Page History

https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insurance-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html

(The Center Square) – The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.”

Davison was one of several business leaders who spoke during the virtual news conference on Dec. 30 that was organized by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.

“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”

He said at the same time, the company is seeing an “uptick” in disability claims, saying at first it was short-term disability claims, and now the increase is in long-term disability claims.

“For OneAmerica, we expect the costs of this are going to be well over $100 million, and this is our smallest business. So it’s having a huge impact on that,” he said.

He said the costs will be passed on to employers purchasing group life insurance policies, who will have to pay higher premiums.

The CDC weekly death counts, which reflect the information on death certificates and so have a lag of up to eight weeks or longer, show that for the week ending Nov. 6, there were far fewer deaths from COVID-19 in Indiana compared to a year ago – 195 verses 336 – but more deaths from other causes – 1,350 versus 1,319.

These deaths were for people of all ages, however, while the information referenced by Davison was for working-age people who are employees of businesses with group life insurance policies.

At the same news conference where Davison spoke, Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients “with many different conditions,” saying “unfortunately, the average Hoosiers’ health has declined during the pandemic.”

In a follow-up call, he said he did not have a breakdown showing why so many people in the state are being hospitalized – for what conditions or ailments. But he said the extraordinarily high death rate quoted by Davison matched what hospitals in the state are seeing.

"What it confirmed for me is it bore out what we're seeing on the front end,..." he said.

The number of hospitalizations in the state is now higher than before the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced a year ago, and in fact is higher than it’s been in the past five years, Dr. Lindsay Weaver, Indiana’s chief medical officer, said at a news conference with Gov. Eric Holcomb on Wednesday.

Just 8.9% of ICU beds are available at hospitals in the state, a low for the year, and lower than at any time during the pandemic. But the majority of ICU beds are not taken up by COVID-19 patients – just 37% are, while 54% of the ICU beds are being occupied by people with other illnesses or conditions.

The state's online dashboard shows that the moving average of daily deaths from COVID-19 is less than half of what it was a year ago. At the pandemic's peak a year ago, 125 people died on one day – on Dec. 29, 2020. In the last three months, the highest number of deaths in one day was 58, on Dec. 13.

Direkt aus dem dpa-Newskanal

Stuttgart/Heidelberg (dpa/lsw) - Der Chef-Pathologe der Uni Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, drängt zu viel mehr Obduktionen von Geimpften. Neben Corona-Toten müssten auch die Leichname von Menschen, die im zeitlichen Zusammenhang mit einer Impfung sterben, häufiger untersucht werden, sagte Schirmacher der Deutschen Presse-Agentur in Stuttgart. Der Direktor des Pathologischen Instituts in Heidelberg warnt gar vor einer hohen Dunkelziffer an Impftoten und beklagt: Von den meisten Patienten, die nach und möglicherweise an einer Impfung sterben, bekämen die Pathologen gar nichts mit. Allerdings widersprechen ihm in dem Punkt andere Wissenschaftler ebenso wie die Ständige Impfkommission (Stiko) und das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut.

Seit einem Jahr werden an den Unikliniken im Südwesten Corona-Tote obduziert, um die Erkrankung besser zu verstehen. Das Land unterstützt die Covid-19-Obduktionsforschung der Universitätspathologien mit rund 1,8 Millionen Euro. Schirmacher leitet das Autopsie-Projekt. Die Erkenntnisse von bislang mehr als 200 Obduktionen hätten unter anderem zu einer besseren Behandlung und Beatmung von Covid-Erkrankten geführt, sagt er. "Die hier gewonnen Erkenntnisse helfen also dabei, Erkrankte nun besser und erfolgreicher behandeln zu können und Leben zu retten", sagt auch Wissenschaftsministerin Theresia Bauer (Grüne). Schirmacher, seit 2012 Mitglied der Nationalen Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, hofft, dass die Förderung nächstes Jahr fortgesetzt wird.

Der Mediziner will nun verstärkt seltenen, schweren Nebenwirkungen des Impfens - etwa Hirnvenenthrombosen oder Autoimmunerkrankungen - auf den Grund gehen. Das Problem aus seiner Sicht: Geimpfte sterben meist nicht unter klinischer Beobachtung. "Der leichenschauende Arzt stellt keinen Kontext mit der Impfung her und bescheinigt einen natürlichen Tod und der Patient wird beerdigt", berichtet Schirmacher. "Oder er bescheinigt eine unklare Todesart und die Staatsanwaltschaft sieht kein Fremdverschulden und gibt die Leiche zur Bestattung frei."

In Baden-Württemberg arbeiteten die Pathologen daher mit Staatsanwaltschaften, der Polizei und niedergelassenen Ärzten zusammen, berichtet Schirmacher. Mehr als 40 Menschen habe man bereits obduziert, die binnen zwei Wochen nach einer Impfung gestorben sind. Schirmacher geht davon aus, dass 30 bis 40 Prozent davon an der Impfung gestorben sind. Die Häufigkeit tödlicher Impffolgen wird aus seiner Sicht unterschätzt - eine politisch brisante Aussage in Zeiten, in denen die Impfkampagne an Fahrt verliert, die Delta-Variante sich rasant ausbreitet und Einschränkungen von Nicht-Geimpften diskutiert werden.

Schirmacher erhält denn auch deutlichen Widerspruch von anderen Wissenschaftlern. Die Aussagen, man wisse derzeit zu wenig über Nebenwirkungen und die Gefahren des Impfens würden unterschätzt, seien nicht nachvollziehbar, teilte das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut mit. Insbesondere für schwerwiegende Reaktionen, zu denen auch gehört, wenn ein Mensch nach einer Impfung stirbt, bestehe eine Meldepflicht nach Infektionsschutzgesetz. "Ich kenne keine Daten, die hier eine begründbare Aussage zulassen und gehe nicht von einer Dunkelziffer auf", sagte der Chef der Ständigen Impfkommission, Thomas Mertens.

Für die Annahme einer hohen Dunkelziffer von Impfkomplikationen oder gar Todesfällen bestehe kein Anlass, betonte auch der Immunologe Christian Bogdan von der Uniklinik Erlangen. "Auch kann von einer Vernachlässigung möglicher Gefahren von COVID-19-Impfstoffen nicht die Rede sein." Gerade die letzten Wochen und Monate hätten gezeigt, dass das Surveillance-System gut funktioniere. So sei in Deutschland sehr frühzeitig das seltene Auftreten von Hirnvenenthrombosen nach einer Impfung mit Astrazeneca (1-2 Fälle auf 100 000 Impfungen) als Komplikation erkannt worden, sagt Bogdan.

Schirmacher beharrt auf seiner Meinung. "Die Kollegen liegen da ganz sicher falsch, weil sie diese spezifische Frage nicht kompetent beurteilen können", reagierte er. Er wolle keine Panik verbreiten und sei keinesfalls ein Impfgegner, sagt der Professor, der sich selbst nach eigenen Angaben gegen Corona impfen ließ. Die Impfung sei ein wesentlicher Bestandteil im Kampf gegen das Virus, stellt er klar. Aber man müsse die medizinischen Gründe für eine Impfung individuell abwägen. Aus seiner Sicht wird die "individuelle Schutzüberlegung" überlagert vom Gedanken der schnellen Durchimpfung der Gesellschaft.

Auch der Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen dringt auf mehr Obduktionen von Geimpften. Nur so könnten Zusammenhänge zwischen Todesfällen und Impfungen ausgeschlossen oder nachgewiesen werden, sagt Johannes Friemann, der Leiter der Arbeitsgruppe Obduktion in dem Verband. Allerdings wird aus seiner Sicht noch zu wenig obduziert, um von einer Dunkelziffer zu sprechen. "Man weiß noch gar nichts." Hausärzte und Gesundheitsämter müssten sensibilisiert werden. Die Länder müssten die Gesundheitsämter anweisen, vor Ort Obduktionen anzuordnen. Das hatte der Pathologen-Bundesverband bereits im März in einem Schreiben an Gesundheitsminister Jens Spahn (CDU) gefordert. Er blieb unbeantwortet, sagt Friemann.

© dpa-infocom, dpa:210801-99-647273/3

Directly from the dpa news channel

Stuttgart / Heidelberg (dpa / lsw) - The chief pathologist of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, is pushing for many more autopsies of vaccinated people. In addition to corona deaths, the bodies of people who die in connection with a vaccination should also be examined more frequently, said Schirmacher of the German Press Agency in Stuttgart. The director of the Pathology Institute in Heidelberg even warns of a high number of unreported vaccine deaths and complains: the pathologists would not notice anything about most patients who die after and possibly from a vaccination. However, other scientists disagree with him on this point, as do the Standing Vaccination Commission (Stiko) and the Paul Ehrlich Institute.

For a year now, corona deaths have been autopsied at the university hospitals in the southwest in order to better understand the disease. The country supports the Covid-19 autopsy research of the university pathologies with around 1.8 million euros. Schirmacher is leading the autopsy project. The findings of more than 200 autopsies so far have led, among other things, to better treatment and ventilation of Covid sufferers, he says. "The findings gained here therefore help to be able to treat patients better and more successfully and to save lives," says Science Minister Theresia Bauer (Greens). Schirmacher, who has been a member of the Leopoldina National Academy of Sciences since 2012, hopes that the funding will be continued next year.

The doctor now wants to get to the bottom of rare, serious side effects of vaccination - such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases. The problem from his point of view: vaccinated people usually do not die under clinical observation. "The morgue doctor does not establish a context with the vaccination and certifies a natural death and the patient is buried," reports Schirmacher. "Or he certifies an unclear manner of death and the prosecutor's office does not see any external fault and releases the body for burial."

In Baden-Württemberg, the pathologists therefore worked together with public prosecutors, the police and local doctors, Schirmacher reports. More than 40 people have already been autopsied, who died within two weeks after vaccination. Schirmacher assumes that 30 to 40 percent of them died from the vaccination. From his point of view, the frequency of fatal vaccination episodes is underestimated - a politically explosive statement in times when the vaccination campaign is losing momentum, the Delta variant is spreading rapidly and restrictions on non-vaccinated people are being discussed.

Schirmacher also receives a clear contradiction from other scientists. The statements that we currently know too little about side effects and the dangers of vaccination are underestimated are not comprehensible, the Paul Ehrlich Institute said. In particular, for serious reactions, including when a person dies after vaccination, there is a reporting obligation under the Infection Protection Act. "I do not know of any data that allow a substantiated statement here and I am not going from an unreported number," said the head of the Standing Vaccination Commission, Thomas Mertens.

There is no reason to assume a high unreported number of vaccination complications or even deaths, said immunologist Christian Bogdan from the University Hospital Erlangen. "There can also be no question of neglecting the possible dangers of COVID-19 vaccines." The last few weeks and months in particular have shown that the surveillance system is working well. For example, the rare occurrence of cerebral vein thrombosis after vaccination with Astrazeneca (1-2 cases per 100,000 vaccinations) was recognized as a complication in Germany at a very early stage, says Bogdan.

Schirmacher insists on his opinion. "The colleagues are certainly wrong because they cannot competently assess this specific question," he responded. He does not want to spread panic and is by no means an opponent of vaccination, says the professor, who had himself vaccinated against corona according to his own statements. Vaccination is an essential component in the fight against the virus, he clarifies. But one must individually weigh the medical reasons for vaccination. From his point of view, the "individual protection consideration" is superimposed on the idea of the rapid vaccination of society.

The Federal Association of German Pathologists is also pushing for more autopsies of vaccinated people. This is the only way to exclude or prove links between deaths and vaccinations, says Johannes Friemann, the head of the autopsy working group in the association. However, from his point of view, there is still too little autopsy to speak of an unreported number. "You don't know anything yet." Family doctors and health authorities need to be sensitized. The states would have to instruct the health authorities to order on-site autopsies. The pathologists' Association had already demanded this in March in a letter to Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU). He remained unanswered, says Friemann.

© dpa-infocom, dpa:210801-99-647273/3

First, Japan's health ministry acknowledged the growing rate of heart inflammation among the vaccinated population. Then Japan's public and private sectors were alerted to the fact and forbidden to discriminate against those who refuse the COVID vaccine. Furthermore, Japan has made it clear that "informed consent" is required to receive the vaccine. Japan now insists the vaccine labels warn of dangerous potential side effects such as myocarditis.
_____________

NHK-Japan (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) | Japan's health ministry has listed inflammation of the heart muscle and of the outer lining of the heart in younger males as possible serious side effects of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines.

It says that as of November 14, out of every one million males who had the Moderna vaccine, such side effects were reported in 81.79 males aged 10 to 19 and 48.76 males in their 20s.

The figures were 15.66 and 13.32 respectively for those who had the Pfizer vaccine.

The ministry held a panel of expert on Saturday [Dec. 4] and proposed warning of the risk by printing "serious side effects" on the documents attached to the vaccines.

It will also require hospitals to report in detail incidents involving people who developed the symptoms within 28 days after being vaccinated, according to the law.

The plan was approved by the panel, and the ministry will notify municipalities.
__________________

RairFoundation.com |  Japan announces that public and private sectors can not discriminate against those who refuse the experimental mRNA gene therapy injections.

Japan is now labeling Covid “vaccines” to warn of dangerous and potentially deadly side effects such as myocarditis. In addition, the country is reaffirming its commitment to adverse event reporting requirements to ensure all possible side effects are documented.

These efforts from Japan’s health authority are in stark contrast to the deceptive measures taken by other countries to coerce citizens into taking the injection, downplaying side effects, and discouraging proper adverse event reporting.

Additionally, Japan is emphasizing informed consent and bodily autonomy. Until the coronavirus pandemic, the concept of “informed consent” was considered sacred to healthcare professionals in the West.

Japan is particularly raising concerns about the risks of myocarditis in young men injected with Pfizer or Moderna’s gene–therapy treatment. The country is enforcing a strict legal reporting requirement of side effects that must take place within 28 days of the injections.
_______________

BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | Japan’s ministry of health is taking a sensible, ethical approach to Covid vaccines. They recently labeled the vaccines with a warning about myocarditis and other risks. They also reaffirmed their commitment to adverse event reporting to document potential side-effects.

Japan’s ministry of health states: “Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.”

Furthermore, they state: “Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent.”

Finally, they clearly state: “Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”

They also link to a “Human Rights Advice” page that includes instructions for handling any complaints if individuals face vaccine discrimination at work. 

Other nations would do well to follow Japan’s lead with this balanced and ethical approach.

This policy appropriately places the responsibility for this healthcare decision with the individual or family. 

We can contrast this with the vaccine mandate approach adopted in many other Western nations. The U.S. provides a case study in the anatomy of medical coercion exercised by a faceless bureaucratic network. 

A bureaucracy is an institution that exercises enormous power over you but with no locus of responsibility. This leads to the familiar frustration, often encountered on a small scale at the local DMV, that you can go round in bureaucratic circles trying to troubleshoot problems or rectify unfair practices. No actual person seems to be able to help you get to the bottom of things—even if a well-meaning person sincerely wants to assist you.

Here’s how this dynamic is playing out with coercive vaccine mandates in the U.S. The CDC makes vaccine recommendations. But the ethically crucial distinction between a recommendation and mandate immediately collapses when institutions (e.g., a government agency, a business, employer, university, or school) require you to be vaccinated based on the CDC recommendation.

Try to contest the rationality of these mandates, e.g., in federal court, and the mandating institution just points back to CDC recommendation as the rational basis for the mandate. The court will typically agree, deferring to the CDC’s authority on public health. The school, business, etc., thus disclaims responsibility for the decision to mandate the vaccine: “We’re just following CDC recommendations, after all. What can we do?”

But CDC likewise disclaims responsibility: “We don’t make policy; we just make recommendations, after all.”

Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturer is immune and indemnified from all liability or harm under federal law. No use going to them if their product—a product that you did not freely decide to take—harms you.

You are now dizzy from going round in circles trying to identify the actual decision-maker: it’s impossible to pinpoint the relevant authority. You know that enormous power is being exercised over your body and your health, but with no locus of responsibility for the decision and no liability for the outcomes.

You are thus left with the consequences of a decision that nobody claims to have made. The only certainty is that you did not make the decision and you were not given the choice.

Japan’s policy avoids most of these problems simply placing responsibility for the decision on the individual receiving the intervention, or the parent in the case of a child who is not old enough to consent. 

Incidentally, this focus on choice and freedom was somewhat reflected in Japan’s policies throughout the pandemic, which were less stringent that most countries, including those in the U.S. 

Japan’s government, unlike the governments in most countries in the “free” world, refuses to force and intimidate its population to get vaccinated against covid-19.

An official statement on its health ministry website reads as follows:

“Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory.

Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.

Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects.

No vaccination will be given without consent.

Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”

Japan’s approach to vaccinating its population appears to be in stark contrast to that practiced in the west.

Not only vaccine mandates are now being enforced in Europe and America, governments like that in Germany, by far the most totalitarian when it comes to dealing with Covid, is now openly inciting hatred against people who do not want to get vaccinated, and removes them from society and the public sphere.

The Japanese approach seems to be working seeing how almost 80% of its population is now fully vaccinated.

In the past Japan, unlike governments in Europe and America, also refused to impose a national lockdown on its population, resorting only to declaring a state of emegency and imposing only localized lockdowns in specific places and cities.

Japan’s approach to fighting the pandemic seems to have paid of, as it has one of the lowest death tolls from covid in the world per its population.

With the oldest population in the world, and with almost 125 million Japanese, Japan saw only around 18,000 deaths from covid in the last 2 years.

In comparison, France, which has half of the population that of Japan, had over 121,000 deaths from covid, and counting.

However you never see any mention of this on the corporate media, which praises countries like France and Germany and its leaders for the “good job” they did and how “well” they handled the pandemic.

The fact that Japan never had a national lockdown, or that it refuses to force its citizens to get vaccinated or demonise and penalise those who won’t, while doing much better than almost any other major developed country in the world, seems to fly in the face of the narrative that is being promoted and propogated by the corporate media and global institutions.

https://americanbuddhist.net/2021/12/13/france-covid-mortality-with-vs-without-hcq/

In a recent presentation, Pr. Million from IHU Marseille has presented their first numbers of Covid mortality by age group in 2021.

He has highlighted the improved 2021 mortality where patients did not get HCQ+AZ, which he attributed to the discreet introduction of Ivermectin.

Image Removed

IHU has adopted Ivermectin in 2021 but has stayed silent about it.

Possibly to avoid controversy and maintain access to the drug, and more likely because French regulators insisted that off-label use was a right but any publicity would be sanctioned.