I remember early 2021 people were warning about syncitin, as I recall the spike has a region whose genetic signature matches a region of syncitin, thus the jab could trigger an autoimmune reaction that endangers the placenta? I could have the details all wrong, this isn't my area of expertise.

The babies seemed to be damaged to unviable state, missing eyes etc. It’s possible there’s real reverse transcription going on. So far no one has dared to publish findings on that, although we know positively this happened during 6 hrs in vitro in human liver tumor cells. It’s tragic.

Already there is visible change in trend of births between Jews and Arabs, since Arabs statistically less believe in state authorities.

Interesting work, Mr. Guetzkow. I have a question, though, about your choice of statistical test. I don't understand why you used a chi-squared test. I would have done a Poisson test.

I just finished running Excel. Based on an expected average of 6 neonatal deaths per quarter, the result for 2021Q2 has p-value 0.000175; the result for 2021Q4 has p-value 0.0000569. Both these p-values are far smaller than yours.

Thus from my perspective, the results for those two quarters are not just mildly statistically significant; rather, they appear to be screaming outliers. The shots must stop!

If I misunderstood, please explain how you use a chi-squared test in this context. Thank you, best wishes, and chag sameach.

Good morning. I hypothesized that neonatal deaths form a Poisson process: the number reported each quarter is a (small) whole number, the average value (the parameter lambda) remains constant over time, and the results each quarter are independent of the results in other quarters.

For the baseline period, I used 2019Q1 through 2021 Q1, a period of 9 consecutive quarters in which there were 54 neonatal deaths. The natural estimate for lambda is the mean value for the sample, 54/9 = 6.

For the next 4 quarters, I computed the probability that a Poisson random variable with parameter 6 would have the value actually observed or larger. This is the p-value of the result: the likelihood of observing a result as extreme as the observed data, or more so, given the null hypothesis. Using Excel formulas, this becomes:

= 1 - POISSON.DIST(observed value - 1, lambda, TRUE)

We use the expression "observed value - 1" because the Poisson distribution has discrete support. Please pardon the pedantry; I teach this in college.

In any case, the results for 2021Q2 and 2021Q4 have such small p-values that we must reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that for those two quarters, at least, neonatal deaths are no longer following a Poisson(6) process.

If I can be of any more assistance, please do not hesitate to write directly. All the best!

Thanks very much for the clarification (not pedantic at all). I will think on it, but seems reasonable at first blush. And thanks for your offer for further assistance. Chag sameach.

At the very start not even conception was recommended. Those who volunteered for the clinical trial had to sign not to concieve. FDA had discussed the possibility of transcription into fetal DNA. WHO recommended against vaccination during pregnancy.

Everything has changed three months later when 30 percent of Covid deaths were fully vaccinated and we already knew 0.2 percent of 2.4 million receivers of the 1st dose died before 2nd shot. Incredible.

I always thought medicine should be practiced on the cautious side. All has changed in the last years. The warning lights are flashing for everyone clear to see now, and still people are looking the other way 😢

How many people will they kill before admitting it's bad and pull it? That's the billion dollar (literally) question. I think they'll never admit it because then they would have to pay.

Like, do we know how large a population this data comes from? Either how many people total served by the insurance company, or how many mothers/pregnancies data was collected for?

Reminiscent of the spikes in the Scottish data. However, they have a solution, as they have just passed self-id for gender change [no medical note needed], so now men can get pregnant too.

Amazing work buddy.

Paging Dr. Hill, Dr. Bradford Hill.

I remember early 2021 people were warning about syncitin, as I recall the spike has a region whose genetic signature matches a region of syncitin, thus the jab could trigger an autoimmune reaction that endangers the placenta? I could have the details all wrong, this isn't my area of expertise.

YES! I remember listening to a retired OB/GYN from Australia talking about this early on

Here it is, googled it. I was on my phone on a crowded bus when I made the above comment. It was December 1, 2020! And from Yeadon and Wodarg. And it seems I got the details mostly right. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/effects-on-mother-and-child-that-bear-out-mike-yeadons-warnings-2/

Yes but I think syncytin is more of an issue with miscarriages than neonatal death.

That makes sense. Thanks!

The babies seemed to be damaged to unviable state, missing eyes etc. It’s possible there’s real reverse transcription going on. So far no one has dared to publish findings on that, although we know positively this happened during 6 hrs in vitro in human liver tumor cells. It’s tragic.

Already there is visible change in trend of births between Jews and Arabs, since Arabs statistically less believe in state authorities.

Interesting work, Mr. Guetzkow. I have a question, though, about your choice of statistical test. I don't understand why you used a chi-squared test. I would have done a Poisson test.

I just finished running Excel. Based on an expected average of 6 neonatal deaths per quarter, the result for 2021Q2 has p-value 0.000175; the result for 2021Q4 has p-value 0.0000569. Both these p-values are far smaller than yours.

Thus from my perspective, the results for those two quarters are not just mildly statistically significant; rather, they appear to be screaming outliers. The shots must stop!

If I misunderstood, please explain how you use a chi-squared test in this context. Thank you, best wishes, and chag sameach.

OK you make a good point. But I'm not clear on which test you did. Do you mean a binomial test? Could you please provide more info?

Good morning. I hypothesized that neonatal deaths form a Poisson process: the number reported each quarter is a (small) whole number, the average value (the parameter lambda) remains constant over time, and the results each quarter are independent of the results in other quarters.

For the baseline period, I used 2019Q1 through 2021 Q1, a period of 9 consecutive quarters in which there were 54 neonatal deaths. The natural estimate for lambda is the mean value for the sample, 54/9 = 6.

For the next 4 quarters, I computed the probability that a Poisson random variable with parameter 6 would have the value actually observed or larger. This is the p-value of the result: the likelihood of observing a result as extreme as the observed data, or more so, given the null hypothesis. Using Excel formulas, this becomes:

= 1 - POISSON.DIST(observed value - 1, lambda, TRUE)

We use the expression "observed value - 1" because the Poisson distribution has discrete support. Please pardon the pedantry; I teach this in college.

In any case, the results for 2021Q2 and 2021Q4 have such small p-values that we must reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that for those two quarters, at least, neonatal deaths are no longer following a Poisson(6) process.

If I can be of any more assistance, please do not hesitate to write directly. All the best!

Thanks very much for the clarification (not pedantic at all). I will think on it, but seems reasonable at first blush. And thanks for your offer for further assistance. Chag sameach.

Thank You very much!!!

At the very start not even conception was recommended. Those who volunteered for the clinical trial had to sign not to concieve. FDA had discussed the possibility of transcription into fetal DNA. WHO recommended against vaccination during pregnancy.

Everything has changed three months later when 30 percent of Covid deaths were fully vaccinated and we already knew 0.2 percent of 2.4 million receivers of the 1st dose died before 2nd shot. Incredible.

https://shlomokafka.substack.com/p/birth-rates-in-israel?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

This is even more shocking when you consider the likely decline in birth rates.

I was thinking the same. Igor Chudov has a new post about declining birth rates.

Incomprehensible

well the dumb shits wouldn't listen to Noah either

Same picture in Scotland!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wj4rE0LrpR0

Just here are the spikes in September and March.

I always thought medicine should be practiced on the cautious side. All has changed in the last years. The warning lights are flashing for everyone clear to see now, and still people are looking the other way 😢

How many people will they kill before admitting it's bad and pull it? That's the billion dollar (literally) question. I think they'll never admit it because then they would have to pay.

It’s bad enough that people cannot conceive, but this is downright murder of live babies.

What's the denominator?

Like, do we know how large a population this data comes from? Either how many people total served by the insurance company, or how many mothers/pregnancies data was collected for?

I've updated the post with the full data pasted at the bottom.

Reminiscent of the spikes in the Scottish data. However, they have a solution, as they have just passed self-id for gender change [no medical note needed], so now men can get pregnant too.

No surgery or hormones required, eh? Amazing how that works.

Wish I could self-ID as independently wealthy and have that work out just as well.

Thanks so much for adding the other numbers-- that's extremely helpful!