Jean Fisch
@jeanfisch.bsky.social
Analysis, rationalism & objectivity are my sins
ADDENDUM 2: Here the method I used
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
December 14, 2025 at 3:46 PM
ADDENDUM 2: Here the method I used
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
ADDENDUM 1: For completion, here the correct time-based analysis vs. vaccination intensity for the two other age bands analysed in the study
December 14, 2025 at 3:44 PM
ADDENDUM 1: For completion, here the correct time-based analysis vs. vaccination intensity for the two other age bands analysed in the study
So I am left completely baffled: How on earth can a study be published on ST mortality post vaccination with
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
December 14, 2025 at 3:44 PM
So I am left completely baffled: How on earth can a study be published on ST mortality post vaccination with
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
So yes, you read that correctly: The study's analysis does not even stack up
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
December 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM
So yes, you read that correctly: The study's analysis does not even stack up
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
When I looked at the data, I realised that the data they presented was DAILY vaccination uptake vs 15D MOVING AVERAGE mortality incidences
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
December 14, 2025 at 3:41 PM
When I looked at the data, I realised that the data they presented was DAILY vaccination uptake vs 15D MOVING AVERAGE mortality incidences
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
The authors got hold of mortality by age and vaccination status in Emilia-Romagna and found that, soon after the vaccination in an age-band started, there was a "bump" of mortality
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
December 14, 2025 at 3:40 PM
The authors got hold of mortality by age and vaccination status in Emilia-Romagna and found that, soon after the vaccination in an age-band started, there was a "bump" of mortality
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
You may see reposts of this study pass your timeline where the authors claim "full data of Emilia-Romagna shows death signal among covid vaccinated shortly after vaccination"
Much to my surprise, the signal is not real but resulting, among other, from an analytical error!
1/
Much to my surprise, the signal is not real but resulting, among other, from an analytical error!
1/
December 14, 2025 at 3:40 PM
You may see reposts of this study pass your timeline where the authors claim "full data of Emilia-Romagna shows death signal among covid vaccinated shortly after vaccination"
Much to my surprise, the signal is not real but resulting, among other, from an analytical error!
1/
Much to my surprise, the signal is not real but resulting, among other, from an analytical error!
1/
We are getting close to year end so it's possible to guestimate quite accurately the number of death registrations that ONS expected for England and Wales at the beginning of 2025
It's a decrease vs those expected for 2024 but it's sill implausibly high
Let me explain how this happened
1/
It's a decrease vs those expected for 2024 but it's sill implausibly high
Let me explain how this happened
1/
December 10, 2025 at 11:29 AM
We are getting close to year end so it's possible to guestimate quite accurately the number of death registrations that ONS expected for England and Wales at the beginning of 2025
It's a decrease vs those expected for 2024 but it's sill implausibly high
Let me explain how this happened
1/
It's a decrease vs those expected for 2024 but it's sill implausibly high
Let me explain how this happened
1/
Oh and while I am on the subject of mortality in France, here the situation on cancer
Remember:
- Cancer deaths in <65 are essentially in adults
- Vax uptake among adults in <65 was >90% in France
So if there was a turbo-cancer effect, we should see it on the chart
Remember:
- Cancer deaths in <65 are essentially in adults
- Vax uptake among adults in <65 was >90% in France
So if there was a turbo-cancer effect, we should see it on the chart
December 7, 2025 at 11:37 AM
Oh and while I am on the subject of mortality in France, here the situation on cancer
Remember:
- Cancer deaths in <65 are essentially in adults
- Vax uptake among adults in <65 was >90% in France
So if there was a turbo-cancer effect, we should see it on the chart
Remember:
- Cancer deaths in <65 are essentially in adults
- Vax uptake among adults in <65 was >90% in France
So if there was a turbo-cancer effect, we should see it on the chart
A picture says more than 1,000 words?
So here the evolution of natural deaths excl covid for the <65 vs. all possible linear trends of the last decade
So here the evolution of natural deaths excl covid for the <65 vs. all possible linear trends of the last decade
December 6, 2025 at 3:45 PM
A picture says more than 1,000 words?
So here the evolution of natural deaths excl covid for the <65 vs. all possible linear trends of the last decade
So here the evolution of natural deaths excl covid for the <65 vs. all possible linear trends of the last decade
I see claims about "there was lots of excess in France among the young" on the back of the French study of vax vs. non vax
There is none except for covid ... and external causes
So if you believe vaccines make people do stupid things, you have your confirmatory chart ;-)
There is none except for covid ... and external causes
So if you believe vaccines make people do stupid things, you have your confirmatory chart ;-)
December 6, 2025 at 3:40 PM
I see claims about "there was lots of excess in France among the young" on the back of the French study of vax vs. non vax
There is none except for covid ... and external causes
So if you believe vaccines make people do stupid things, you have your confirmatory chart ;-)
There is none except for covid ... and external causes
So if you believe vaccines make people do stupid things, you have your confirmatory chart ;-)
Wow, I didn't realize that the Epi-Phare press release actually focuses on the "no increase in mortality in vaxed" message
It's a great study but it is not designed to say anything on the mortality impact on of C19 vaccines
This is very very disappointing...
www.epi-phare.fr/actualites/c...
It's a great study but it is not designed to say anything on the mortality impact on of C19 vaccines
This is very very disappointing...
www.epi-phare.fr/actualites/c...
December 6, 2025 at 9:56 AM
Wow, I didn't realize that the Epi-Phare press release actually focuses on the "no increase in mortality in vaxed" message
It's a great study but it is not designed to say anything on the mortality impact on of C19 vaccines
This is very very disappointing...
www.epi-phare.fr/actualites/c...
It's a great study but it is not designed to say anything on the mortality impact on of C19 vaccines
This is very very disappointing...
www.epi-phare.fr/actualites/c...
So just to leave no doubt: This warning is about METHOD not RESULT!
There is zero sign of any unexplained excess mortality in France beyond covid, flu and heat vs. expected deaths from pre-pandemic trends in France
Vaccines therefore cannot have generated any topline visible mortality
There is zero sign of any unexplained excess mortality in France beyond covid, flu and heat vs. expected deaths from pre-pandemic trends in France
Vaccines therefore cannot have generated any topline visible mortality
December 6, 2025 at 8:34 AM
So just to leave no doubt: This warning is about METHOD not RESULT!
There is zero sign of any unexplained excess mortality in France beyond covid, flu and heat vs. expected deaths from pre-pandemic trends in France
Vaccines therefore cannot have generated any topline visible mortality
There is zero sign of any unexplained excess mortality in France beyond covid, flu and heat vs. expected deaths from pre-pandemic trends in France
Vaccines therefore cannot have generated any topline visible mortality
Quick warning: The @epiphare.bsky.social study on vax/unvaxed mortality in France is very interesting
However, it does not show "covid vax does not increase mortality" as claimed by its president
For that, one would need to know the relationship of mortality BEFORE VAX and this is not available
However, it does not show "covid vax does not increase mortality" as claimed by its president
For that, one would need to know the relationship of mortality BEFORE VAX and this is not available
December 6, 2025 at 8:32 AM
Quick warning: The @epiphare.bsky.social study on vax/unvaxed mortality in France is very interesting
However, it does not show "covid vax does not increase mortality" as claimed by its president
For that, one would need to know the relationship of mortality BEFORE VAX and this is not available
However, it does not show "covid vax does not increase mortality" as claimed by its president
For that, one would need to know the relationship of mortality BEFORE VAX and this is not available
This super interesting factor-adjusted pop level study compared 4-year mortality of working aged ever and never vaxed in France
Result
- Confirmation of a healthy vaccinee bias: 25% lower mortality among vaxed
- A 75% lower covid mortality
This indicates a RR of 66% but only potentially
1/
Result
- Confirmation of a healthy vaccinee bias: 25% lower mortality among vaxed
- A 75% lower covid mortality
This indicates a RR of 66% but only potentially
1/
December 5, 2025 at 1:24 PM
This super interesting factor-adjusted pop level study compared 4-year mortality of working aged ever and never vaxed in France
Result
- Confirmation of a healthy vaccinee bias: 25% lower mortality among vaxed
- A 75% lower covid mortality
This indicates a RR of 66% but only potentially
1/
Result
- Confirmation of a healthy vaccinee bias: 25% lower mortality among vaxed
- A 75% lower covid mortality
This indicates a RR of 66% but only potentially
1/
This is not a fluke of wastewaters (they can do that from time to time so it's a fair objection): The consolidated picture shows also this bizarre "I will go down ... no wait, I am not finished" pattern
Don't ask me why: I am probably even more clueless as you :-)
2/2
Don't ask me why: I am probably even more clueless as you :-)
2/2
December 3, 2025 at 1:10 PM
This is not a fluke of wastewaters (they can do that from time to time so it's a fair objection): The consolidated picture shows also this bizarre "I will go down ... no wait, I am not finished" pattern
Don't ask me why: I am probably even more clueless as you :-)
2/2
Don't ask me why: I am probably even more clueless as you :-)
2/2
Throughout western Europe, covid had a surge back in October and is receding fast ... except in Germany, where it seems to be wanting to do an encore (for whatever reason)
1/2
1/2
December 3, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Throughout western Europe, covid had a surge back in October and is receding fast ... except in Germany, where it seems to be wanting to do an encore (for whatever reason)
1/2
1/2
The study included ~20k participants which split into two arms and observed from October 2022 to January 2023 ... exactly when the US was hit by its annual flu wave
60 and 90 (rounded) got infected in the mRNA and the regular vaccine arm, so 0.6% and 0.9%
2/
60 and 90 (rounded) got infected in the mRNA and the regular vaccine arm, so 0.6% and 0.9%
2/
November 27, 2025 at 4:57 PM
The study included ~20k participants which split into two arms and observed from October 2022 to January 2023 ... exactly when the US was hit by its annual flu wave
60 and 90 (rounded) got infected in the mRNA and the regular vaccine arm, so 0.6% and 0.9%
2/
60 and 90 (rounded) got infected in the mRNA and the regular vaccine arm, so 0.6% and 0.9%
2/
The trial results of Pfizer's mRNA vax in the 18-64 got published (as it's only 34% efficacy against normal vax, there are big discussions)
But another data point in the study caught my eye, the infection rate: It was "only" 0.6-0.9% during the winter 22/23 flu wave
1/
But another data point in the study caught my eye, the infection rate: It was "only" 0.6-0.9% during the winter 22/23 flu wave
1/
November 27, 2025 at 4:56 PM
The trial results of Pfizer's mRNA vax in the 18-64 got published (as it's only 34% efficacy against normal vax, there are big discussions)
But another data point in the study caught my eye, the infection rate: It was "only" 0.6-0.9% during the winter 22/23 flu wave
1/
But another data point in the study caught my eye, the infection rate: It was "only" 0.6-0.9% during the winter 22/23 flu wave
1/
This study looked at development issues in young children using pop data from standard moments of checks in Scotland
It shows an increase in development issues after the start of the pandemic
What is a bit puzzling (and thus interesting) is why it remained high afterwards
It shows an increase in development issues after the start of the pandemic
What is a bit puzzling (and thus interesting) is why it remained high afterwards
November 27, 2025 at 10:12 AM
This study looked at development issues in young children using pop data from standard moments of checks in Scotland
It shows an increase in development issues after the start of the pandemic
What is a bit puzzling (and thus interesting) is why it remained high afterwards
It shows an increase in development issues after the start of the pandemic
What is a bit puzzling (and thus interesting) is why it remained high afterwards
You may have read about this story at the time as one of its participants was an Hungarian MEP, ironically, from a party critical of homosexuality
Press reports say that he got caught after he escaped via the rain pipe and was recognized running naked across the historical square
4/
Press reports say that he got caught after he escaped via the rain pipe and was recognized running naked across the historical square
4/
November 27, 2025 at 8:06 AM
You may have read about this story at the time as one of its participants was an Hungarian MEP, ironically, from a party critical of homosexuality
Press reports say that he got caught after he escaped via the rain pipe and was recognized running naked across the historical square
4/
Press reports say that he got caught after he escaped via the rain pipe and was recognized running naked across the historical square
4/
This (PUBLISHED!) paper is gaga: Hold on tight, all from world OWID data!
- vax cannot have saved lives: excess was higher in 2021 than 2020 so 2021 excess is from vax
- 40% of the pop was vaxed so 40% of deaths was vaxed
Ergo: vaxed had 15% higher mortality than unvaxed🤪
- vax cannot have saved lives: excess was higher in 2021 than 2020 so 2021 excess is from vax
- 40% of the pop was vaxed so 40% of deaths was vaxed
Ergo: vaxed had 15% higher mortality than unvaxed🤪
November 26, 2025 at 6:48 PM
This (PUBLISHED!) paper is gaga: Hold on tight, all from world OWID data!
- vax cannot have saved lives: excess was higher in 2021 than 2020 so 2021 excess is from vax
- 40% of the pop was vaxed so 40% of deaths was vaxed
Ergo: vaxed had 15% higher mortality than unvaxed🤪
- vax cannot have saved lives: excess was higher in 2021 than 2020 so 2021 excess is from vax
- 40% of the pop was vaxed so 40% of deaths was vaxed
Ergo: vaxed had 15% higher mortality than unvaxed🤪
UK was hammered in 2020 and yet also got the mother of all flu waves end 2022 ;-)
On death displacement, Belgium actually shows that covid was not about "people going to die in 6 months anyway" but killed across the board
It saw a huge wave in Spring 2020 AND a huge heat death wave 4 months later
On death displacement, Belgium actually shows that covid was not about "people going to die in 6 months anyway" but killed across the board
It saw a huge wave in Spring 2020 AND a huge heat death wave 4 months later
November 24, 2025 at 12:28 PM
UK was hammered in 2020 and yet also got the mother of all flu waves end 2022 ;-)
On death displacement, Belgium actually shows that covid was not about "people going to die in 6 months anyway" but killed across the board
It saw a huge wave in Spring 2020 AND a huge heat death wave 4 months later
On death displacement, Belgium actually shows that covid was not about "people going to die in 6 months anyway" but killed across the board
It saw a huge wave in Spring 2020 AND a huge heat death wave 4 months later
Overall, once you exclude flu, covid and heat, there is no notable excess death in Germany vs. LT trend of pre-pandemic mortality rates by age
So the whole paper is a theoretical exercise with a completely unbacked speculative hypothesis as conclusion
Yep: as bad as that
END
So the whole paper is a theoretical exercise with a completely unbacked speculative hypothesis as conclusion
Yep: as bad as that
END
November 24, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Overall, once you exclude flu, covid and heat, there is no notable excess death in Germany vs. LT trend of pre-pandemic mortality rates by age
So the whole paper is a theoretical exercise with a completely unbacked speculative hypothesis as conclusion
Yep: as bad as that
END
So the whole paper is a theoretical exercise with a completely unbacked speculative hypothesis as conclusion
Yep: as bad as that
END
Here the comparison of expected deaths from different sources
The paper (Kuhbandner et al) expected deaths are far higher than everybody else's including those of Destatis (NB: this is not the rapid "median" approach but that from its annual expectancy report)
The paper (Kuhbandner et al) expected deaths are far higher than everybody else's including those of Destatis (NB: this is not the rapid "median" approach but that from its annual expectancy report)
November 24, 2025 at 8:51 AM
Here the comparison of expected deaths from different sources
The paper (Kuhbandner et al) expected deaths are far higher than everybody else's including those of Destatis (NB: this is not the rapid "median" approach but that from its annual expectancy report)
The paper (Kuhbandner et al) expected deaths are far higher than everybody else's including those of Destatis (NB: this is not the rapid "median" approach but that from its annual expectancy report)