My analysis of the "New Zealand" leaked database, the surprising results

Above picture - Death lag for deaths within 182 days after “vaccine” for all ages, and dates of “vaccines” - From the WelcometheEagle’s New Zealand dashboard. Note the ridiculously small number of “vaccines” captured in the database in the first six months of the rollout. Also note the low number of deaths in the first couple of weeks after the “vaccine”.

WelcometheEagle has a great substack if you are a numbers junkie (as I am). He watches the VAERS database and has a dashboard that allows anyone to easily look at the lowlights of the COVID reports in VAERS.

He was recently given the data from the leaked New Zealand database, and has created a similar database. It may be pulled very soon, so if you want to see it, hurry.

I personally hurried and did many queries to see if the data did in fact show extra deaths from the clot shots.

An aside

Much of the excitement over the database is related to “hot lots” and people administering “vaccines” who had extraordinary death rates. I will not address that today, other than to say that those kind of anomalies <could> be due to shots being given in hospices or nursing homes. Care should be given before yelling about genocide shots. Let’s not make fools of ourselves.

On to my main blather

I looked at the data by age groups: 1-4, 5-11, 12-15, 16-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, by 5s up through 85-89 and then age 90 and up. I then looked at each shot given separately, i.e. 1st shot, 2nd shot, etc.

After all this, I calculated the number of deaths in the next 6 months for each age group and shot number. (You have to do this, or else you are looking at the distinct number of people that took "vaccines" instead of the number of "vaccines" given).

I looked for patterns from one shot to the next, noticed very few people died within the first 7 days after a shot, and relatively few in the next 7 days, which I found suspicious. I also noticed that the "vaccines" given early on in the campaign seem underreported in this data. (See bottom for more thoughts on these).

So I found the number of deaths in the first 182 days exposure times two, divided by number of shots, for each age group and shot number. I then got the mortality rate for each age group by adding up the number of shots and number of deaths across the age group. (I used 182 days since for the most part people were taking the shots 6 months apart. You don’t look at how long the person lived more than 6 months down the line if they are on to the next shot and being counted as a different entry in the database after 6 months.)

Guess what? The mortality rate that I found this way was less than New Zealand's mortality rate tables from 2010-2012. It was even less when I only looked at the rates from shots 2, 3 and 4, figuring that shot 1 shouldn't be used since most people would be getting another shot in a few weeks, so there wouldn't BE 182 days exposure after that shot. The mortality was STILL less than expected, for almost every age group.

If anyone wants to look at what I did and find something wrong, let me know. I am an Associate in the Society of Actuaries (ASA) - this is what I do professionally, but I can make mistakes.

Here's a sample of what I was talking about:

Ages 60-69, shots 2-4.

487,352 doses given, 1627 deaths in a time frame of 0-182 days from each of those shots (382+632+613). Divide the 1627 by 487K then multiply by 2 to account for the half year and get 6.677 deaths per 1000. I took the New Zealand 2010-2012 tables averaged between male and female, ages 60 to 69 and got 9.404. Actual to expected: 71.0%. No way do I believe those numbers represent reality, but that's what they show.

Here's the summary of the actual to expected mortality for shots 2-4, looking at 6 months exposure:

• Ages 0-4: no deaths, but not enough shots to expect any

• 5-11: 106%, but there were only 2 deaths so there's a lot of uncertainty there.

• 12-15: 62%, 4 deaths, so there's also a lot of uncertainty.

• 16-19: 85% (22 deaths)

• 20-24: 69% (33 deaths)

• 25-29: 97% (40 deaths)

• 30-39: 75% (110 deaths)

• 40-49: 73% (222 deaths)

• 50-59 78% (665 deaths)

• 60-69 71% (1627 deaths)

• 70-74 65% (1405 deaths)

• 75-79 64% (2033 deaths)

• 80-84 66% (2611 deaths)

• 85-89 62% (2668 deaths)

• 90+ 69% (3600 deaths)

So what now?

I wasn't able to find evidence of death caused by the clots shots as whole in the data. Believe me, I wanted to find it, and I KNOW the clot shots kill people. I just didn't find it in that data.

These actual to expected results make me think nowhere near all the deaths are being reported. Otherwise these shots would be the fountain of youth!

If this data was being used in a study, it would be touted as proving that the shots were improving mortality by 29% for people in their 60s. At which point, we'd all say "yea, right, these shots are curing cancer and heart disease, and (fill in the blank) ????

The main technical caveat is whether people ACTUALLY had 182 days of exposure captured in the database - all I can say is that from all the graphs I saw (quite a few of them) it sure looked that way. These people were getting shots every six months or so. The peaks between shots 2 and 3 were a little closer than 6 months, but the mortality for shot 2 was about the same as for shots 3 and 4 for ages less than 80. It would have only made a significant difference for ages 80 and up, and even then it wouldn't have made a large difference.

Suspicious things I see in the database

There were rather few deaths shown in the first 7 days after a “vaccine”, and relatively few from 8 days to 14 days out. Some prominent people in the “anti-vaxxer” sphere think this is due to a “healthy vaccinee” effect. I REALLY don't believe the "healthy vaccinee" effect. These shots were given in nursing homes, there's no "healthy vaccinee" effect there. When we see few deaths within the first 14 or 21 days, that's people not reported as having gotten the shot for 14 or 21 days.

The reports are obviously incomplete for the first six months or so of the “vaccine” rollout, the first half of 2021. (You’ll have to trust me on this for now, or go to WelcometheEagle’s dashboard and play around with it to see for yourself). The number of shots given is low for all the older ages, where people where getting boosters in large numbers. Also, the apparent numbers of younger people getting “vaccines” is low, which I think is an artifact of the incomplete record for the first six months of 2021. This of course raises the question: “Why"? Are some medical systems left out? Were people able to censor the records at will? And so so on.

Lastly, why are the death rates so much lower than what would be expected from the New Zealand mortality tables? I also checked the computed actual mortality against US life tables, 2017 CSO (Commissioners Standard Ordinary). Those tables do have a little bit of “padding” built in for insurance company purposes, but they are VERY close to the New Zealand table values.

Last but not least

I will post a couple of screen grabs from queries in the next week.

Stay well, everyone, and thank you for reading!

I’m considering paying people in the future for liking and/or commenting (reasonable comments only). Not a lot, just $5 every 50 likes or comments or something like that.