Viewing a thread - New publication on myocarditis (2024)

We can go with that video. Starting at about seven minutes in, he starts talking about the insurance industry report, the table 5.4 from the Society of Actuaries report. He gave the same interview many times. I've watched maybe half a dozen of them now. He sticks pretty close to the same script each time. I'm confident that the interview I had seen earlier was one of them. And that's the only script that he has talking about the insurance industry data. It's very likely that you had watched a version of it too. If he had any other script about the insurance data, wouldn't it still be up on Rumble? But neither of us has found any other version of it. That's a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist.

And, as you've now seen, he NEVER relates the insurance company data to when the shots were given to the different groups. He only ever mentions the mandates when talking about the insurance data.
He claims that the table 5.4 shows that the vaccine mandates and the excess deaths were correlated. But in at least one interview (and in the article I linked above), he admits that the report itself says that they are not correlated. He said that the insurance actuaries "were too timid" to admit the correlation. The insurance actuaries, whose jobs depend on correctly interpreting the data, are too timid to do their job!?!?
And that means that I'm not the one saying that he's wrong. The insurance industry experts, who analyzed the raw data, say he's wrong about it.

havin’funfarming - 1/29/2024 14:37
No one tampers with the life insurance data. It is not tainted or biased. You believe you have the skills necessary to determine he is wrong and don’t need to look any further? Again, no offence but I highly doubt it. Remember, I’m supposed to trust the experts, not internet posters. Or is that no longer the narrative?

How about, in the specific case of insurance data, we trust the actuaries with the untainted, unbiased data?

Listen again to the Brighton video you posted, starting at about 8:00 through.
Ed Dowd says that the employed working age adults die at about 1/3 the rate of the general population. That more or less lines up with the CDC data.
Then he says that relationship flipped in 2021. The general population had excess deaths of 32%, while the working age adults experienced a 40% excess mortality. He makes a big deal of that 8% differential.

But think about what that means. In 2018, the mortality rate for the general population was 723 per 100K. If the employed working age adults (can we call them EWAA?) mortality was about 1/3 of that, that's 241 per 100K.
Now what did he say happened to those numbers? General population went up 32%. That makes it 954 per 100K. EWAA went up 40%. That makes it 337 per 100K. 337/954 = 35.3%.

EWAA went from having a mortality that was about 33.3% that of the general population to a mortality about 35.3% that of the general population. That's not such a big change. His focus on the "8% differential" is a numerical sleight of hand to make you think the change was much bigger than it really was. It's a common enough trick. He knows very well what he's doing.

And remember that the 18-64 age group wasn't as vaccinated as the older adults. According to the CDC database that Ed links to on his website, about 60% of the 18-64 group had gotten their first shot before the third quarter of 2021. About 87% of the 65 and over group had their first shot by then.
By the end of the third quarter, 77% of the 18-64 year olds had their first shot, compared to 93% of the 65+ group.

Now, the excess mortality of the 18-64 group was higher than the excess mortality of the 65+ group during the third quarter of 2021. Not as much higher as Ed makes it seem, but it is slightly higher.
That was during the delta wave. When the younger group was less vaccinated. The insurance data is exactly what you would expect to see if the vaccine was providing meaningful protection against severe disease and death, but very little protection against getting infected and transmitting the virus.

If it was the vaccine causing the excess mortality, why didn't it hit the more highly vaccinated older group?

havin’funfarming - 2/1/2024 05:07
The delta wave spread through the population as a whole. It hit all age groups at the same time. Ed discovered there was a strong relationship between the introduction of vaccines to certain age groups and insurance claims in those same age groups. That can not be explained away by the simple variant wave explanation.

Well, there is a good relationship. It just happens to be an inverse relationship.

To wrap it up, you seem to have mis-remembered what you thought Ed Dowd said in the first place. And what he does say contradicts the insurance actuaries, who handled the actual data.
The highest excess mortality was in the less vaccinated group. The timing of when the vaccines were actually administered to the two age groups doesn't line up with the excess mortality. The excess mortality does line up with which group was less vaccinated during the delta wave.

There's no indication that he ever made that comparison. I didn't know about it because it didn't exist.

I had heard all that I needed to know. I'm always open to hearing new things. I spent a decent chunk of two weekends getting caught up on Ed Dowd, and that's about as much time as I can justify listening to the same things over and over again. We can discuss his handling of the disability data if you wish, but that's another topic.