HIT with unexpected deaths and near-fatal cardiovascular events since 2021, but then in the very old and frail, again nothing seems to be TOO amiss. So if that's the reality then what would be the biological explanation: younger people are generally too strong/healthy to be killed by the vaccine, while perhaps the very old and frail don't mount enough of a response to be killed by it, so that's why that middle group of 60-84 year olds gets very hard hit from having the "worst of both worlds" in this context? Interested in everyone's thoughts.
Great work. I think shorter articles in a series is easier to digest and understand for me.