This won’t be over until it is societally acknowledged through life insurance applications having a box for Covid-19 Vaccination and a “yes” check results in higher premiums for the applicants.

Expand full comment
Nov 20, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

Assuming, assuming, the data are legitimate, vitamin D3, or sunshine, fresh air and warm climate must somehow control the outbreak of rowuhan. Why do I say that?

Look at the vax rates in Queensland, Western Australian. Canberra, South Australia, Victoria, NSW, Tasmania, and NZ. Although their rates have not yet reached the levels of NSW and Victoria, there is no logical explanation for days of zip cases in WA, SA. and Qld. Canberra had cases in the teens yet it was the first place to reach double vax rate of 90%. In contrast, cold and wet Europe have massive increases despite having lower vax rates than in Australia.

Seasonality and regionality, combined with the weakened immune caused by the vaxes and the vaxes themselvesa re the causes of the European outbreaks. Without the introduction of the vaccines, their cases would be lower and milder due to acquired immunity from 2020!

A reminder that "cases" mean nothing if people don't need medical care and die.

Expand full comment

Ireland 94% Vaxed they are on the brink of a disaster right now, no one there questioning why:(.

Expand full comment

Cases may mean something if there are long term impacts from having had CV19. My supicion (not on the basis of a solid understanding of the science though) is that any such effects will come from the spike protein so the Vaxxs probably don't help with that and may well make it worse.

Expand full comment

"Cases" as detected by the faux PCR test at uselessly high cyclic rates mean nothing. I thought you knew that by now.

Did you know that the FDA will withdraw the approval for PCR test by 31 Dec 2021?

Cases only matter, or of interest, if people present symptoms. Then the degree of symptoms matter. If suffer some sniffles, mild some stuff, like the regular flu, what is the bib fuss?

Then we have cases which require medical care. In those instances, people either recover or die.

As to those so-called long rowuhan, the fact that "they" have not mentioned them should tell you everything.

Even if there are long rowuhan, so what? Have you heard of long flu? Look it up.

I won't mention "studies" stating that long rowuhan is more in the head thing.

Even if long flu does not exist, so what?

Have you compared all the known causes of deaths relative to rowuhan?

Have you noticed the flu-like deaths in 2019?

Expand full comment
Nov 20, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

I have a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, am I in the at-risk group? (in case I die before you publish your detailed findings.) Thanks for all you do especially in the circumstances.

Expand full comment

Good question. I believe I have seen information [last year] that RA has increased odds, but I don't know the citation and haven't thought through correlations and mechanism. Hopefully I will come across some information while working on the immunity dysfunction article.

Expand full comment

There is a risk calculator from Oxford University that allows you to estimate your risk by entering age biological sex, clinical data, etc.. One condition is "Have rheumatoid arthritis or SLE".

Calculator: https://qcovid.org/Calculation

The algorithm is described there too.

Expand full comment

Any other comorbidities? High blood pressure? Weight issues? Age?

Expand full comment

Thanks for this good overview. There is one more thing showing that the Pfizer trial was not random. Hidden in the appendix of the preprint of the second publication that goes over the 6 month data is the statement that the placebo group had a 10 fold higher frequency of "previous negative covid19 medical history or negative test on 1. visit". Now, if they were random, this is impossible. So either they tested them 10 times more than the vaccine group on the day of the 1. visit (seems to be vaccination visit but the preprint is not exact here), or they picked subjects 10 times more likely to get tested for Covid19 in their environment for placebo. Both is impossible if the participants were randomly distributed. But it is a good method to get 10 times more cases in the placebo group if covid19 is mainly detected by test, not by symptoms. Which it is.

Expand full comment

Can you link to a discussion of this, or explain the page where to find it?

Expand full comment
Nov 20, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford


Preprint "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.supplementary-material

Download the Supplementary Appendix.

Page 13/14 Table S5

Baseline SARS-CoV-2 status:

Negative^g: n1^b vaccine arm: 116, n1^b placebo arm: 1015


b. n1=Number of participants meeting the endpoint definition

g. Negative N-binding antibody result at Visit 1, negative NAAT result at Visit 1, and no medical history of COVID-19.

Expand full comment

It's in the medRxiv article which I link to in the follow spiel...

Short term risks from the Pfizer vaccine…

The FDA data shows 21 deaths for the Pfizer vaccine and 17 deaths for the placebo.

SOURCE: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (page 23)

The following article about the Pfizer vaccine shows one covid-related death in the vaccine arm and two covid-related deaths in the placebo arm...

SOURCE: Appendix to “Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” available at


It’s in Table S-4 in the supplementary appendix, which is in a pdf file that you have to download.

Putting these together we discover that there were five deaths from Pfizer covid vaccines for every covid-related death they prevented.

And we can use this to extrapolate excess deaths from the vaccine and from covid.

69% of the US population has received at least one dose and 59% has received two doses.

22,000 people were fully vaccinated in the Pfizer trial.

The excess death rate from the vaccines is 5 / 22,000, or 0.000227

The US population is 330,000,000.

The fully vaxxed US population is 0.59 * 330,000,000, or 194,000,000.

The excess death rate from the fully vaxxed is 194,000,000 * 0.000227, or 44,000.

Let’s assume that those who receive only a single dose have half the mortality rate of the fully vaccinated.

10% of the US population has received a single vaccine dose, which is 33,000,000.

Half of the fully vaxxed mortality rate is 0.000113.

The contribution to excess mortality from the singly-vaxxed is 33,000,000 * 0.000113, or 3,700.

So, assuming that no one else gets vaccinated, the total excess mortality from vaccines should be 47,700.

And since one covid death is prevented by five vaxxed deaths, then the contribution to excess mortality from covid is 0.2 * 47,700, or 9540.

The figures from the study should be accurate for the period of time of the study. If more people get vaccinated or there is mortality that accumulates over a longer period, then both rates and total numbers will increase. But at least we have a minimal baseline for vaccine deaths and for covid.

Expand full comment

I read about this last year and it was unblinding of the research staff due to obvious post jab symptoms. It was up to their discretion to order Covid tests with symptoms reported to them by subjects and they opted not to order tests despite reported Covid symptoms in the treatment group due to assuming they were just AE’s. Difficult to run a study when the jab gives you the same problems as the damn disease.

Expand full comment

"Oh, was there one? I don't think so, but post it in the comments if you like." I don't think so, as well.

Expand full comment
Nov 20, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

Admit haven't finished reading but thought this was pertinent, Mike Mutzel just reviewed a (well designed/executed) study on the impacts of sodas (and other sweetened beverages) on our immune system's response to Covid. It was a government funded study using soldiers.


Expand full comment

I'm not a scientist or doctor, but I have been trying to follow vaccine and SARS-COV-2 related issues as closely as I can manage.

With respect to autoimmunity, many had talked about how the potential biodistribution of the mRNA or adenovirus vector might influence the development of autoimmune as the immune system inadvertently becomes trained to attack parts of the cells expressing spike protein. This seems like a valid theory for exploration but there may be more to the story.

Now, browsing James Lyons-Weiler's substack (https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/if-you-read-one-thing-on-sars-cov) my attention was drawn to this study:


Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible

Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines

Against COVID-19

In which there is a section "Pathogenic Priming, Multisystem Inflammatory Disease, and Autoimmunity" reviewing several studies that identified portions of SARS-COV-2 that have homology to human proteins. I think anyone investigating autoimmune disorders and COVID-19 vaccines should read through this. As far as I understand it, it is possible that antibodies formed against the spike protein itself may also target human proteins. This raises the threat of the vaccines even higher as their repeat administration may give multiple opportunities to form these autoimmune reactive antibodies and also will cause floods of antibody production of antibodies that may be reactive to human body proteins.

Expand full comment

Yes - I've wondered about this too.

Expand full comment

Matthew, thanks for the amazing work!

The propaganda and deception is so obvious at this point.

Just regarding efficacy/mortality benefits,

I'm still a bit torn since there is so much conflicting data out there!

Can you help me with this one: https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1463119478099693571?t=yodZMwpLcY7B9mWjcd3QjA&s=19

Thanks again!

Expand full comment

oh i think they are highly effective

Expand full comment

Hi Michael

I watched your interview with Steve Kirsch last night and had a couple of questions:

1) When you say that you think most (or all perhaps) Covid deaths are in those with autoimmune diseases, are these in particular types of autoimmune diseases, such as diabetes, but are some autoimmune diseases not included or not so problematic? I ask as I know two people with autoimmune diseases, one with Hashimoto's who has not had the jab as is aware of issues with it, but is fearful of getting the virus, and one who has had Graves disease (in remission) who has taken the two jabs but has not had any health issues yet. Just wondering if these types of autoimmune diseases are not as problematic with Covid-19 or the jab? Can you elaborate a bit more please.

2) With the rise in athletes dying of heart attacks or having myocarditis, I've been wondering if we are seeing this more in athletes because they push their hearts more than ordinary people on a regular basis. If you are sedentary, then maybe it takes longer to notice any heart issues - so not as obvious correlation as we see in athletes. It could be a disaster waiting to happen as people realize their hearts are damaged - they may not relate it to the jab either.

Expand full comment

Thyroid disorders have shown up on lists of high risk for COVID which means high risk for the jab since they are one and the same.

Expand full comment

Tell your friend not everyone gets COVID, but if they take the shot then they for sure get it, the spike protein is the toxic compound.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately that person drank the cool aid and refuses to acknowledge the jabs are a problem. Not much I can do there!

Expand full comment

Pfizer and other drug companies also sneakily made it impossible for those at highest risk to enrol, which is why there are so few over 80 year olds with dementia and other complications in these trials. This reduces the likelihood of detecting serious side effects and decreases risk of death from vaccines in the trials. Of course, it also makes it practically impossible to show efficacy in terms of lives saved, hospital and ICU admissions prevented and disability reduced, but since that was never the primary goal I guess they don't care about that.

They made electronic diaries part of the protocol. Which naturally means that in order to participate you must own an electronic device (smartphone, tablet or computer) and have wifi. Both of these are fairly expensive for a cohort of people who are at least 80 years old in 2020. Because the average 80 year plus person retired last millennium and has been living on a pension ever since. Those most at risk are probably only receiving a state pension.

In context, they probably retired at least 7 years before the first iPhone came out. And over 80 year olds are often less familiar and comfortable with using technology.

They also need to be able to remember username and password details and that they need to log their symptoms in the electronic diary every day for a week after each dose. At a time when they are experiencing increased inflammation which will certainly increase cognitive impairment for anyone with pre-existing cognitive issues.

Even if you didn't know that dementia is the number 1 comorbidity associated with COVID mortality in the UK and other countries, the drug companies which have been trying to develop drugs to combat Alzheimer's for decades surely know that about 1 in 5 eighty year olds and about half of ninety year olds are already diagnosed with dementia. And that the top killer in the UK and a major killer in most westernised countries is Alzheimer's. Certainly not a group you'd consider using an app for.

Then there are the issues about people in the studies needing to be able to access their standard healthcare services to be assessed for serious symptoms following vaccination. During a "pandemic" when outpatients were cancelled, labs and radiology were reduced, and it was almost impossible to arrange a face-to-face consultation with a GP or primary care provider. And any doctors they were likely to see had no training or expertise in assessing for complications of novel mRNA drugs.

Meanwhile, in the USA, there's the added hurdle of having to negotiate with insurance companies to have assessments done +/- pay out of pocket for expensive testing.

And the clock was ticking to get emergency authorisation from regulatory authorities within weeks of people receiving the drugs which meant that diagnoses were rushed through without adequate assessment and late effects/chronic conditions weren't assessed at all.

Those issues are on top of all the other appalling study design problems. You couldn't design these studies any worse if what you genuinely wanted to do was detect side effects and assess for potential lives saved. Of course, if what you really wanted to do with these trials was impress people with sheer numbers of people enrolled and pretend that you were planning on running RCTs when you knew you were really going to unblind them early from the outset while obfuscating hazards, the study designs are wonderful.

Expand full comment

Seems like the dates chosen starting in December when nobody was jabbed? Wonder how much that had impact.

Expand full comment

Finally! Two of my biggest questions answered in one post. I breathed a sigh of relief after I read this. 1. The seemingly random nature of severe disease response to infection has puzzled me. We all heard about the elderly person getting by with only sniffles, the healthy man in his late 30s who died, and the obese person with comorbidities that didn't need hospitalization. All of those contradictions to what we would expect the victim of severe disease to resemble. Most who have died from covid19 had some type of immune dysfunction. Aha!

2. I have found myself particularly annoyed every time I hear that the 'vaccines' prevent you from/lower your risk of severe disease, hospitalization and/or death. It made no sense how anyone was making that conclusion, and that it was merely parroting of Big Pharma's lines. The 'vaccines' never worked (and are likely to cause much more harm down the road than anyone imagined). It was the illusion of the innately immune, studies showing up to 80% of household members won't contract the virus with a positive member under the same roof, or the vast amount of people with sufficient immune response- the folks who were always going to be immune, asymptomatic or experience a mild symptoms. Thank you, Mathew.

Expand full comment

Hi Matthew, I'm doing some research on VAERS deaths and PE and have a statistical question. I've been very impressed by your work. Can you share your email address with me? zana@zanacarver.com

Expand full comment

Are there credible all cause mortality statistics available for covering that period between first vax shot and being classified as vaccinated? If all cause mortality is seemingly down for the vaccinated then there would have to be a big spike in the numbers during that partially vaccinated period for the survivor bias idea to hold up, or am I missing something?

Expand full comment
deletedNov 20, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

A large portion of the doctors have been indoctrinated with no time to defend themselves. They've been sold fake statistics, and held hostage in the system. Most of them give up to the brainwashing at some point.

There are reasons why the field of healing is fraught with addicts and suicides.

Expand full comment

There’s plenty!!! Including from me.

But there a problem: no publicity. The conventional media won’t carry a single item counter to the narrative.

The tech titans ensure they’re banned from FB, Twitter, YouTube etc as well.

You only see or hear from them on Rumble, Telegram etc which people associate with conspiracy theorists.

Of course there is a conspiracy. Nothing theoretical about it.

Expand full comment

Dr Yeadon, we need you on Substack!

Expand full comment

There are differences between the two conspiracy theorist types. The Narrative conspiracy theorist yells "Conspiracy Theorist! (OMG!)" without any content to support their exclamation. Whereas the Narrative-labeled conspiracy theorist uses data and studies to make their point. There are two other major differences; the anti-narrative conspiracy theorist risks loss of money and reputation when they speak out - indeed, they are a profile of courage. Additionally, they have no conflict of interest.

Expand full comment

How were the parents called recently? Hopefully the few vertical scientists and doctors are not going to be called the same.

Expand full comment

Would you pls clarify what the first sentence means?

Or do you mean D.... T.... ?

Personally I do find that prospect frightening. Because they’ll just turn up one day & that’ll be that.

This prospect won’t stop me. There ls literally nothing to preserve by going quiet. My only chance of survival is, alongside others, to keep tapping the telegraph Morse code key until the rescue craft arrives or the ship slides beneath the waves (won’t be too long in Europe).

Expand full comment

A very important point, one that I--and surely others too--need to really take on board. Absolutely nothing will be preserved or protected, in the long term or even medium term, by being quiet. We all need to make a lot of noise in our immediate environments, whatever those be. And do it now.

Expand full comment

Money from China has infiltrated not just the corporations, whose supply lines originate in China and who have become China's PR department affecting U.S.-China policy, but also massively funds science in this country. Our scientists will not speak out against the narrative or against China for fear of losing their reputation and their funding. Dr. Richard Mueller emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley gives testimony that U.S. scientists will not speak out because they fear being blacklisted by China at minute 19 of this video: https://tinyurl.com/3298ckku

Prior to Professor Mueller's testimony above is Doctor Quay presenting his Bayesian analysis which concludes the virus has a 99.8% probability of being a lab creation.

As for MD's, they are threatened with loss of license if they deviate from the narrative by the AMA and other medical authorities. The coordinated global narrative appears to be directed from the top by WHO. Additionally there is transnational coordination by the UN which has been infiltrated by the World Economic Forum according to this interview with a UN insider: https://tinyurl.com/2p9cbm66

Expand full comment