Every piece of actual data seems to be against them, therefore they're frantically trying to bury all the data. Even so, we have awesome people like you who are willing to dig it out! Well done!!!
Yep. If I'm reading this correctly, the CDC has a budget of ~$175 million for health statistics. I mean, I would be happy to do this work of like 1/2 of that 😁.
I do stats for a living and I feel like I'm living in bizarro world. Plus, I'd do this work for $10 million less than you! (Are you listening FBI? Please pass along)
I also wrote several articles on UK and birth rates, but did not come up with your great idea to look at births by deprivation. You just about nailed the cause!
This is a GREAT FIND!!!
Unfortunately the difference between least deprived, and most deprived vax rates is not as huge, it is very significant.
Thanks Igor. Apologies, I didn’t realize you had already covered the 1st part of this post in a recent post on your stack. Hopefully the 2nd part is a nice contribution.
this is a very interesting analysis and the inflections on the birth %'s by deprivation quintiles would seem to point to this effect commencing with pregnancies that began in jan-mar 2021 which aligns with strong precision to the period in which covid vaccines were rolling out.
we're still playing a mosaic style game here, but there sure are A LOT of tiles whose color looks worrying...
with your permission, would like to include one of these charts in the sweden update for the aug data that just hit.
Permission? I have been entirely shameless on multiple occasions in professing my desire to someday achieve gatopal status.... so I don’t think I’m in a position to say no. 😉😂 Would be honored.
I might be miss something but charts 6 & 8 are double counting. If you add up the percentage you get well over 100%. Should it not add up to 100% as you move across the columns? Im not trying to being critical it just seems confusing. Also I did not read all of the post so if i missed just reply with “read entire post”. Thanks
Charts 6 & 8 are directly from UKHSA report & yes there is double-counting going on. Someone who had "two or more shots" is also someone who had "one or more" shots. In any case, I don't think those definitions are critical to this post. I am showing total births by month, and total births by deprivation level (basically the 1st data column of each table).
Thank you for a great additional piece of evidence! I respect you're wanting to be cautious in attribution to the jabs, which is appropriate in your position as legitimate analyst.
I, however, have no such position so at this point I consider the burden of proof to be on the narrative keepers, to prove to us every additional data point that points to jab toxicity isn't really jab toxicity. Because I am assuming any strange negative medical data to be jab related unless proven otherwise. There is a hell of a lot of it in 2021/22!
I arrived here from Igor's post. Thanks for this and your other insights - subscribed! Also thanks Igor for your recent post working with this idea too - looks bad for those of us in the UK!
I'm having trouble sourcing monthly births in South Africa. I see that YTD, the decline in births there seems largely in line with previous trend, but don't know if that accounts for seasonality (i.e. should the 1st half of year be expected to be higher/lower than yearly avg.)
The report on this page gives live births by month in Appendix G but only up to 2020. Looks like 2021 is due out on 31st Oct so they're way behind compared to UK:-https://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1854&PPN=P0305
How reliable is the UKHSA data though? It is totally different to the NHS data which again is unreliable. I've been trying to get hold of the actual definitive stats from the NHS but all of their data is half missing. Any ideas?
Yes, I've written multiple posts on places where the UKHSA looks to have bad or poorly defined data, etc. All I can do is try to work with what's available and point out things that look funny, etc. It's also very frustrating that they don't share the low-level raw data, only summaries with spin attached to them.
You also need to track the number of marriages. The number of marriages has been falling. Declining rates of marriage will result in declining number of births.
For the 1st part of my post, I'd be surprised if number of marriages could have that large of an effect. 1) Lots of babies happen outside of marriage 2) Babies within a marriage are not necessarily from a recent marriage, so the total number of married couples in 2022 is not not likely very different than total number of married couples in 2021, 2020, etc. even if "newly married" was lower.
Marriage could affect the 2nd part. If less deprived women are less likely to have children outside of marriage, then fewer marriages could result in a higher % of total births among the more deprived women. However, this still looks to reverse trend on previous years.
There is a lag between when a marriage occurs and when births occur. I can not find equivalent British data. Data is also available from other countries.
Since birth rates increase after marriage, I would not think it is unusual that a 25% drop in marriages would result in a 14% drop in births.
Is that 25% in 1 year? Even if so, for a 25% single year drop in marriages were the cause of 14% fewer births, that would imply that more than 1/2 of births were from children conceived in the 1st 3 months of marriage. I find that highly implausible. The total number of married couples has only decreased slightly: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183663/number-of-married-couples-in-the-us/
There could easily be a decrease of 25% in marriages from 2019 due to lockdowns which could explain the drop in birth rate to some extent.
While there is a negative association between deprivation and vaccine uptake, there is also a positive association between covid panic and deprivation. Could the latter trend explain the declining birth by least deprivation status trend ie. the pajama laptop class didn't socialize as they stayed home while essential workers still went in daily?
Drop in marriages could definitely have an effect, but I'm skeptical on how large because 1) Roughly 50% of births are outside of marriage & 2) births within marriage come from both new marriages & established marriages... the number of the latter must far exceed the former.
Definitely is possible that he more deprived people were willing to socialize more and being more sexually active, increasing their births. On the other hand, less deprived people are more likely to already be married, therefore perhaps more willing to have kids & less affected by a shutting down of outside the home social activities.
As I said above, this is far too speculative to prove anything, but I have no confidence that the powers that be are investigating this properly. Therefore, I'm trying doing my best Columbo to try to piece together any clues available to me. The importance of this particular issue can not be overstated.
It's very good work that you've done and I do like that you honed in on deprivation since there is correlation with vaccine uptake. I'm merely offering a possible alternative explanation for a link between deprivation and number of births. It would be easy to answer one way or the other if the authorities actually released the number of births by vaccination status but they haven't done so. One point in favor of your theory vs. the alternative I provided is that they haven't released this data. You would think they would if they wanted to assure everyone there's nothing worrying in this trend of birth declines.
... your analysis is wrong. Better data is required.
Births do not occur at random. When births occur is largely determined by behavior.
There has been large changes in behavior, mostly notably shown by the large decrease in the number of marriages. Also when families are under economic stress they have fewer children. Births decline during recessions. These changes in behavior are sufficient to plausibly explain the drop in births.
A proper analysis of the change in behavior could be performed, but there is likely no interest in such an analysis.
Past experience indicates there will be a baby boom when the economy improves.
You absolutely need to read (and get in touch with the authors of) the report made by the "Initiative Corona" team, led by Austrian Dr. Christian Fiala, which has found impressive correlations in most of EU-27 countries (& others) where data was available.
The German and Swiss birth rates show an impressive 10% drop just 9 months after the peak of the vaccination campaigns. This is the beginning of a depopulation scandal, here's the link:
So the well-off chattering classes who hid in their home office whilst their Waitrose deliveries were made and their handmade masks from Etsy were delivered, the ones who enjoyed believing it was a good old plague which required them to avoid all strangers, wear masks on solitary dog walks and take as many jabs as possible are now discovering they are failing to get pregnant?
Whereas the people who facilitated this comfy lifestyle by carrying on working saw that the whole thing was a scam, seeing as how they didn't drop down dead from a cold, so didn't bother taking an injection with no safety data and are now happily getting pregnant?
Or they decided to make a baby whilst in lockdown in 2020. As a group, higher economic status has long been correlated with lower birth rates, so it is crucial to use more than just last year as historical data.
So this got me interested when @Jikkyleaks highlighted this trend, so it was great to get an analysis, thanks. It prompted me to look at Australian births data but the ABS is always so out of date with their reporting. Luckily Victoria has reported its births up to November 2022. Well even allowing for a 4 month later than UK in vax delivery, there is no apparent fall in births. April through to November is higher or similar to the 2021 month. Your trend may be due to other factors or maybe more use of Astra than Australia or maybe economic stress?? dunno but if its causal with vaccination I would expect a similar relationship to be present across many countries.
What about the nations who used mRNA "vaccines" the LEAST? Should those nations show about the same amount of births before and after the bioweapon?
Yes, I don't think all the horrible effects are due to chance, or "accidental"
When something consistently points only in one direction it screams "deliberate' to me.
The "die is cast". We will have to see if there's ultimately accountability. I don't have high hopes, Fauci is still walking around free. Yes, I believe in "due process" but in any society that values truth, somebody like Fauci would be holed up in a "undisclosed location" and we would only be hearing from his lying ("our client looks forward to proving his innocence in a court of law") lawyers.
The scope of the damage from the "vaccines" ALONE hasn't even been plausibly estimated yet, MSM and government (but I repeat) has successfully distracted from all the people dropping dead, and the phrase "doctors baffled" is still being used without irony.
As long as Fauci is walking free without indictment and criminal conspiracy accusations we know their cover-up is working.
If you think I exaggerate regarding Fauci's legal "exposure" then you haven't read "the REAL Anthony Fauci" by RFK Jr. No matter which political party you belong to (or if you aren't "political" at all) you need to read it and realize the evil that Anthony Fauci is and represents, and recent news show that he hands out over 40 billion a year for "research" (scrupulously avoiding significant COVID and COVID "vaccine" research) and a significant amount is being spent on bioweapon research in many countries, this avoiding (legally or illegally?) Obama's EO or directive that gain-of-function research be "paused". Recently they unvieled a man made variant of COVID which combined the Omricon "spike" (much more contagious than original COVID) with the base of the first COVID virus to increase lethality to 80 percent case fatality rate. An that's just what is public. They are very interested in the various hemorrhagic fevers like ebola, Marlburg (sp) and the like.
What about the nations who used mRNA "vaccines" the LEAST? Should those nations show about the same amount of births before and after the bioweapon?
Yes, I don't think all the horrible effects are due to chance, or "accidental"
When something consistently points only in one direction it screams "deliberate' to me.
The "die is cast". We will have to see if there's ultimately accountability. I don't have high hopes, Fauci is still walking around free. Yes, I believe in "due process" but in any society that values truth, somebody like Fauci would be holed up in a "undisclosed location" and we would only be hearing from his lying ("our client looks forward to proving his innocence in a court of law") lawyers.
The scope of the damage from the "vaccines" ALONE hasn't even been plausibly estimated yet, MSM and government (but I repeat) has successfully distracted from all the people dropping dead, and the phrase "doctors baffled" is still being used without irony.
As long as Fauci is walking free without indictment and criminal conspiracy accusations we know their cover-up is working.
If you think I exaggerate regarding Fauci's legal "exposure" then you haven't read "the REAL Anthony Fauci" by RFK Jr. No matter which political party you belong to (or if you aren't "political" at all) you need to read it and realize the evil that Anthony Fauci is and represents, and recent news show that he hands out over 40 billion a year for "research" (scrupulously avoiding significant COVID and COVID "vaccine" research) and a significant amount is being spent on bioweapon research in many countries, this avoiding (legally or illegally?) Obama's EO or directive that gain-of-function research be "paused". Recently they unvieled a man made variant of COVID which combined the Omricon "spike" (much more contagious than original COVID) with the base of the first COVID virus to increase lethality to 80 percent case fatality rate. An that's just what is public. They are very interested in the various hemorrhagic fevers like ebola, Marlburg (sp) and the like.
Every piece of actual data seems to be against them, therefore they're frantically trying to bury all the data. Even so, we have awesome people like you who are willing to dig it out! Well done!!!
Every where I look, when it comes to Covid, "more analysis is needed". Which is sorta what you want our public health institutions to do.
I've never seen the wholesale level of reputation destruction as our PH infrastructure in the past 3 years.
Yep. If I'm reading this correctly, the CDC has a budget of ~$175 million for health statistics. I mean, I would be happy to do this work of like 1/2 of that 😁.
https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2022/FY-2022-CDC-Budget-Detail.pdf
I do stats for a living and I feel like I'm living in bizarro world. Plus, I'd do this work for $10 million less than you! (Are you listening FBI? Please pass along)
By "do stats", I mean statistical and analytical analysis. Bleagh
Hi.
I also wrote several articles on UK and birth rates, but did not come up with your great idea to look at births by deprivation. You just about nailed the cause!
This is a GREAT FIND!!!
Unfortunately the difference between least deprived, and most deprived vax rates is not as huge, it is very significant.
Thanks Igor. Apologies, I didn’t realize you had already covered the 1st part of this post in a recent post on your stack. Hopefully the 2nd part is a nice contribution.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/is-uks-depopulation-caused-by-covid
your post linked here
It is an AMAZING contribution! The more people write about UK's ongoing depopulation, the better!!! Love your post!
Thanks for this insight. Also thanks Igor for your recent post working with this idea too - looks bad for those of us in the UK!
this is a very interesting analysis and the inflections on the birth %'s by deprivation quintiles would seem to point to this effect commencing with pregnancies that began in jan-mar 2021 which aligns with strong precision to the period in which covid vaccines were rolling out.
we're still playing a mosaic style game here, but there sure are A LOT of tiles whose color looks worrying...
with your permission, would like to include one of these charts in the sweden update for the aug data that just hit.
Permission? I have been entirely shameless on multiple occasions in professing my desire to someday achieve gatopal status.... so I don’t think I’m in a position to say no. 😉😂 Would be honored.
I might be miss something but charts 6 & 8 are double counting. If you add up the percentage you get well over 100%. Should it not add up to 100% as you move across the columns? Im not trying to being critical it just seems confusing. Also I did not read all of the post so if i missed just reply with “read entire post”. Thanks
Charts 6 & 8 are directly from UKHSA report & yes there is double-counting going on. Someone who had "two or more shots" is also someone who had "one or more" shots. In any case, I don't think those definitions are critical to this post. I am showing total births by month, and total births by deprivation level (basically the 1st data column of each table).
Thank you for a great additional piece of evidence! I respect you're wanting to be cautious in attribution to the jabs, which is appropriate in your position as legitimate analyst.
I, however, have no such position so at this point I consider the burden of proof to be on the narrative keepers, to prove to us every additional data point that points to jab toxicity isn't really jab toxicity. Because I am assuming any strange negative medical data to be jab related unless proven otherwise. There is a hell of a lot of it in 2021/22!
I arrived here from Igor's post. Thanks for this and your other insights - subscribed! Also thanks Igor for your recent post working with this idea too - looks bad for those of us in the UK!
I loved Mr Coddington's post! And thanks -- we are all in this together -- and trying to stop the madness
Do the South Africans produce this kind of data? Low vaccination rate and publishes in English so perhaps worth a comparison.
I'm having trouble sourcing monthly births in South Africa. I see that YTD, the decline in births there seems largely in line with previous trend, but don't know if that accounts for seasonality (i.e. should the 1st half of year be expected to be higher/lower than yearly avg.)
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ZAF/south-africa/birth-rate
The report on this page gives live births by month in Appendix G but only up to 2020. Looks like 2021 is due out on 31st Oct so they're way behind compared to UK:-https://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1854&PPN=P0305
How reliable is the UKHSA data though? It is totally different to the NHS data which again is unreliable. I've been trying to get hold of the actual definitive stats from the NHS but all of their data is half missing. Any ideas?
Yes, I've written multiple posts on places where the UKHSA looks to have bad or poorly defined data, etc. All I can do is try to work with what's available and point out things that look funny, etc. It's also very frustrating that they don't share the low-level raw data, only summaries with spin attached to them.
You also need to track the number of marriages. The number of marriages has been falling. Declining rates of marriage will result in declining number of births.
Hmm.
For the 1st part of my post, I'd be surprised if number of marriages could have that large of an effect. 1) Lots of babies happen outside of marriage 2) Babies within a marriage are not necessarily from a recent marriage, so the total number of married couples in 2022 is not not likely very different than total number of married couples in 2021, 2020, etc. even if "newly married" was lower.
Marriage could affect the 2nd part. If less deprived women are less likely to have children outside of marriage, then fewer marriages could result in a higher % of total births among the more deprived women. However, this still looks to reverse trend on previous years.
There has been an over 25% drop in the number of marriages in the United States:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195931/number-of-marriages-in-the-united-states-since-1990
There is a lag between when a marriage occurs and when births occur. I can not find equivalent British data. Data is also available from other countries.
Since birth rates increase after marriage, I would not think it is unusual that a 25% drop in marriages would result in a 14% drop in births.
Is that 25% in 1 year? Even if so, for a 25% single year drop in marriages were the cause of 14% fewer births, that would imply that more than 1/2 of births were from children conceived in the 1st 3 months of marriage. I find that highly implausible. The total number of married couples has only decreased slightly: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183663/number-of-married-couples-in-the-us/
There could easily be a decrease of 25% in marriages from 2019 due to lockdowns which could explain the drop in birth rate to some extent.
While there is a negative association between deprivation and vaccine uptake, there is also a positive association between covid panic and deprivation. Could the latter trend explain the declining birth by least deprivation status trend ie. the pajama laptop class didn't socialize as they stayed home while essential workers still went in daily?
Drop in marriages could definitely have an effect, but I'm skeptical on how large because 1) Roughly 50% of births are outside of marriage & 2) births within marriage come from both new marriages & established marriages... the number of the latter must far exceed the former.
Definitely is possible that he more deprived people were willing to socialize more and being more sexually active, increasing their births. On the other hand, less deprived people are more likely to already be married, therefore perhaps more willing to have kids & less affected by a shutting down of outside the home social activities.
As I said above, this is far too speculative to prove anything, but I have no confidence that the powers that be are investigating this properly. Therefore, I'm trying doing my best Columbo to try to piece together any clues available to me. The importance of this particular issue can not be overstated.
It's very good work that you've done and I do like that you honed in on deprivation since there is correlation with vaccine uptake. I'm merely offering a possible alternative explanation for a link between deprivation and number of births. It would be easy to answer one way or the other if the authorities actually released the number of births by vaccination status but they haven't done so. One point in favor of your theory vs. the alternative I provided is that they haven't released this data. You would think they would if they wanted to assure everyone there's nothing worrying in this trend of birth declines.
... your analysis is wrong. Better data is required.
Births do not occur at random. When births occur is largely determined by behavior.
There has been large changes in behavior, mostly notably shown by the large decrease in the number of marriages. Also when families are under economic stress they have fewer children. Births decline during recessions. These changes in behavior are sufficient to plausibly explain the drop in births.
A proper analysis of the change in behavior could be performed, but there is likely no interest in such an analysis.
Past experience indicates there will be a baby boom when the economy improves.
I expect this is because of lockdowns. Many couples postponed their weddings in 2020/2021.
You absolutely need to read (and get in touch with the authors of) the report made by the "Initiative Corona" team, led by Austrian Dr. Christian Fiala, which has found impressive correlations in most of EU-27 countries (& others) where data was available.
The German and Swiss birth rates show an impressive 10% drop just 9 months after the peak of the vaccination campaigns. This is the beginning of a depopulation scandal, here's the link:
https://initiative-corona.info/fileadmin/dokumente/Geburtenrueckgang-Europe-EN.pdf
So the well-off chattering classes who hid in their home office whilst their Waitrose deliveries were made and their handmade masks from Etsy were delivered, the ones who enjoyed believing it was a good old plague which required them to avoid all strangers, wear masks on solitary dog walks and take as many jabs as possible are now discovering they are failing to get pregnant?
Whereas the people who facilitated this comfy lifestyle by carrying on working saw that the whole thing was a scam, seeing as how they didn't drop down dead from a cold, so didn't bother taking an injection with no safety data and are now happily getting pregnant?
Serendipity?
Karma?
What's the word I'm looking for?
Schadenfreude?
Or they decided to make a baby whilst in lockdown in 2020. As a group, higher economic status has long been correlated with lower birth rates, so it is crucial to use more than just last year as historical data.
Recessions cause lower birth rates. In the United States during the 2008 recession birth rates declined 9%.
wait a minute.
it could be that the number of women in the two groups that are least deprived has gone down significantly...
So this got me interested when @Jikkyleaks highlighted this trend, so it was great to get an analysis, thanks. It prompted me to look at Australian births data but the ABS is always so out of date with their reporting. Luckily Victoria has reported its births up to November 2022. Well even allowing for a 4 month later than UK in vax delivery, there is no apparent fall in births. April through to November is higher or similar to the 2021 month. Your trend may be due to other factors or maybe more use of Astra than Australia or maybe economic stress?? dunno but if its causal with vaccination I would expect a similar relationship to be present across many countries.
What about the nations who used mRNA "vaccines" the LEAST? Should those nations show about the same amount of births before and after the bioweapon?
Yes, I don't think all the horrible effects are due to chance, or "accidental"
When something consistently points only in one direction it screams "deliberate' to me.
The "die is cast". We will have to see if there's ultimately accountability. I don't have high hopes, Fauci is still walking around free. Yes, I believe in "due process" but in any society that values truth, somebody like Fauci would be holed up in a "undisclosed location" and we would only be hearing from his lying ("our client looks forward to proving his innocence in a court of law") lawyers.
The scope of the damage from the "vaccines" ALONE hasn't even been plausibly estimated yet, MSM and government (but I repeat) has successfully distracted from all the people dropping dead, and the phrase "doctors baffled" is still being used without irony.
As long as Fauci is walking free without indictment and criminal conspiracy accusations we know their cover-up is working.
If you think I exaggerate regarding Fauci's legal "exposure" then you haven't read "the REAL Anthony Fauci" by RFK Jr. No matter which political party you belong to (or if you aren't "political" at all) you need to read it and realize the evil that Anthony Fauci is and represents, and recent news show that he hands out over 40 billion a year for "research" (scrupulously avoiding significant COVID and COVID "vaccine" research) and a significant amount is being spent on bioweapon research in many countries, this avoiding (legally or illegally?) Obama's EO or directive that gain-of-function research be "paused". Recently they unvieled a man made variant of COVID which combined the Omricon "spike" (much more contagious than original COVID) with the base of the first COVID virus to increase lethality to 80 percent case fatality rate. An that's just what is public. They are very interested in the various hemorrhagic fevers like ebola, Marlburg (sp) and the like.
What about the nations who used mRNA "vaccines" the LEAST? Should those nations show about the same amount of births before and after the bioweapon?
Yes, I don't think all the horrible effects are due to chance, or "accidental"
When something consistently points only in one direction it screams "deliberate' to me.
The "die is cast". We will have to see if there's ultimately accountability. I don't have high hopes, Fauci is still walking around free. Yes, I believe in "due process" but in any society that values truth, somebody like Fauci would be holed up in a "undisclosed location" and we would only be hearing from his lying ("our client looks forward to proving his innocence in a court of law") lawyers.
The scope of the damage from the "vaccines" ALONE hasn't even been plausibly estimated yet, MSM and government (but I repeat) has successfully distracted from all the people dropping dead, and the phrase "doctors baffled" is still being used without irony.
As long as Fauci is walking free without indictment and criminal conspiracy accusations we know their cover-up is working.
If you think I exaggerate regarding Fauci's legal "exposure" then you haven't read "the REAL Anthony Fauci" by RFK Jr. No matter which political party you belong to (or if you aren't "political" at all) you need to read it and realize the evil that Anthony Fauci is and represents, and recent news show that he hands out over 40 billion a year for "research" (scrupulously avoiding significant COVID and COVID "vaccine" research) and a significant amount is being spent on bioweapon research in many countries, this avoiding (legally or illegally?) Obama's EO or directive that gain-of-function research be "paused". Recently they unvieled a man made variant of COVID which combined the Omricon "spike" (much more contagious than original COVID) with the base of the first COVID virus to increase lethality to 80 percent case fatality rate. An that's just what is public. They are very interested in the various hemorrhagic fevers like ebola, Marlburg (sp) and the like.