The data analysis shows the vaccine is, at best, neither safe nor effective. The comments confirm that we have a vaccine which needs to be stopped immediately.
You say "We now have nearly 2,000 responses to my all-cause mortality survey".
I am on your side, and I believe COVID vax is very dangerous. However, when you exaggerate (you actually have <1500 responses, not nearly 2000), you diminish your position. That hurts the team. Please be less "salesman" and more "credible scientist"
I did give an "data analysis analysis" of Joel Smalley's video on his substack.
To me the evidence is clear. Unfortunately, those who took the vaccine do not want to see this due to the implications it has for their health and their pride. The ones pushing it despite the evidence are just pure evil. One way or another, we will all pay a price. Very sad.
Survey question -- answer depends on what is meant by 'working' brain. If it means fully-functioning, fully-informed, able to ingest many sources, able to assess sources for reliability, and immune from the influences of propaganda and groupthink, then yes, of course, there is more than sufficient evidence. But there remain many very smart people with high-functioning brain who are disabled by [something].
Could turn the survey questions into a pub game among friends or even a Christmas gathering game.
"Anyone know someone who died this year or last? How old were they? Do you know if they were vaxxed?" Make sure everyone has a chance to answer. After kicking the answers around for a while, remind participants to ask their friends. Wrap-up by asking "Why isn't this being talked about?"
1. Joel's first key assumption is wrong - at least according to mainstream medical literature. There is a well documented (in the literature) effect of some vaccines offering increased protection against fatality from all causes. Therefore he cannot shift the curves in the way he is doing on the basis that this is not the case without addressing that possibility.
I am skeptical of this effect myself but it is generally accepted by scientists in this field, so you cannot simply ignore it. I think I pointed you at some papers in a comment on a previous article (not sure of the date, but some time ago).
2. Your audience is a confounding factor. I suspect that people who know people who died as a result of the vaccine are more likely to end up as readers of your substack than people who don't.
3. Sadly, even if you address my concerns above, I don't think this will have the effect you hope. The UK does collect and publish the numbers you would like to see, and there have been excellent analyses of what they show available for some time now. Professor Norman Fenton has done great work in this area (and apparently been the subject of so much personal animosity in his workplace that he has now decided to retire). You can see his interview with Thinkingslow (who has also done great work) here: https://rumble.com/v1aladz-all-cause-mortality-analysis-vaccinated-v-non-vaccinated-with-prof-fenton.html.
The Vaccine control group is a group of people who have not taken the Covid vaccine and are acting as a voluntary self monitoring control group for the Covid vaccines - since the original control group is not being monitored by pharma. Go to https://vaxcontrolgroup.com/
I wonder how their outcomes compare to the vaccinated ?
Steve, US government still mandating covid vaccines to those who are visiting the country. Considering the facts that these vaccines are not safe nor effective that's utterly unethical!
We have 100% effective statistical methods to figure out the increased mortality because of covid vaccination. The entire population has to be divided in 5 age groups in order to exclude impact of Simpson effect: 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61.80, above 80. You have to calculate mortality rate of each group following this equation for each month of the years 2021 and 2022: vaccinated/alive = dead vaccinated/total deaths. You have to compare the number of "Dead vaccinated" with statistical number of "dead vaccinated". In case statistical number is bigger than calculated one, vaccines increase death rate. See all details here: https://zenodo.org/record/7255640
No medical journal is ready to publish my article.
I'm a data scientist. Death and vax date is objective, impossible for bias, but the bias might come from memory flaws or lying. Yet, the survey has weight because of the amount of answers: it's impossible for all to be biased. It is most probable they are not. The results show a huge red light.
It's the medical authorities job to track each peak answer and analyze cause of death and causality.
One thing missing in all these debates is natural immunity: if the person had COVID and when. But considering PCR scam, it's impossible to be really sure. Authorities are saying vaccines are effective, when in fact it was natural herd immunity.
The evidence is more than conclusive: all vaccines have been weaponized. Never trust authorities.
Got to be honest that I don't buy any of these surveys. The selection and response biases are too much to be confident they mean anything. Vaccinated people on his blog could be people who are aware of harm, which is why they are there. And unvaccinated people are health-conscious enough to be on his blog.
If your leading survey question is something like "have you been vaccinated?", and results are only based on people who finished the first question, there is going to be bias there. People who "have something to say" about vaccines will be more likely to respond. If you want to do a survey right, the leading question must be totally neutral like "do you have a favorite color?". Then the following questions about vaccine harm should hit them out of nowhere. It's an easy fix. Kirsch should be fielding critique of the design of his polls BEFORE he runs them. As should everyone before they collect expensive data for any reason.
Many thanks for all you do. However, I do wish you wouldn't use "misinformation spreaders" as a term. It should be truth spreaders if anything. Just tell it as it is, make no excuses for it or chose the oppositions words. If you are uncertain about a particular matter then fine, but just say that.
Anyway, the opposition are the misinformation spreaders and we should put the boot on the other foot and put then boot in where they deserve it.
The opposition talk a lot of balls and balls are for kicking.
Have you tried reaching out to DeSantis or Dr. Lapado? They seem to have gotten the message finally. Maybe this was written prior to him announcing an investigation. The problem is with this much death and destruction we don't have time. Hundreds are dying daily. Daily! Yet, they are concerned with the rise in Covid cases. Mind-blowing.
You say "We now have nearly 2,000 responses to my all-cause mortality survey".
I am on your side, and I believe COVID vax is very dangerous. However, when you exaggerate (you actually have <1500 responses, not nearly 2000), you diminish your position. That hurts the team. Please be less "salesman" and more "credible scientist"
I did give an "data analysis analysis" of Joel Smalley's video on his substack.
Also I should like to put out that I flatly refuse to call a gender fluid person "they" because it is plural.
Ergo I shall use the term "IT" which I deem more appropriate as IT refers in the singular.
To me the evidence is clear. Unfortunately, those who took the vaccine do not want to see this due to the implications it has for their health and their pride. The ones pushing it despite the evidence are just pure evil. One way or another, we will all pay a price. Very sad.
The population as is solid - all deaths. N needs to be higher than 2000, if you want to control bias
Survey question -- answer depends on what is meant by 'working' brain. If it means fully-functioning, fully-informed, able to ingest many sources, able to assess sources for reliability, and immune from the influences of propaganda and groupthink, then yes, of course, there is more than sufficient evidence. But there remain many very smart people with high-functioning brain who are disabled by [something].
https://dailyclout.io/vermonts-cardiac-catastrophe-part-1-cardiogenic-shock/
This article mentions you, Steve.
Could turn the survey questions into a pub game among friends or even a Christmas gathering game.
"Anyone know someone who died this year or last? How old were they? Do you know if they were vaxxed?" Make sure everyone has a chance to answer. After kicking the answers around for a while, remind participants to ask their friends. Wrap-up by asking "Why isn't this being talked about?"
There are some data integrity issues. For example there are at least 50 records which have date of vaccination after date of death.
Various thoughts.
1. Joel's first key assumption is wrong - at least according to mainstream medical literature. There is a well documented (in the literature) effect of some vaccines offering increased protection against fatality from all causes. Therefore he cannot shift the curves in the way he is doing on the basis that this is not the case without addressing that possibility.
I am skeptical of this effect myself but it is generally accepted by scientists in this field, so you cannot simply ignore it. I think I pointed you at some papers in a comment on a previous article (not sure of the date, but some time ago).
2. Your audience is a confounding factor. I suspect that people who know people who died as a result of the vaccine are more likely to end up as readers of your substack than people who don't.
3. Sadly, even if you address my concerns above, I don't think this will have the effect you hope. The UK does collect and publish the numbers you would like to see, and there have been excellent analyses of what they show available for some time now. Professor Norman Fenton has done great work in this area (and apparently been the subject of so much personal animosity in his workplace that he has now decided to retire). You can see his interview with Thinkingslow (who has also done great work) here: https://rumble.com/v1aladz-all-cause-mortality-analysis-vaccinated-v-non-vaccinated-with-prof-fenton.html.
The Vaccine control group is a group of people who have not taken the Covid vaccine and are acting as a voluntary self monitoring control group for the Covid vaccines - since the original control group is not being monitored by pharma. Go to https://vaxcontrolgroup.com/
I wonder how their outcomes compare to the vaccinated ?
Steve, US government still mandating covid vaccines to those who are visiting the country. Considering the facts that these vaccines are not safe nor effective that's utterly unethical!
We have 100% effective statistical methods to figure out the increased mortality because of covid vaccination. The entire population has to be divided in 5 age groups in order to exclude impact of Simpson effect: 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61.80, above 80. You have to calculate mortality rate of each group following this equation for each month of the years 2021 and 2022: vaccinated/alive = dead vaccinated/total deaths. You have to compare the number of "Dead vaccinated" with statistical number of "dead vaccinated". In case statistical number is bigger than calculated one, vaccines increase death rate. See all details here: https://zenodo.org/record/7255640
No medical journal is ready to publish my article.
I'm a data scientist. Death and vax date is objective, impossible for bias, but the bias might come from memory flaws or lying. Yet, the survey has weight because of the amount of answers: it's impossible for all to be biased. It is most probable they are not. The results show a huge red light.
It's the medical authorities job to track each peak answer and analyze cause of death and causality.
One thing missing in all these debates is natural immunity: if the person had COVID and when. But considering PCR scam, it's impossible to be really sure. Authorities are saying vaccines are effective, when in fact it was natural herd immunity.
The evidence is more than conclusive: all vaccines have been weaponized. Never trust authorities.
Presented by Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA tech (rwmalonemd.substack.com):
https://youtu.be/SOIs42o5AI8?t=30585
Based on 2000 papers: https://bit.ly/research2000
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
Got to be honest that I don't buy any of these surveys. The selection and response biases are too much to be confident they mean anything. Vaccinated people on his blog could be people who are aware of harm, which is why they are there. And unvaccinated people are health-conscious enough to be on his blog.
If your leading survey question is something like "have you been vaccinated?", and results are only based on people who finished the first question, there is going to be bias there. People who "have something to say" about vaccines will be more likely to respond. If you want to do a survey right, the leading question must be totally neutral like "do you have a favorite color?". Then the following questions about vaccine harm should hit them out of nowhere. It's an easy fix. Kirsch should be fielding critique of the design of his polls BEFORE he runs them. As should everyone before they collect expensive data for any reason.
Dear Steve
Many thanks for all you do. However, I do wish you wouldn't use "misinformation spreaders" as a term. It should be truth spreaders if anything. Just tell it as it is, make no excuses for it or chose the oppositions words. If you are uncertain about a particular matter then fine, but just say that.
Anyway, the opposition are the misinformation spreaders and we should put the boot on the other foot and put then boot in where they deserve it.
The opposition talk a lot of balls and balls are for kicking.
Have you tried reaching out to DeSantis or Dr. Lapado? They seem to have gotten the message finally. Maybe this was written prior to him announcing an investigation. The problem is with this much death and destruction we don't have time. Hundreds are dying daily. Daily! Yet, they are concerned with the rise in Covid cases. Mind-blowing.