Best estimate 2 vax deaths per 1,000 vaccinated. Deaths from vax >> deaths from COVID. Nobody is able to refute Joel's analysis showing at best the vaccine did nothing (not safe or effective).
Interestingly enough, the true death numbers for C19 as estimated here are remarkably close to the number China claims actually occurred in the US. Not sure how they came to their conclusions.
Depending on the state you live in the medical boards will terminate the licenses of doctors that cure covid patients on an outpatient basis with cheap safe generic medicines. If your doctor is not allowed to treat you- this is what could happen. Your oxygen saturation will decrease to the point that you need to go to the hospital. Once you are in the hospital you get the CDC Fauci protocol. This means remdesivir and ventilation. At that point you have a 90% chance of dying. The hospital in turn gets massive amounts of cash from the government for ventilating you. They also get a cash bonus if the death certificate says you died of covid.
The UK government has signed an agreement with Moderna to build a mRNA 'vaccine' production facility to produce 250 Million doses per year and the UK Government will buy them for the next 10 years. Canada and Australia each has signed a similar agreement for 100 Million doses annually. With a UK Population of 68 Million, Canada 40 Million and Australia 26 Million that means about 3 to 4 mRNA shots per person per year. I guess they really are planning to kill us all
Their stated goal was, and is, depopulation. Gates said it repeatedly. The jab is depopulating.
It was obvious that "covid" wasn't a "killer pandemic". It was obvious that the measures (masking, distancing, lockdowns) were silly at best, and sociopathic at worst.
The "pandemic" was the staging for the jab, which depopulates. Start reading your region's obits and see for yourself. Babies, children, teens, young adults, adults, middle-aged working people, retirees under 75. Don't even look at the over 70s.
Not everyone is as brave and dedicated as you are Steve, for the cause of freedom and individual choice. Your paragraph regarding our "right to life," is the most powerful I have yet to hear. Even IF the vaccines might be "save others," which would be so incredibly hard to prove, we are NOT required to risk our lives for others without doing so voluntary. This is why it is so very tragic the number of our military that had to walk away or are now permanently injured (or dead). They have risked their lives twice over and many lost that spin of the roulette wheel.
What is our pathway back to our Constitutional foundation?
Whatever it might be, that road is surely to be paved with bravery and cowardice, wins and losses; relief and suffering; and freedom and tyranny. My hope and prayer, along with the tasks I will undertake in this current war, is that freedom is the ultimate winner.
The whole government propaganda line is criminally moronic. The push to inject children and young adults with lethal life destroying shots for a virus that poses virtually no threat to them on the lie that it would save Granny's life is the most maliciously evil stupid ridiculous lie ever conceived. Meanwhile they made sure lifesaving drugs that could help Granny like Ivermectin were unavailable. It does not get any worse than this.
Many of us know by now that the main purpose of the Covid Hoax that our shadow government practiced for years with the support of Psychopaths like Bill Gates was to Kill, Maime, and Sterilize a good percentage of the human population to achieve their world government ambitions.
This thus is a Fight between the Globalists and We the People. Either these genocidal maniacs are stopped and brought to justice, or the world turns into a real-life version of Mad Max.
The US military members all take an oath to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic. Would the entire spike protein delivery system qualify?
This genetic MRNA drug impairs one's immune system forever and so it "will" at the very least shorten the lifespans of billions but if new data for the next 4 months of excess deaths shows a decline then I'm willing to be wrong. If however the numbers stay rising then the great kill off of 3.7 billion so is unstoppable.
You ask why isn't anyone bringing out the problems with the vaccines. Money and Power. Money from the federal government to push the multi-million doses they bought being funneled into corrupt media (that includes radio, too). (Why would I as a MM CEO turn down advertising money?) Power to control the "dirty masses" and make us slaves. That is your answer in a nutshell.
“Why won’t anyone even try to replicate my survey? Why aren’t any fact checkers calling me to validate the entries? Why won’t Pfizer or Moderna prove me wrong?”
I see what you’re doing there. ;)
I wish Steve Kirsch’s substack was required reading for all proponents of the COVID vaccines.
“There is something seriously wrong with a society who makes the risk:benefit tradeoff for you and requires you to risk your life to save others, even if there is solid evidence of that. Here, there was NEVER a clear societal mortality benefit published anywhere that I am aware of, which makes the mandates even worse. And no authority was willing to be challenged on their mandates.”
The day China announced the Wuhan ‘novel’ virus, was the day I had stress. Why? Because I knew then the goal was Fauci’s obsession with vaccine mandates. I knew this was coming and it was a threat to my bodily autonomy. Yes, there is something seriously wrong with this. And the cases that were filed against the emergency powers and that failed were just the beginning. Each one is in violation of “Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 1990” where in a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority affirming "the right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment.”
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-426 (1934)
They had no right to declare a pandemic over this. • Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
COVID was fabricated by data manipulation, media gaslighting, and the release of some pathogens in certain locations like New York City to create a fear Psyop for a specific purpose to obtain universal vaccine mandates.
Right now the unvaccinated(any vaccine) account for a paltry .26% of the U.S. population(Vaxxter ref. below). This study represents the control group they desperately need to eliminate, because if you look at the study you see the source of most chronic diseases today, including the comorbitities people died “with COVID” from and how they were caused by them!
In the section ”All cause death mortality follow up” Kirsch finally acknowledges that someone (presumably me) did actually give a scientific critique (a “peer-review”) of his and Smalley’s analysis. But he doesn’t address the specific criticisms I made of their methods *at all*, he merely says my critique “wasn’t persuasive”. Persuasive of what exactly ? Of there being flaws in their argument or of their conclusion being false ? Kirsch doesn’t specify, but note that there is a crucial difference between these two things and asking for a peer-review means asking for a scientific critique of an argument, not of a conclusion (the latter may or may not be valid independent of any particular argument for it).
So instead I watched Smalley’s follow-up video, hoping that there my criticisms would be addressed. No such luck. He begins by repeating the “normalization” of the cumulative vaccination rate curve that he made in the previous video. But he provides no further justification for this step, merely refers back to the first video. Hence, he simply does not address *at all* my primary critique, namely that this step is not satisfactorily motivated.
Most of this new video is taken up with “simulations”. This is where things start to get weird. Because all that he is doing here is illustrating a basic result in probability theory called the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem:
Obviously I don’t dispute that the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem is true – it’s a theorem ! But this has *absolutely nothing* to do with addressing the criticisms I made of their *specific* analysis of a *specific* dataset. I cannot stress this point highly enough: everything you see in this part of the video is absolutely irrelevant to a peer-review of their article.
The video finishes with an apparent acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the particular dataset which was presented in the first video. Smalley suggests rectifying this by collecting more data, preferably lots of datasets from mutually independent sources. I agree entirely, if one is interested in determining the truth or falsity of their conclusion. But hold on a minute: that wasn’t the job of a peer-reviewer, like I said above that person’s job is to evaluate the *argument* actually presented for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
Most worryingly, Smalley suggests one should “shut up” if one is unwilling to do this work of collecting more data oneself. Who is he addressing here ? If he is addressing me, or any other peer-reviewer, then this is a deeply unethical statement. It is asserting a right to ignore a peer-review of an *argument* if the peer-reviewer does not convince the author that his *conclusion* is false. Sorry, no, that is not how it works, period !
The deeper point here is that it is impossible, even in principle, to conduct scientific discussion if one does not clearly and consistently distinguish between claims and arguments for those claims. Precisely because it is concerned with the latter, the scientific method is a *systematic* way of sorting out which claims are true and which are false. So by not making the distinction clear, one is effectively negating the scientific method.
I might make another post later where I return to this crucial issue of “normalization” of the vaccination rate curve and suggest how this work of Kirsch and Smalley could be moved forward in a constructive manner.
Interestingly enough, the true death numbers for C19 as estimated here are remarkably close to the number China claims actually occurred in the US. Not sure how they came to their conclusions.
bingo.
And, understand about the sarcasm; I often run into that.
You're stuff is excellent (looking at the BigPic w/all vaccines). i've read a bunch of your posts. Keep it up? Well, you know what I mean.
Depending on the state you live in the medical boards will terminate the licenses of doctors that cure covid patients on an outpatient basis with cheap safe generic medicines. If your doctor is not allowed to treat you- this is what could happen. Your oxygen saturation will decrease to the point that you need to go to the hospital. Once you are in the hospital you get the CDC Fauci protocol. This means remdesivir and ventilation. At that point you have a 90% chance of dying. The hospital in turn gets massive amounts of cash from the government for ventilating you. They also get a cash bonus if the death certificate says you died of covid.
It's a genius if not diabolical scheme.
The UK government has signed an agreement with Moderna to build a mRNA 'vaccine' production facility to produce 250 Million doses per year and the UK Government will buy them for the next 10 years. Canada and Australia each has signed a similar agreement for 100 Million doses annually. With a UK Population of 68 Million, Canada 40 Million and Australia 26 Million that means about 3 to 4 mRNA shots per person per year. I guess they really are planning to kill us all
Clearly, stockings are not the only thing that should be "hung with care" this Christmas.
Their stated goal was, and is, depopulation. Gates said it repeatedly. The jab is depopulating.
It was obvious that "covid" wasn't a "killer pandemic". It was obvious that the measures (masking, distancing, lockdowns) were silly at best, and sociopathic at worst.
The "pandemic" was the staging for the jab, which depopulates. Start reading your region's obits and see for yourself. Babies, children, teens, young adults, adults, middle-aged working people, retirees under 75. Don't even look at the over 70s.
Not everyone is as brave and dedicated as you are Steve, for the cause of freedom and individual choice. Your paragraph regarding our "right to life," is the most powerful I have yet to hear. Even IF the vaccines might be "save others," which would be so incredibly hard to prove, we are NOT required to risk our lives for others without doing so voluntary. This is why it is so very tragic the number of our military that had to walk away or are now permanently injured (or dead). They have risked their lives twice over and many lost that spin of the roulette wheel.
What is our pathway back to our Constitutional foundation?
Whatever it might be, that road is surely to be paved with bravery and cowardice, wins and losses; relief and suffering; and freedom and tyranny. My hope and prayer, along with the tasks I will undertake in this current war, is that freedom is the ultimate winner.
The whole government propaganda line is criminally moronic. The push to inject children and young adults with lethal life destroying shots for a virus that poses virtually no threat to them on the lie that it would save Granny's life is the most maliciously evil stupid ridiculous lie ever conceived. Meanwhile they made sure lifesaving drugs that could help Granny like Ivermectin were unavailable. It does not get any worse than this.
Many of us know by now that the main purpose of the Covid Hoax that our shadow government practiced for years with the support of Psychopaths like Bill Gates was to Kill, Maime, and Sterilize a good percentage of the human population to achieve their world government ambitions.
This thus is a Fight between the Globalists and We the People. Either these genocidal maniacs are stopped and brought to justice, or the world turns into a real-life version of Mad Max.
Merry Christmas.
And still our corrupt Gov pushes this poison. Follow the $$$
The US military members all take an oath to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic. Would the entire spike protein delivery system qualify?
This genetic MRNA drug impairs one's immune system forever and so it "will" at the very least shorten the lifespans of billions but if new data for the next 4 months of excess deaths shows a decline then I'm willing to be wrong. If however the numbers stay rising then the great kill off of 3.7 billion so is unstoppable.
You ask why isn't anyone bringing out the problems with the vaccines. Money and Power. Money from the federal government to push the multi-million doses they bought being funneled into corrupt media (that includes radio, too). (Why would I as a MM CEO turn down advertising money?) Power to control the "dirty masses" and make us slaves. That is your answer in a nutshell.
Thanks Misaki. I'm totally aware they are all PARTNERS in CRIME!
We've got to keep putting these frightening facts in from of people and hope the take notice for their own wellbeing!
Cheers!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed because I joined the dots.
“Why won’t anyone even try to replicate my survey? Why aren’t any fact checkers calling me to validate the entries? Why won’t Pfizer or Moderna prove me wrong?”
I see what you’re doing there. ;)
I wish Steve Kirsch’s substack was required reading for all proponents of the COVID vaccines.
“There is something seriously wrong with a society who makes the risk:benefit tradeoff for you and requires you to risk your life to save others, even if there is solid evidence of that. Here, there was NEVER a clear societal mortality benefit published anywhere that I am aware of, which makes the mandates even worse. And no authority was willing to be challenged on their mandates.”
The day China announced the Wuhan ‘novel’ virus, was the day I had stress. Why? Because I knew then the goal was Fauci’s obsession with vaccine mandates. I knew this was coming and it was a threat to my bodily autonomy. Yes, there is something seriously wrong with this. And the cases that were filed against the emergency powers and that failed were just the beginning. Each one is in violation of “Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 1990” where in a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority affirming "the right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment.”
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-426 (1934)
They had no right to declare a pandemic over this. • Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
COVID was fabricated by data manipulation, media gaslighting, and the release of some pathogens in certain locations like New York City to create a fear Psyop for a specific purpose to obtain universal vaccine mandates.
Right now the unvaccinated(any vaccine) account for a paltry .26% of the U.S. population(Vaxxter ref. below). This study represents the control group they desperately need to eliminate, because if you look at the study you see the source of most chronic diseases today, including the comorbitities people died “with COVID” from and how they were caused by them!
https://vaxxter.com/new-survey-of-vaccine-free-group-exposes-long-term-impact-of-vaccination-policies-on-public-health-by-greg-glaser-and-pat-oconnell/
In the section ”All cause death mortality follow up” Kirsch finally acknowledges that someone (presumably me) did actually give a scientific critique (a “peer-review”) of his and Smalley’s analysis. But he doesn’t address the specific criticisms I made of their methods *at all*, he merely says my critique “wasn’t persuasive”. Persuasive of what exactly ? Of there being flaws in their argument or of their conclusion being false ? Kirsch doesn’t specify, but note that there is a crucial difference between these two things and asking for a peer-review means asking for a scientific critique of an argument, not of a conclusion (the latter may or may not be valid independent of any particular argument for it).
So instead I watched Smalley’s follow-up video, hoping that there my criticisms would be addressed. No such luck. He begins by repeating the “normalization” of the cumulative vaccination rate curve that he made in the previous video. But he provides no further justification for this step, merely refers back to the first video. Hence, he simply does not address *at all* my primary critique, namely that this step is not satisfactorily motivated.
Most of this new video is taken up with “simulations”. This is where things start to get weird. Because all that he is doing here is illustrating a basic result in probability theory called the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glivenko%E2%80%93Cantelli_theorem
Obviously I don’t dispute that the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem is true – it’s a theorem ! But this has *absolutely nothing* to do with addressing the criticisms I made of their *specific* analysis of a *specific* dataset. I cannot stress this point highly enough: everything you see in this part of the video is absolutely irrelevant to a peer-review of their article.
The video finishes with an apparent acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the particular dataset which was presented in the first video. Smalley suggests rectifying this by collecting more data, preferably lots of datasets from mutually independent sources. I agree entirely, if one is interested in determining the truth or falsity of their conclusion. But hold on a minute: that wasn’t the job of a peer-reviewer, like I said above that person’s job is to evaluate the *argument* actually presented for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
Most worryingly, Smalley suggests one should “shut up” if one is unwilling to do this work of collecting more data oneself. Who is he addressing here ? If he is addressing me, or any other peer-reviewer, then this is a deeply unethical statement. It is asserting a right to ignore a peer-review of an *argument* if the peer-reviewer does not convince the author that his *conclusion* is false. Sorry, no, that is not how it works, period !
The deeper point here is that it is impossible, even in principle, to conduct scientific discussion if one does not clearly and consistently distinguish between claims and arguments for those claims. Precisely because it is concerned with the latter, the scientific method is a *systematic* way of sorting out which claims are true and which are false. So by not making the distinction clear, one is effectively negating the scientific method.
I might make another post later where I return to this crucial issue of “normalization” of the vaccination rate curve and suggest how this work of Kirsch and Smalley could be moved forward in a constructive manner.
Surprise, surprise, surprise...Shazam!