In previous articles I’ve highlighted the worrying rise in deaths from heart failure. This article adds deaths from both cirrhosis (liver damage) and diabetes to the ‘watch’ list.
Using data from the Department of Health Improvement and Disparities (DHID) website I’ve compared the expected number of deaths from the end of March to the end of September 2020, with the registered number of deaths for the commensurate 28 weeks in 2023.
The data cover 14 causes of death. In Figure 1 you can see that the increase in deaths from heart failure at 26% leads the field, but it’s closely followed by cirrhosis and other liver diseases at 22% and diabetes deaths at 19%.
A very good question would be why I’m comparing 2023 actuals with 2020 expected numbers, rather those for 2023. The answer is that the expected levels are calculated as an average of prior years, so, if you have a rising trend the average goes up progressively. The net result of this ‘inflationary’ pressure is to understate the increase or decrease in deaths over the coming years. This results in the classic ‘frog boiling’ as things progressively, though imperceptibly worsen.
In the following charts I’ve separated out the ‘inflationary’ increase from the ‘excess’. In that way it’s apparent that the overall changes from 2020 are far more significant than the reported level.
Figure 2 shows that 29,582 people were expected to die from heart disease in the 28 weeks from the end of March to the end of September 2020. In 2023 the expected level of deaths had increased by 2,027, a 7% jump. In the event, in 2023 a further 5,539 people died of heart failure, these are the ‘excess deaths’.
So, in 2023, from the end of March to the end of September a total of 37,148 deaths from heart failure were registered (7,566 + 29,582). That’s 19% higher than the 2023 expected level but 26% higher than the expected level in 2020 number. Extrapolate 7,566 deaths from 28 to 52 weeks and we see that we’re on target for over 14,000 extra deaths from heart failure.
Deaths from cirrhosis also show a 7% ‘inflationary’ increase and a further 15% ‘excess’ deaths on top of that. A 22% increase in deaths from cirrhosis seems like an awful lot! Cirrhosis is a fairly slow burn condition. Another un-foreseen consequence of lockdown?
Diabetes shows a total increase of 19% over the 2020 expected number of deaths. Some 12% of this increase is ‘inflationary’ with a further 7% being recorded as ‘excess’ this year.
Again, let’s extrapolate that 5,060 extra deaths to 52 weeks and we see that we’re on schedule for over 9,000 extra deaths from diabetes. Add the 14,000 extra heart failure deaths to the 3,000 cirrhosis deaths and the 9,000 diabetes deaths and that’s over 26,000 excess deaths from these three conditions alone.
The purpose of these charts is to highlight that it’s important to look behind the headlines. A headline that deaths from diabetes are up 7% may not set the pulses racing, but when it’s put in context of a 19% increase over three years then you just might sit up and take some notice, and if you’re at risk, do something about it!
Finally, let’s look at cancer deaths. Cancer has been making the headlines of late. We’ve had both Professor Angus Dalgleish and Professor Karol Sikora flagging up concerns over cancer but from rather different positions. Dalgleish attributes harm in part to the vaccines themselves, whereas Sikora has consistently pointed to the ‘non-pharmaceutical interventions’ leading to delays in diagnosis and treatment as being the true villains of the piece.
However, as Figure 5 demonstrates, there’s been very little change in cancer deaths, just 2.3% up on the 2020 expected level. Indeed, registered deaths during our 28 week 2023 period have been 381 lower than the expected level.
What does all this tell us? Heart failure, cirrhosis, diabetes and cancer are all linked to lifestyle choices. We know that mRNA can cause heart problems, indeed Pfizer themselves warn about myocarditis, Figure 6 is taken from its website; one wonders how many school-age kids were warned of this association with myocarditis before giving their ‘informed’ consent to getting vaccinated?
However, the significant increases in cirrhosis and diabetes may well indicate that it’s been the unintended consequences of lockdown that’s had the most impact as people’s lifestyle choices became increasingly harmful.
Lifestyle, vaccines or failures in medical care, the legacy of the over-reaction to Covid will continue to reverberate for years to come.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It’s all a total mystery, hopefully the modern day equivalent of Sherlock Holmes or Hercules Poirot make themselves known and shine some light on it.
Experimental jabs and unnecessary lockdowns are certainly a big factor.
Although the UK should be applauded for the amount of data, it is not of very good quality.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-uk-government-is-flying-blind?publication_id=548354&post_id=138257515&isFreemail=true&r=1ninci
Gosh…. who could have thought that effectively locking people in their own homes for months on end …. closing gyms, stopping outdoor sports (even tennis and golf) …. and encouraging them to sit on their backsides watching TV for hours on end, consuming junk food and alcohol, would have such negative consequences for their health.
It certainly didn’t occur to the Guardians of Public Health or the f’wits in Government.
Or shooting them up with a contaminated experimental gene therapy?
Don’t mistake this for incompetence….
Its all going to plan…
The WHO, many politicians and their acolytes in the main. A slow burning after effect of their gross over reaction to certain things. That’s what’s behind it; analysing the detail is something else.
Hmmm…that’s a hard one. Was it some wicked wizard casting a bad spell because he feels aggrieved at the decline in the English cricket team’s fortunes or maybe it’s as simple as climate change? Who knows? Maybe we’ll never get to the bottom of this deep, unfathomable mystery…FFS!!
Lifestyle-related – indeed, particularly if you’re a top level athlete. This weekend a 20-year Dutch cyclist died while in Hong Kong for a competition – it is presumed from a heart attack.
As for liver problems and diabetes – although there probably is a lifestyle-related element – sitting around watching telly, drinking too much eating too much, it wouldn’t surprise me to find a vaxx link. Haven’t there been some studies showing a lot of spike ending up in the liver? We know that people with diabetes were at greater risk from the virus. I remember an early study of a whole virus vaxx that showed that 3 months after taking the vaxx people with diabetes and other ailments who were at greater risk from coronavirus, had the same increase in problems after the vaxx. The spike protein causes the same problems in the same people, whether delivered by the virus or the vaxx – except with the vaxx there is no first-line defence, significantly greater amounts of spike are produced and the vaxx intentionally switches off fundamental immune protection. And the mrna appears to keep reproducing for significantly longer than the virus would in a person with a functioning immune system.
The fact that the problems aren’t worse is probably because only a certain number of people got a bad dose of the poison.
So if this is the lame and fabricated excuse the weasel Paul Maynard is using for not attending Bridgen’s debate in parliament, does anyone know of any other MPs making up some BS for not being arsed with such a highly significant issue? I’d be interested as to what their explanations are because the British public, along with Andrew Bridgen, are most certainly owed an explanation for such blatantly disinterested and disrespectful behaviour.
”MPs now peddling the line that they didn’t attend @ABridgen
’s debate because it was on a Friday, and that Mr Bridgen deliberately chose that day as he knew they wouldn’t be able to be there.
Laughable if it wasn’t so serious.
For one thing he didn’t choose the day, and @PaulMaynardUK
must know that having been an MP for 13 years.
But Mr Maynard, in any case you seem to accept (grudgingly) that there might be an issue worth debating.
So why didn’t you think several years of >1000 extra weekly deaths (still ongoing) was sufficiently important for you to rearrange constituency meetings?”
https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1717097922553143344
People ought to be demanding answers. Keep the pressure on the lying, slippery little douchebags;
”LAST Friday Andrew Bridgen’s debate on excess deaths finally took place after twenty rejections of his attempt to raise the topic. As we reported, his tour de force on the data and its analysis pertinent to the recorded fact of excess deaths was delivered to an almost empty Commons Chamber, though the public gallery was full. It is however important that we acknowledge those few MPs who did attend and participate. Of them, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Danny Kruger and Esther McVey all spoke, and spoke well. Esther McVey challenged Maria Caulfield from the Department for Health about the role of the MHRA.
Afterwards Andrew made this short speech outside Parliament, thanking the people who came to support the debate – really worth watching. Democracy is under challenge all over the world, he said. He also flagged a Bill he is bringing to Parliament today to stop the World Health Organization power grab. He is a truly courageous, hardworking and representative MP. We have much to be grateful to him for forcing these issues into an extremely reluctant and either scared or in denial Parliament. (When I was in touch with him today and he told me that MPs are being inundated with emails from constituents asking why they didn’t attend. So keep those emails going readers!)”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/andrew-bridgens-heroic-debate-on-excess-deaths/
Mogs Maynard is a weasel as being an utter feck wit!
What is behind the rise in heart deaths? ——-Probably people just looked at their energy bill. ——So you could say it was a covid/climate pincer movement.
It’s a fascinating tool and I appreciate the reference. Looking around it I tried investigating the place of death (Care Home, Home, Hospital, Hospice). To my surprise deaths in care homes have been lower than expected most weeks since march 2021. It is deaths at home which have been significantly above expected over the whole period.
There is a well known effect called regression to the mean, where a spike in deaths due to some non-random cause then drops back to the normal level.
We know that care home deaths were accelerated by a combination of vaccine effects and by the prescription of a lot of midazolam in a restricted period following the March 2020 lockdown. This will have killed off a significant number of elderly people who would have lived longer had they been treated with antibiotics for pneumonia which was a consequence of spike protein damage to their lungs. As a result the remaining care home residents have been artificially thinned out leaving the healthier ones behind who then die at a reduced rate.
Lots of stats that show this, Joel Smalley in particular has written articles about it. I recommend his Substack account, it is very instructive about how the ONS has gone out of its way to hide trends by refusing to separate out cohorts by age and how date of registration is used instead of date of occurrence for deaths.
I am familiar with the regression to the mean but this doesn’t seem to be relevant to these statistics. There is a surge in excess deaths in care homes in March 2020 and Jan/Feb 2021 which coincides with Covid outbreaks and precedes the vaccination rollout. Other than that, actual deaths are very close to predicted deaths but on the whole slightly lower (which would fit in with the “dry tinder” argument).
Climate change.
Indeed it is – when it’s caused by excessive alcohol consumption. I wonder if a couple or three years of excessive alcohol consumption should be showing up in the death rates yet. This seems too rapid to be caused by lockdown, though I’ll concede that lockdown drinking may have accelerated the condition in those already approaching end-stage cirrhosis.
I think it’s entirely possible that some of the cirrhosis diagnosed is caused by other metabolic consequences of the damned vaccines.
My wife suffers from an auto-immune liver condition, diagnosed early but luckily by AMA in the blood so no obvious pathology with scans as yet and now on medication to forestall cirrhosis.
I have seen reports of people with liver conditions who have been “vaccinated” and then shortly thereafter died from very aggressive liver cancer. I am firmly of the opinion that if either of us had been Covid “vaccinated” that we would probably be dead by now.
It’s a mystery, it really is. A real mystery.
Obviously it has absolutely nothing to do with the largest medical intervention in human history using a product which was already known to have a terrible safety profile from the manufacturers’ own tests. Nothing to do with it.
Yes, it’s a real mystery.
Are the autopsies checking for spike protein in the liver? It would be interesting to see the PM results.
In Summary: Politicians