Claim: Iatrogenic excess mortality in Australia ( the Covid vaccines. )
The Bradford Hill criteria are the standard criteria for evaluating epidemiological evidence of causality in medicine. This new preprint paper (not peer reviewed) by Wilson Sy, a well-qualified researcher in statistics and data analysis, looks at the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) excess mortality figures in light of SARS-COV2 and mRNA vaccination.
Wilson Sy comes to the conclusion that the pandemic was not a pandemic according to the 2003 WHO definition of a pandemic (on their website until late 2020) which was:
An influenza pandemic
An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.
In the preprint article, the link to that reference doesn’t work, so here it is:
In the first part of the paper, Wilson Sy claims that Covid-19 did not kill enough people to qualify it as a pandemic in Australia.
The rest of the paper, which I found much more interesting, demonstrates from excess death data that there is a correlation between Covid vaccination and excess deaths after five months.
The excess deaths, in fact, did not begin until the pandemic was to all intents and purposes over in Australia. The excess mortality from 2015 to 2022 is shown below:
Wilson Sy points out that the two week delay in reporting vaccinations actually hid the immediate deaths from first dose of vaccination, because the deaths were instead defined as unvaccinated deaths. This effect also occurred with two-dose and booster deaths:
As an example, New South Wales data show [6] that the two-dose population was dying at a rapid rate of several hundred per week during the first booster campaign in January 2022, while very few deaths was recorded from the boosters. The boosters were lethal to some of the immune-suppressed two-dose population, but those deaths were wrongly registered as two-dose deaths due to a flawed data reporting convention [7], where injections were recognized only after weeks of delay.
Those who survived the first boosters would have had their immune system further weakened making them susceptible to viral infections and harm of the second boosters, which contributed later to the second peak in excess mortality in July 2022. The more injections anyone takes the more likely they will sustain iatrogenic injuries and death. Many Australians have learned from their actual experience, ignored official advice, and have become more hesitant of repeated injections.
The following graph is particularly shocking; it shows that particularly for the age group 0-44, which usually has a small number of excess deaths, the excess deaths were 180% higher during the post vaccination period and have remained higher.
The graph of the actual numerical figures shows that this is not just a statistical manipulation:
This chart shows Wilson Sy’s justification of his claim of causality using the Bradford Hill Criteria:
And this is Wilson Sy’s conclusion:
9. Conclusion
Based on mortality data, the Australian COVID-19 pandemic did not begin until the advent of mass mRNA injections in 2021. It is ironic that mass injections which were introduced to mitigate a non-existent pandemic, created a real iatrogenic pandemic. This study, backed by a Bradford Hill analysis, has shown that more injections administered to reduce the pandemic, had the opposite effect of causing more excess deaths to increase in the pandemic.
The very large excess deaths observed from the data imply that the mortality risk/benefit ratio from COVID injections is very high. That is, the harm or risk realized has far outweighed any benefit from COVID injections.
This study has introduced a very simple, but robust, methodology, which should be used by other countries, particularly those in Figure 12 which appear to have adequate data, to replicate and investigate the likely iatrogenic origins of their own pandemics. Billions of lives in the world are at stake from the potential findings of the research.
Dr Wilson Sy, as I said before in this article, is indeed well qualified and very experienced in data analysis: for he was formerly the head researcher at APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the government body that regulates the financial industry. He had positions at ASIC apparently and has worked in senior University positions at ANU and other universities as well.
Dr Wilson Sy spoke on this podcast yesterday about the paper:
https://www.scribd.com/listen/podcast/626499570
Despite his qualifications for data analysis, I doubt somehow that this study will be published, although the tide does seem to be turning in some places, so who knows?