Is the significant increase in Deaths due to "Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified" due to the vaccines?
Thank you for taking the time to gather and analyze this data! It's a lot of work that our government health agencies should have done. I am grateful you did.
Ah, so that's what they've been doing. It makes sense if you think that they wouldn't want to classify deaths as being due to COVID among the vaccinated. While the vaccinated were a minority that was probably easier, but when they are in a majority it becomes more difficult to sustain the protection narrative.
Early on, it was probably fairly safe to classify unexplained heart attacks as COVID deaths, but as the population becomes mostly vaccinated and before boosters became the norm, doing so would make it look like more vaccinated people were dying from COVID than the narrative could sustain.
Then, as heart attacks become associated with jabs, you want to make those go away as well. Enter R00-R99.
I'm starting to believe that U.S. is no more reliable than Chinese data at this point.
Sadly Wonder takes a full year to release the final database (2020 just became available). 2020 didn't differ much from the previous 5 years in the breakdown of the R's listed, about 35-40% of which are R99 (basically the most unknown of the unknown :-) ) It will be interesting to see if some of the other top R's change in 2021, particularly the heart related ones that are not well represented.
It's really a catch-all for a variety of causes of death -- basically anything out of the ordinary before dying or I suppose that shows up in autopsy for which there was no diagnosis assigned or cause for the irregularity determined.
I just looked at the CDC database for the breakdown of codes. Seems that over 1/3rd are the ultimate in ambiguous (R99 = Other ill-defined and unspecified causes of mortality). Here's the list of the top 20 (consistent for 2015-2020):
R99 (Other ill-defined and unspecified causes of mortality) ; R54 (Senility) ; R62.8 (Other lack of expected normal physiological development) ; R09.2 (Respiratory arrest) ; R68.8 (Other specified general symptoms and signs) ; R95 (Sudden infant death syndrome - SIDS) ; R56.8 (Other and unspecified convulsions) ; R57.0 (Cardiogenic shock) ; R58 (Haemorrhage, not elsewhere classified) ; R57.9 (Shock, unspecified) ; R09.0 (Asphyxia) ; R53 (Malaise and fatigue) ; R13 (Dysphagia) ; R91 (Abnormal findings on diagnostic imaging of lung) ; R06.0 (Dyspnoea) ; R06.8 (Other and unspecified abnormalities of breathing) ; R64 (Cachexia) ; R57.8 (Other shock) ; R00.1 (Bradycardia, unspecified)
The CDC has this data now though. Of course it's not final tallies, but it will be interesting to see which categories go up.
Oh, so R00-99 can be broken down further? The article made it sound like it's a category of it's own. Can you maybe post a follow-up where you plot the broken-down categories only?
I just saw the same thing in the data last night! Just perusing to see if I could see increase in cardiac, oncology, etc. Then I saw that category and was like:, hello! What the heck is this? I just spent 3, hours making lousy graphs and now find your beautiful data all in a pretty package! Good job! Really great work.
I found your write-up because I googled this issue. I also found the rise in R00-R99 weird and wanted to find an explanation. However, if you look at R00-99 by age, it is rising for almost all age categories, including those that are not elligible for a vaccine (0-4yo). It also started rising for 5-14yo before 5-11yo became elligible. The only category it is not rising for is 85+. This seems to suggest that vaccines is not an explanation. I wonder if this is some kind of timing data entry effect rather than a real life effect, but I am not convinced either way.
Thank you for taking the time to gather and analyze this data! It's a lot of work that our government health agencies should have done. I am grateful you did.
Thank you Janie.
Ah, so that's what they've been doing. It makes sense if you think that they wouldn't want to classify deaths as being due to COVID among the vaccinated. While the vaccinated were a minority that was probably easier, but when they are in a majority it becomes more difficult to sustain the protection narrative.
Early on, it was probably fairly safe to classify unexplained heart attacks as COVID deaths, but as the population becomes mostly vaccinated and before boosters became the norm, doing so would make it look like more vaccinated people were dying from COVID than the narrative could sustain.
Then, as heart attacks become associated with jabs, you want to make those go away as well. Enter R00-R99.
I'm starting to believe that U.S. is no more reliable than Chinese data at this point.
Sadly Wonder takes a full year to release the final database (2020 just became available). 2020 didn't differ much from the previous 5 years in the breakdown of the R's listed, about 35-40% of which are R99 (basically the most unknown of the unknown :-) ) It will be interesting to see if some of the other top R's change in 2021, particularly the heart related ones that are not well represented.
Great work.
I made an analysis of how the damage is caused:
https://odysee.com/@XXX-Science:2/Covid_Experimental_Vaccines_Cause_Damage_By_Design:a
Main points:
1. spike-protein is toxic, causes clots and harms immune system
2. programmed cells (by mRNA or DNA) get attacked by immune system
3. immune system is harmed by artificial codes in mRNA
4. large variations in content and side-effects
The most serious problem seems that these side-effects were to be expected.
Wow those graphs are scary!! It’s one thing to hear “deaths are up”, but seeing the data is mind blowing 😳
Can you is it possible weite more about this category R00-R99
What does this mean?
Sorry I missed if you did give details?
Do we have any way to know more?
Thanks
I linked to one source in the article, but here's another that you can drill down each of the R's http://www.thcc.or.th/ICD-10TM/1/kr00.htm
It's really a catch-all for a variety of causes of death -- basically anything out of the ordinary before dying or I suppose that shows up in autopsy for which there was no diagnosis assigned or cause for the irregularity determined.
I just looked at the CDC database for the breakdown of codes. Seems that over 1/3rd are the ultimate in ambiguous (R99 = Other ill-defined and unspecified causes of mortality). Here's the list of the top 20 (consistent for 2015-2020):
R99 (Other ill-defined and unspecified causes of mortality) ; R54 (Senility) ; R62.8 (Other lack of expected normal physiological development) ; R09.2 (Respiratory arrest) ; R68.8 (Other specified general symptoms and signs) ; R95 (Sudden infant death syndrome - SIDS) ; R56.8 (Other and unspecified convulsions) ; R57.0 (Cardiogenic shock) ; R58 (Haemorrhage, not elsewhere classified) ; R57.9 (Shock, unspecified) ; R09.0 (Asphyxia) ; R53 (Malaise and fatigue) ; R13 (Dysphagia) ; R91 (Abnormal findings on diagnostic imaging of lung) ; R06.0 (Dyspnoea) ; R06.8 (Other and unspecified abnormalities of breathing) ; R64 (Cachexia) ; R57.8 (Other shock) ; R00.1 (Bradycardia, unspecified)
The CDC has this data now though. Of course it's not final tallies, but it will be interesting to see which categories go up.
Oh, so R00-99 can be broken down further? The article made it sound like it's a category of it's own. Can you maybe post a follow-up where you plot the broken-down categories only?
Write more (woops)
Thanks for your work to shine light uppon our disCognition
Blessings to you
Thank you!
I just saw the same thing in the data last night! Just perusing to see if I could see increase in cardiac, oncology, etc. Then I saw that category and was like:, hello! What the heck is this? I just spent 3, hours making lousy graphs and now find your beautiful data all in a pretty package! Good job! Really great work.
I found your write-up because I googled this issue. I also found the rise in R00-R99 weird and wanted to find an explanation. However, if you look at R00-99 by age, it is rising for almost all age categories, including those that are not elligible for a vaccine (0-4yo). It also started rising for 5-14yo before 5-11yo became elligible. The only category it is not rising for is 85+. This seems to suggest that vaccines is not an explanation. I wonder if this is some kind of timing data entry effect rather than a real life effect, but I am not convinced either way.
Nobody should be shocked. Pfizer's original safety study showed a 20% increase in death not caused by covid.
Is there any more data (such as demographics) to go along with these numbers? If yes then maybe further analysis could be done along those lines?
great article, very well expressed. thanks!