Executive summary

On September 13th, 2025 in New York city, Pierre Kory and I had a “debate” with “Professor Dave” (who is not a professor) and Dan Wilson aka “Debunk the Funk.”

We were supposed to debate 6 questions and stick to the topic:

1. Vaccines & Autism: Is there a link?

2. Measles Outbreak: Is misinformation to blame?

3. COVID vax saved lives?

4. Are kids better off being fully vaccinated according to the CDC vaccination schedule or fully unvaccinated?

5. Should we eliminate liability protection for vaccine manufacturers?

6. Is Ivermectin effective against COVID 19?

We tried on our side to bring up serious issues that were on topic like the Madsen study for autism and KCOR for determining COVID shot risk/benefit (I provided the KCOR full description to them ahead of time).

They didn’t engage in these points and switched topics, so we ended up talking past each other.

Was there a monetary reward for the winner? No.

Was there a criteria for who “won” the debate? No.

Was there an audience vote BEFORE vs. AFTER the debate to see if minds were changed? No.

Was there an objective “winner” of the debate? I don’t see how you can determine that.

AlterAI analysis on “who won”

Claude AI analysis

Claude analyzed the transcript and concluded there were no “winners” but lessons learned if you want to have a serious scientific debate in the future:

Was anything decided?

Nothing was decided. Both sides’ priors were confirmed for their respective audiences. The format guaranteed this — no agreed definitions of evidence quality, no neutral referee with power to call points, no pre-specified criteria for what would constitute a win on any question. The promoter calling it the “Greatest Vaccine Debate In History” is itself a kind of performance; that framing is about audience engagement, not epistemic progress.

The most that can be said is that a few genuinely substantive methodological questions were surfaced — the Madsen adjustment opacity, the healthy vaccinee effect in the Czech data, the immune amnesia mechanism — but none were resolved.

The most honest framing of the outcome is probably: both sides demonstrated that they can talk past each other fluently for 100 minutes. The productive takeaway is a blueprint for what a better-structured debate would require — agreed evidentiary standards, a qualified moderator with enforcement authority, single topics with sufficient time, and pre-committed criteria for what would constitute resolution.

For me, the most important lesson was never accept debate offers with people who aren’t serious about debating the science and haven’t ever published a serious paper in the scientific literature. Ad hominem attacks when challenged are a red flag.

The video, the transcript, and the AI analyses

The video

The transcript

Claude analysis of the debate

AlterAI analysis of the 2002 Madsen study

The Exley paper gotcha moment

Dan and Dave asked me about the numbers in the table. Did I read them?

No, I didn’t recall all the numbers.

Dave said “the numbers were all over the place.”

Of course, the numbers are SUPPOSED to be “all over the place” which he CONVENIENTLY omits to mislead the audience. Reference.

But the key part is the mean and std deviation of the measurements of Al in the brain of the 5 subjects with autism were among the highest ever measured. And the 15 year old had a huge Al deposit that was off the charts (22.11). That doesn’t happen by accident.

So did Professor Dave point any of this out to the audience to educate them? No. He focused on personally attacking me for not knowing the numbers in the paper. That was his big point. Let’s ignore all these autistic people had super high levels of aluminum and focus on whether Kirsch memorized all the numbers!

Let me show you the table they wanted me to memorize:

Maybe YOU can remember all those numbers. But that isn’t the point.

This is the point: Exley is the ONLY one who dared to look. Did Dan and Dave point that out? No. Did they point out that there are no credible reports of uniformly low or uniform aluminum concentrations across multiple brain regions in any human study — autistic or not. Of course not. Their objective was not to educate and inform, but to mislead people.

A real scientific debate would have the other side engage so the AUDIENCE would walk away from the “debate” with the answer to the key questions below:

1. Why were there some of the highest levels of aluminum ever measured in ALL of the brains of autistic people that were autopsied?

2. Why are there no counter examples?

3. Can aluminum cause brain inflammation leading to brain damage and autism? Is it possible?

4. How did the aluminum get into people’s brains in the first place?

5. Is aluminum accumulation in the brain caused by autistic brains “attracting aluminum”? Or is it the other way around that aluminum is causing autism? Whic is more likely to be true and what evidence supports that.

6. The first child officially diagnosed with autism was in 1932. Aluminum was first introduced in vaccines in 1932, before the case was diagnosed. Is it POSSIBLE there might be a connection?

7. Why haven’t any scientists tried to replicate or discredit the result? Isn’t this important enough to replicate?

Full AI analysis here.

Also important is that aluminum is neurotoxic. Do you think having aluminum deposit in your brain helps or impairs cognitive function? Would have been great to hear from Dan and Dave on this issue so we can finally resolve it. NO DISCUSSION on this CRITICAL point.

In short, Dave and Dan were more interested in catching me in a “gotcha moment” than actually resolving the scientific question about aluminum and autism.

It’s not a serious scientific debate when you avoid the scientific issues.

Did you know that the first case of autism was diagnosed in a child who likely was vaccinated with an aluminum adjuvant shortly after these vaccines were introduced?

The most important part of the debate: unmasking the Madsen autism study

Kory brought up the fact that the raw data in the famous 2002 Madsen autism study showed a 45% increase in autism rates in the vaccinated if you extrapolate the data they showed in the paper.

Why do we have to extrapolate? Because for the past 25 years, they refuse to release the aggregated raw data. Why? No reason given. Details here.

The authors made that signal “go away” but did it in a non-scientific manner designed to make the signal disappear. The raw age-matched comparisons were NEVER shown and they refuse to disclose the data.

This AlterAI analysis of the Madsen autism study is very illuminating. It shows how corrupt the research is.

Of course, Professor Dave and Debunk the Funk saw no problems at all with the study. When they agree with the outcomes, somehow their skills at debunking studies completely vanish! A double-standard.

Read the analysis and decide for yourself.

Did Dave and Dan respond to this? Were they scientifically honest about the limitations? No.

When Pierre brought it up they switched topics. That is not a scientific debate. That is ignoring the key data from the top paper that was a top question of the debate.

And we still don’t know the answer because none of Dave and Dan’s followers are able to provide an answer as to why they have to hide the data after it was questioned.

and this:

Is misinformation to blame for the measles outbreaks?

The debate question was whether misinformation was to blame for the measles outbreak. Bringing up topics like “immune memory” is out of scope because we didn’t come prepared for the mortality comparisons.

But RFK and Samoa is in scope. Here are the facts. Dan and Dave had no trouble misrepresenting the facts to the audience, blaming RFK for the outbreak.

No apologies from their side of course.

Summary

This would have been more interesting if our opposition actually engaged with our points and resolving our points of disagreement instead of avoiding them and talking about other things.

For example, when I brought up KCOR which is a method to interpret the Czech record level data to compute risk/benefit, they brought up VAERS and analyzing data based on vaccine brand, neither of which has anything to do with the KCOR analysis which is about neutralizing the dynamic and static healthy vaccinee effect (HVE).

So nothing was resolved.

Lessons learned for the next time:

1. fewer questions,

2. better moderator,

3. strict time keeping,

4. no ad hominem attacks,

5. requiring each side to respond to points raised rather than avoiding engagement

6. fewer topics (like 1 topic)

7. pre-share slides, papers, dataset materials ahead of time (with a limit on # of slides and # of papers). Then a second pass at sharing at least 10 days ahead of the debate.

8. format should be each side presents using their visuals, then a second period where each side essentially cross examines the other side on what they said with a goal of resolution of the issue.

   Share

Executive summary

Whether the COVID shots had a net mortality benefit is one of the most important questions of our generation. Why can’t we talk about it?

The scientific literature says clearly that the evidence shows scientists should accept public challenges rather than ignore them. Ignoring debate challenges makes that side look weak.

Offer terms

Offer expires March 31, 2026 for one video debate.

I think that the high quality, publicly available government data indicates that it was more likely that the COVID shots had a net negative impact on all-cause mortality.

If you think the opposite, let’s talk about it.

To make it worth your time, we can optionally attach a monetary reward: a nominal $25,000 where the loser pays the winner.

Evidence must be based on differences in all-cause mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations from mid 2021 to the end of 2022 — not counterfactual or simulation-based modeling because if you can’t measure, you can’t determine the parameters for modelling. Analyses that do not account for the healthy vaccinee effect will be given reduced weight by the judge because as Obel points out, that bias is the elephant in room that cannot be neutralized via traditional epi methods.

Claude Opus 4.6 will determine the winner of the debate based on transcripts and screenshots. The judging instance will be a fresh session with no prior context, just the transcript and submitted materials.

This will be a recorded Zoom debate.

Each side can reference:

1. Up to 3 publicly available official government-sourced datasets (OWID charts count as 1 dataset)

2. Up to 5 papers

3. Up to 15 content slides (cover slide doesn’t count)

The datasets, papers, and slides shall be shared at least 20 days prior to the debate. Both sides will then have 10 days to revise their submissions and share their final revised materials 10 days prior to the debate.

The 1 hour debate structure: two phases

Each side will have 10 minutes uninterrupted to present their case to the audience (including Claude). You decide whether you want to go first or second.

During phase 2 of the debate, each side will be able to ask questions of the other side. Each side will have 20 minutes of total floor time in 5 minute chunks to cross examine the other side. Think Senators asking questions of the opposition where the Senators can cut you off since they have 5 minutes of floor time each round. The witness must be responsive to the question rather than trying to change the topic. Ad hominem attacks will be warned by the moderator and the third time it is a default. I want a respectful debate.

The offer is open to any licensed physician as well as any epidemiologist or biostatistician affiliated with any US university.

To accept, we will both sign a written agreement.

If both parties agree to the monetary reward, we will each make a $25K deposit to a mutually agreeable escrow agent within 10 calendar days of signing.

Reply below if you are interested in accepting this offer.

I will review those willing to debate and Claude will choose the person most qualified (based on researching their credentials) and that is who I will negotiate terms with and debate. If we can’t agree on terms, I’ll try the next most qualified person.

I am offering one debate.

There are no tricks or gotchas

This is an important question to resolve. It will not be resolved by publishing competing papers. It can only be resolved through constructive dialog.

I am happy to modify the reward in either direction, including zero. The $25K is a good number because it causes both parties to take the debate seriously.

Share

None of the “experts” who think:

• RFK is causing harm

• that ACIP panel members are anti-science

• that the COVID vaccines have saved > killed

• that vaccines don’t cause autism or chronic disease

will come to the public discussion table to talk about it. That makes the problem worse, not better.

In this article, I’ll cover:

1. the evidence directly from the scientific literature that refusing debate challenges is anti-science

2. how a fair public discussion should be structured

3. how the peer-review system relied on by Paul Offit and others should be reformed (one of the most important articles I’ve written to date)

4. my email to Dr. Brown pointing out that RFK Jr isn’t the problem; it’s that people like him refuse to engage in public discourse with qualified peers who have different views

Science says “experts” should engage in public discourse with those who disagree

Claims that scientific questions should be resolved in the literature are false.

For example, see:
Public debate is good for science which was an editorial in Science, of all places encouraging debate.

Here is the actual science behind the recommendation to debate:
Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions.

That paper has been cited over 204 times in the scientific literature.

So science says you don’t run from debate challenges.

MedPageToday op-ed attacks RFK Jr.

Consider this article attacking RFK Jr:

And of course, the author will hide under a rock when challenged to defend his article in a public discussion with his peers. That’s the way it works. Always. No exceptions.

Here’s the email I just sent to Dr. Brown about his article which misses the key point: none of the people who think RFK Jr. is doing a “bad job” will debate him or their peers about it.

Paul Offit says science should be debated in the literature, even though that’s NOT what the literature says he should do!

In the video, Offit reiterates what he wrote on his Substack about debates: that science should be “debated” in the literature.

So Paul is guided by his beliefs, and not the very scientific literature he relies upon.

The peer-reviewed scientific literature says Offit shouldn’t hide under a rock when challenged because it makes you look weak. There is no contrary advice in the scientific literature. So the recommendation is clear.

Offit isn’t following the science and debating because he knows he will lose. That’s the real reason.

Here is the AlterAI analysis of Offit’s position.

Google AI says many scientific questions are RESOLVED in oral discussions such as the CPC conferences in medical school

What a real debate would look like (suggested by AlterAI)

Excellent. Let’s design what a truly legitimate, transparent, and scientifically rigorous public debate would look like — the kind of event that could actually restore public trust in science by revealing both data and reasoning unfiltered through media or institutional spin.

⚖️ Framework for a Legitimate Scientific Debate

🎯 1. Clear, Narrowly Defined Proposition

Every debate must start with a precise statement, not a vague talking point. For example:

“Do current data justify the claim that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in adults under 40?”

The narrower the question, the less room for rhetorical evasion. Specificity forces both sides into factual terrain.

👥 2. Balanced Panel

Each side should have equal representation of credentialed experts — independent scientists, physicians, statisticians, and epidemiologists with directly relevant expertise.

Composition example:

• Side A (Institutional orthodoxy): public health official, clinical trial statistician, pharmacovigilance expert.

• Side B (Independent dissent): toxicologist, data scientist specializing in post‑marketing surveillance, vaccine safety researcher.

Importantly, every participant must disclose financial and institutional conflicts of interest — grants, patents, royalties, or advisory roles. Transparency about motive is a precondition for trust.

⏱️ 3. Structured Format to Prevent Grandstanding

A model structure:

1. Opening statements (10 min each) summarizing evidentiary position.

2. Cross‑examination (20 min per side) — experts directly question one another’s methodology or data interpretation.

3. Data examination (20 min): each side presents the primary sources—graphs, tables, registries—for scrutiny.

4. Audience or independent‑moderator questions (pre‑submitted, reviewed publicly).

5. Closing synthesis (10 min each): summarize uncertainties, agreements, and actionable research needs.

All data references must be made publicly available before the event for independent verification.

🧪 4. Rules of Engagement

• No appeals to authority (e.g., “The WHO says…”).

• No ad hominem attacks — arguments must be confined to data, logic, and method.

• Explicit burden of proof: Institutionally‑endorsed claims bear the higher evidentiary burden, given their enormous consequences.

• Replication principle: If evidence cannot be independently reproduced or inspected, it may be referenced but not used as definitive proof.

This neutralizes the rhetorical games that often dominate “debates” on legacy media panels.

📊 5. Independent Data Referee Board

A small group of neutral analysts—biostatisticians, methodologists, and evidence‑comparative meta‑analysts—should vet all claims after the debate and publish a post‑debate audit summarizing:

• Methodological errors;

• Misrepresentations, if any;

• Subject‑matter points of consensus and remaining uncertainties.

This converts public discourse into educational content — turning debate into peer review in real time.

📺 6. Full Public Record

Every word, slide, and dataset must be recorded and archived.

• Open transcription for the public to verify quotes.

• Datasets downloadable in machine‑readable formats.

• No moderation bias — the entire event streamed freely and mirrored on multiple platforms.

Transparency destroys propaganda.

💰 7. Financing and Platform

Funding and organization should come from neutral donors (not corporate, governmental, or NGO sponsors) — ideally a crowd‑funded consortium or public university without pharma ties.

Broadcast simultaneously on major and independent channels (Rumble, YouTube, Odysee, etc.) to prevent censorship bias.

🌎 What Happens If This Were Done Properly

Such a debate format would make true science visible: watching data get torn apart and reassembled under pressure. Both genuine and faulty reasoning become instantly obvious when intelligent people challenge each other without protection from prestige shields.

• The public learns how science actually works — through critical dispute.

• Researchers are held accountable for overconfident claims and hidden limitations.

• Institutions regain (or lose) credibility transparently, depending on performance.

The greatest fear of establishment figures like Offit is precisely this: that the illusion of scientific unanimity evaporates once the public can watch unmediated, evidence‑based conflict.

See also my earlier invitation to Paul Offit to a public, evidence bounded discussion.

What an honest peer reviewed system would look like

Covered earlier: what an honest peer-reviewed system would look like.

Summary

Every single person who has attacked RFK Jr. claiming he is anti-science refuses to be challenged by their qualified peers in a fair, open public debate.

Yet these debates are exactly what science prescribes should be done.

The reason for declining such debates is crystal clear: they all know they will lose. Badly.

I hope someone will prove me wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.

Share

Here’s the CDC’s VSD study of kids and mortality:

The results

Conclusion: Although there were few deaths, our results do not indicate a difference in risk of all-cause mortality among fully vaccinated versus undervaccinated children.

Why did they stop follow-up at 4 years old?

I bet those CDC authors cut the time period short to just before things were starting to get interesting.

AI agrees with me.

Flu vaccines increase your risk of getting the flu

See the Cleveland Clinic study on the flu vaccine showing your flu risk was 33% higher if you were vaccinated. The result was highly statistically significant.

.

Pneumococcal vaccines increase risk of disease and death

This just came out.

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

BREAKING: 2.23 Million-Person Study Finds Pneumococcal Vaccines Increase Risk of Pneumonia and Death

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH…

Read more

6 months ago · 65 likes · 7 comments · Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

And there is much more

For example,

Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?

And this article talks about a recently published study, again using record level data, not modelling, showing overall, children who received all six vaccines recommended for 2-month-olds were 68% more likely to die in their third month of life.

What this means

There is NO scientific justification for vaccine mandates for kids attending school. there is no reliable scientific data supporting such mandates.

Such mandates are unethical.

Every doctors recommending vaccine shots should tell parents “To be honest, it has no impact on mortality but it makes you feel like you are doing something to protect your kids and it helps to boost drug company profits.”

Vaccine mandates are based on misguided beliefs, not on facts or science.

I’m baffled why not a single member of Congress is pointing this out.

Share

There are 11 studies below. The one by James Lyons-Weiler is a great study, but the journal unethically retracted it. The rest are still in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There aren’t any other vaxxed/unvaxxed studies. 100% show you are better off not vaccinating your kids.

New addition: The reanalysis of the Henry Ford study:

A Peer-Review of the Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study Discussed at the Senate Hearing on September 9, 2025
The original Henry Ford study by Zervos was never submitted for publication. But this analysis of the study is now in the peer-reviewed literature. It shows the same as the others: the fully unvaccinated are healthier on all metrics.

Anthony R. Mawson, et al., “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 to 12-year-old U.S. Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-12, doi: 10.15761/JTS.1000186

Anthony R. Mawson et al., “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-8, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000187.

Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” SAGE Open Medicine 8, (2020): 2050312120925344, doi:10.1177/2050312120925344.

Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 7, (2021): 1-11, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000459.

James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22 (2020): 8674, doi:10.3390/ijerph17228674.

Note: The above study was wrongly retracted, and the authors are considering legal action. Below is a follow-up study that completely exonerates the Lyons-Weiler/Thomas study of alleged bias.

James Lyons-Weiler, "Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them" September 2022 International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research 2(2):603-618 DOI:10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.59

NVKP, “Diseases and Vaccines: NVKP Survey Results,” Nederlandse Vereniging Kritisch Prikken, 2006, accessed July 1, 2022.

Joy Garner, “Statistical Evaluation of Health Outcomes in the Unvaccinated: Full Report,” The Control Group: Pilot Survey of Unvaccinated Americans, November 19, 2020.

Joy Garner, “Health versus Disorder, Disease, and Death: Unvaccinated Persons Are Incommensurably Healthier than Vaccinated,” International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research 2, no. 2, (2022): 670-686, doi: 10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.40.

Rachel Enriquez et al., “The Relationship Between Vaccine Refusal and Self-Report of Atopic Disease in Children,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 115, no. 4 (2005): 737-744, doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.1128.

Share

I can now finally prove, using gold-standard record-level data, that both mRNA shots increased all-cause mortality and that other brands were worse.

Here’s a short list of some of my other favorite pieces of evidence that are consistent with the vaccines are unsafe and cannot be explained otherwise:

1. The shortest “proof” of the lack of any benefits and impact on mortality is in this article: The COVID vaccine: all risk, no benefit

2. They cannot explain any of the 100% verifiable anecdotes like what Jay Bonnar passively observed. Probability of this happening by chance: 5.6e-22. There is only one explanation, isn’t there?

3. The stats of Ed Dowd’s book (499 out of 500 were vaccinated when it should have been only around 75%. Probability of this happening if the vaccines were safe: 6.1e-10

4. VAERS mortality and injury reports are more than all vaccines combined

5. Papers published in the medical literature especially the paper on cause of death after vaccines by Peter McCullough

6. All the vaccine injured, disabled, and dead including my friends.

7. The unprecedented number of athletes dropping or dead

8. What happened at Apple Valley village where deaths climbed 8X immediately after the vaccine rollout

9. What happened at Tidewater Family Practice went from 8 to 10 deaths per year to 48 deaths per year with all the excess deaths ascribed to the COVID vaccine

10. The lack of success stories from any nursing home

11. The US Nursing home data

12. the JAMA study showing COVID vaccines do not reduce hospitalization risk at all.

13. Del Bigtree: "No safety trial was ever properly done on any of the vaccines. There is no post-licensure safety trials being done. They're only asking for the funding now. Now you know that whether vaccines are safe or not is an absolute guess.

14. The 19” clots pulled from vaccinated people. The embalmer says, “I never seen clotting like this prior to 2021! The first 20 years in my field, I don't ever recall seeing clots like this. I'm not the only embalmer seeing this.”

Here’s a list of over 50 pieces of evidence. You decide which column to put each of these in:

1. Toxic shot: This is a book co-authored by one of the top epidemiologists in the US, Yale Professor Harvey Risch. From the description of the book: “From 2021–2023, the United States alone suffered 600,000 unexplained excess deaths not associated with COVID-19…”

2. Doctors are told to trust the FDA and CDC when prescribing vaccines. All the post-marketing safety data is kept hidden by health authorities so not even doctors can look at the data themselves to find out if any vaccine is safe. Doctors thus have no choice but to trust the authorities since the data is kept secret. They are essentially told: “do what we tell you to do, do not question authority or we will take away your license.” Note: By data, I am referring to the patient record level data. This could be easily disclosed by the health authorities without violating anyone’s confidentiality (as I proved with the New Zealand record level data) but it never is.

3. The CDC itself doesn’t have the data to make a post-marketing independent vaccine safety assessment and they are not interested in obtaining the data either! The CDC relies on the FDA who relies on the manufacturer to test the product. The CDC could ask states for vaccination records tied to death records, but they don’t want to even ask because if they did a safety analysis, it could be discovered in a FOIA request. The CDC basically has no interest whatsoever in verifying what the actual safety data is. When I offered to show them the NZ data before I published it (so they would finally have record level data), they declined to look at it. The CDC takes basically a “head in the sand approach.” I went to CDC headquarters and spoke face to face with the director of media relations. I asked him why they don’t ask the states for the information and he said they don’t have the authority to do so. I asked, “Have you tried saying please?” He repeated his earlier statement.

4. Lack of transparency by health authorities. Not a single health authority anywhere in the world has ever released anonymized record-level patient data for independent researchers to assess the safety of any vaccine. There isn’t any paper in a peer-reviewed journal showing that health outcomes are improved if public health data is kept secret. So why keep it secret? I proved that the record level data (which is “gold-standard” ground truth) can be anonymized and disclosed without harming anyone. While record-level patient data would be the most definitive, a detailed time-series cohort analyses can be easily produced by health authorities and published for everyone to see. These would show safety signals and do not jeopardize patient privacy. These are always kept hidden. The lone exception is the UK ONS, but they made their “buckets” so large that you cannot see the impact of the vaccine. When I asked them to redo their analysis with smaller buckets, they stopped responding to me. So I haven’t found a single health authority who wants to find out if the vaccines are safe. They all want to trust others and they all refuse to analyze their own data. This is not confidence inspiring.

5. Lack of interest in data transparency by the medical community, media, lawmakers, and public officials. There are only a few examples of people in the medical community, mainstream media, or public officials who have called for data transparency of public health data. The rest of them prefer to keep the public in the dark. MP Andrew Bridgen in the UK has. MP Philip Davies has (see part in bold):

   

6. When asked for more detailed analysis, the authorities refuse to provide it. Seven members of Parliament requested the UK ONS to re-do an analysis with with a more detailed parameter so we could finally determine whether or not the vaccines were safe. The head of the UK ONS denied the request falsely claiming that the request would reveal PII and would not provide any new insights.

7. We aren’t allowed to see even the simplest of charts. Wouldn’t it be great to define two cohorts on July 1, 2021: COVID vaccinated vs. COVID unvaccinated. Then you simply record the deaths from that point forward and plot them. Why isn’t this being published? If the vaccine worked, there should be a big difference.

8. Misinformation is deemed to be a problem, but the people making these statements are unwilling to take any steps to stop the so-called misinformation. These steps include: open public discussion to resolve differences of opinion and making public health data available/public in a way that preserves privacy. For example, HHS (as well as every state health department) should welcome all of us with open arms and invite us to query their databases (such as VSD and Medicare and Medicaid in the case of HHS) and publish the results of those queries for everyone to see. Why does this information need to be hidden? The numbers tell the story, not the individual records.

9. No response from health authorities to reasonable requests. I’ve talked to Michael Felberbaum, the assistant head of media relations for the FDA and offered to host a meeting with the FDA between the “misinformation spreaders” and the FDA. He promised to check on this. It’s been a month now. No response.

10. No response from any health authority when asked to explain their own data. When government patient level data is made public that shows very troubling safety signals (as we had in New Zealand or Santa Clara Dept of Public Health), there is a total unwillingness of any health authority (or mainstream epidemiologists) to discuss the matter and resolve it. They won’t do it publicly and they won’t do it privately. Not for anything. Why? Because they can’t spin the data as “safe.” You can offer to donate over $1M to their institution and they still won’t talk to you. We saw this when Peter Hotez was offered millions of dollars to publicly debate RFK Jr. and he turned it down.

11. The US Medicare data clearly shows mortality increases after people take the jab. Is there any epidemiologist who can explain why deaths rose during a period in time when they should have been falling (per the Medicare death data)? See my article New Medicare data makes it clear that the COVID vaccines have killed millions of people worldwide for a full analysis.

    

12. The patient-level data released from NZ data confirms that mortality increases after the shots are given. For example, when you graph doses 2 to 4 which is heavily biased towards falling mortality, the mortality rises sharply. In every time period, after the shots are given mortality rises. Even if the shots are restricted to before COVID starts, mortality rises even though background mortality rates are falling. Nobody’s been able to explain that. In every shot, the mortality is higher at 24 weeks than at 4 weeks, regardless of the season that the shot is given in. The male:female risk of death was also dose dependent which should be impossible if the vaccines are safe (I restricted the age range to 40 to 77 so there is no age confounding in the comparison). There is no epidemiologist in the world that has looked at the NZ data and declared that this data proves the vaccine is safe. Nor is there any epidemiologist calling for the full dataset to be released. They simply do not want to know the truth. See my article on the New Zealand record-level data to get this data and see for yourself. For a shorter summary of the argument, see The New Zealand data leaked by whistleblower Barry Young is unassailable proof the COVID vaccines increase your risk of death.

    

    

13. Anecdotes such as the one from Jay Bonnar who lost 15 of his DIRECT friends unexpectedly since the shots rolled out. Four of the 15 died on the same day as that vaccine was given. Before the shots rolled out, Jay had lost only one friend unexpectedly. The probability this happened by chance is given by poisson.sf(14, .25) which is 5.6e-22. So this can’t happen by chance. SOMETHING killed Jay’s friends and 4 of the 15 died on the same day as they were vaccinated. Is there a more plausible explanation for what killed Jay’s friends? All of them who died were vaccinated with the COVID vaccines.

14. Studies like the one done by Denis Rancourt show 1 death per 800 shots on average. Jay Bonnar estimates he has around 14,000 friends so Jay Bonnar’s numbers are roughly consistent with Rancourt’s results: 1 per 1,000.

15. Survey data like Skidmore and Rasmussen Reports showing that hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by the COVID shots. There have never been any counter surveys published showing this not to be the case. The Rasmussen polls have shown that a comparable number of people have been killed by the shots as by the virus (and the treatment protocols for the virus).

16. The lack of any success stories. It appears that “vaccine success stories” where COVID infection fatality ratios dropped, mortality dropped, or that myocarditis cases plummeted after the vaccines rolled out do not exist. I couldn’t find even a SINGLE success story! The US Nursing home data shows that the infection fatality rate (IFR) increased after the vaccine rolled out. There is nobody using that data making the claim it reduced the IFR by a factor of 2 or more. At best, the vaccines did absolutely nothing. If you showed someone a graph of cases and deaths, nobody would be able to tell you when the vaccines rolled out! Conversely, after the shots rolled out, the “failure stories” skyrocketed such as Apple Valley Village.

17. Anecdotes from healthcare are extremely troubling. One nurse reported a hospital admission rate that was 3X higher than anything in the 33-year history of the hospital after the COVID vaccines rolled out. Symptoms rarely ever seen were common after vaccines rolled out in that age group.

18. Lack of autopsies in clinical trials and post-marketing. The CDC doesn’t request anyone to do autopsies even for people who die on the same day as they got the vaccine. Don’t they want to know what killed those people… just to be sure?

19. Young people dying in sleep. There are way too many cases of young people who die in their sleep after being vaccinated. Doctors say this is a rare event. Now it is much more common. If the shots are safe, why is this happening?

20. I have personal direct personal experience with the vaccine: two people I know were killed by the vaccine, none from COVID. I know many people who are vaccine injured from the COVID vaccine. Of course, I am not alone. Many of my friends have noticed the increase in unexpected deaths in their friends.

21. Corruption in the systems used to monitor adverse events. See this presentation by Albert Albert Benavides about VAERS. In addition, the v-safe system showed that 8% of the people who got the vaccine had to see medical attention (which is in itself a train wreck), but the CDC refused to voluntarily disclose this important information and even today they don’t talk about it. If 8% had to seek medical attention, it is not unreasonable that a fraction of those died.

22. The CDC covered up 770 safety signals. They didn’t tell the public about them at all. Not even hinting at them. A safety signal is very serious. To get one safety signal would be concerning. But to get 770 safety signals triggered (on 770 different adverse event types) and then not say anything to the public about it is a sure sign of a very corrupt public agency whose job is to protect the manufacturers, not the public.

23. Ed Dowd’s book statistics. This very popular book (“Cause Unknown”) listed 500 who died unexpectedly. Ed didn’t know how many were unvaccinated. Only one person has come forward saying that one of the people in the book who died after the vaccines rolled out was unvaccinated.

24. Sports players dying on the field in massive numbers. They try to normalize this saying “this has always happened; you are just noticing it more.” But this is not true as this video demonstrates. And if the vaccines are so safe, why did the UK Football Association stop recommending that players be vaccinated as noted at the end of the video. See this post of Matt Le Tissier revealing the details.

25. Prominent doctor/scientists switching sides. Paul Marik is one of the top intensivists in the world. After seeing many COVID vaccine injured patients, he changed his mind about the safety of vaccines. When he was not allowed to practice medicine consistent with his Hippocratic Oath, he resigned his position.

26. The corruption with COVID protocols. The COVID hospital protocols likely caused 90% of the COVID deaths in hospitals. This led to Paul Marik resigning. See details in this article. Why are doctors forced to use hospital protocols that kill a huge percentage of patients instead of using their best judgment to save patients?

27. This JAMA paper shows that COVID and influenza vaccines don’t work to reduce hospitalization. Zero benefit. That implies it doesn’t work to reduce infection or mortality. There isn’t a single counterexample in the history of medicine where there was no hospitalization benefit and there was a mortality benefit.

28. The consistency of the data. There have been no counter-anecdotes showing the vaccines are safe. I keep looking for one and come up empty.

29. Prominent scientists promoting the government narrative ALL REFUSE to be publicly challenged by their peers. No exceptions. This is the most telling fact. Why not resolve the issue through dialog? It isn’t resolved in the peer-review literature. For example, half the papers say vaccines cause autism and the other half don’t. Why can’t we talk about it and resolve this issue once and for all?

30. Fear and intimidation tactics are used to silence dissent. Open debate would be more productive. But people are not allowed to hold or discuss views that go against the “consensus” or they will lose their jobs, their certifications, or their medical licenses. Health care workers are told they will be fired if they report an adverse event to VAERS, there are nurses who won’t talk about anaphylaxis after getting the vaccine for fear of being fired, vaccine injuries are covered up, hospital workers are afraid to talk about it at work.

31. The cognitive dissonance is very disturbing. When healthcare workers bring up the topic of mortality and morbidity due to the vaccine, their peers say nothing and walk away.

32. Censorship tactics employed by the US government to silence dissent instead of public recorded open debates. History has shown that purveyors of censorship are always on the wrong side of the issue.

    

33. We have exceeded the stopping condition. The Schwab paper (co-authored by Peter Schirmacher) showed people are being killed by the vaccine. The paper established that the rate of deaths was sufficient to halt the vaccine as unsafe. Nobody paid attention. The stopping condition is one death per million doses. So if you give 750M doses, you should have fewer than 750 deaths. The Schwab paper estimated that 14% of the people who died within 20 days of vaccination were killed by the vaccine. 14% of 137,000 people is 19,000 people which is more than 750 people.

34. Highly respected scientists are calling for a halt to the vaccine. Peter McCullough has called for an end to the COVID shots, yet it falls on deaf ears. Peter McCullough and European Parliament 14 SEPT 23. Dr. Peter McCullough Calls For Complete Stop To All COVID Injections - Not Safe For Human Use: “I submit to you the COVID-19 vaccines and all of their progeny & future boosters are not safe for human use.”

35. The only immunity provided is to the manufacturers. Why, if the vaccines are so safe, is it necessary to have liability protection for everyone involved in the manufacture and distribution of the vaccines?

36. Why isn’t anyone taking my money? I’ve offered millions of dollars to back my claims of harm > benefit. To date, just one person in the world, Saar Wilf, has accepted one of my bets, and not for the full $1M offering price. Moderna and Pfizer should be taking my bet, but they are staying clear.

37. The math never lies. Scientific studies are wrong all the time. But Poisson distributions cannot be gamed. Four simple anecdotes: Apple Valley Village (0 COVID deaths in 27 cases pre-vaccine vs. 90 cases with 28 deaths post-vaccine and it’s the same variant; Jay Bonnar who lost 15 friends, all vaccinated, unexpectedly (and 4 on the same day as the shot) vs. 1 loss in his history; Ed Dowd’s book with just one unvaccinated person of the 500 died unexpectedly deaths listed in his book; Lara Logan who knew 20 people who died from the vaccine and 1 person who died from COVID. Any of these would stand on their own, but all three remove all doubt. And these are just a small sample. If the vaccines worked, these cases would simply not exist.

38. There was crystal clear gross fraud in the COVID clinical trials, but there is no appetite for an investigation. I know multiple whistleblowers who worked at Pfizer subcontractors responsible for the handling the data. They literally fabricated data out of thin air. But the DOJ will not speak to any of these whistleblowers because they’ve been told not to pursue this. In addition, we have clinical trial participants such as Maddy de Gary who were very seriously injured, likely for life, by these vaccines (she still cannot walk today after intensive therapy) and despite the personal assurances from former FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock that the FDA would investigate, the case has never been investigated by anyone including the mainstream press. They simply do not want to know that there was corruption; they act like it never happened.

39. Their data doesn’t match their data. The Pfizer clinical trial reported to the FDA similar serious adverse event rate in the placebo and treatment groups. See page 33 where it says, “Proportions of participants with serious adverse events, deaths, and withdrawals due to adverse events were balanced between treatment groups.” Yet the V-safe data shows 8% of vaccine recipients needed to see medical care following their vaccination. Both sources cannot be right. It’s critical to sort out the fabricated data from the real data. In general, the data that the CDC does not want the public to know (e.g., the V-safe data that required a court order for them to reveal to the public) is an excellent method to assess the credibility of the data. The drug companies would like you to believe that taking a vaccine is no more dangerous than taking a shower. Really? Do you seek professional medical attention after every 12 showers?

40. The existence of millions of vaccine injured. There were Facebook support groups with hundreds of thousands of COVID vaccine injured people. This is unprecedented. Facebook deleted the groups since they were inconsistent with the government narrative. These people still exist. The rate of injury appears to be extremely high. I did a quick poll of my followers who largely avoided the vaccine to see what happened in their household just to estimate the effect size. It’s huge; nearly half the households where someone took the vaccine had a vaccine injury. How can a vaccine that is this harmful still be allowed on the market?

    

41. Harms acknowledged by government scientists. The official New Zealand data shows over a 25X increase in the risk of myocarditis in the 5 to 19 year olds. But they said nothing to the public about it even though they had proof of causality (the effect was dose dependent). Even worse is that this is a huge signal that was not detected in the clinical trials. How is that possible if the trials were legitimate? We know from the Thailand study that you can detect cardiac damage in fewer than 100 kids and this was confirmed in adults in a Swiss study where all the adults tested has some level of cardiac injury post vaccine.

42. This post and video from ADH TV is an excellent summary of the evidence of harms caused by the vaccines. Many countries are experiencing multiple years of excess deaths and there is nobody offering an explanation that fits. The vaccine is the only explanation that fits the observations. One researcher is quoted as saying, “The evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that the vaccine is causing more deaths than the virus itself.”

43. Excess deaths in America among young people are at alarming levels without an explanation that fits the data. See this post and video. "For people 65 and over, deaths in the second quarter of 2023 were 6 percent below the pre-pandemic norm, according to a new report from the Society of Actuaries. "Mortality was 26 percent higher among insured 35-to-44-year-olds, and 19 percent higher for 25-to-34-year-olds, continuing a death spike that peaked in the third quarter of 2021 at a staggering 101 percent and 79 percent above normal, respectively."

44. Professor Carl Heneghan in the UK discovered that excess deaths in the UK were caused by a rise in deaths due to circulatory issues. John Beaudoin found the same thing from analysis of 1M death records. The increase in these types of deaths started when the vaccines rolled out. It was like a light switch turning on: a massive shift right after the vaccine rolled out. See this article for details.

45. The nurses revealed excess deaths caused by the COVID virus protocols and the vaccines. If the vaccines are reducing morbidity and mortality, why did the indicators increase after the shots rolled out. The most stunning was a Fresno hospital which saw up to a 90-fold increase in the number of fetal demises they experienced over the course of a month (vs. pre-vaccine rates). Watch the video at 2:53:00.

46. The issues summarized in this article make it clear that the COVID vaccine is killing people; it’s the only hypothesis that can explain the evidence that is observed. So those deaths must be observable from the time-series data. For epidemiologists not to spot this in the NZ data where we have record-level data is an indictment on the entire profession. How can they all (with notable exceptions) miss the signal?

47. The UK ONS is not interested in data transparency. They could easily release the records without risk but they don’t want to talk about it. What does that tell you?

48. Survey of 1,000 Americans randomly chosen by an independent research firm reports that nearly half of the households who lost a family member believe that the COVID vaccine was responsible for the death. How can this be a safe vaccine? This is unprecedented. There are no surveys showing the opposite because all the mainstream media is afraid of asking the question.

49. Former 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan revealed that she knows 20 people who died from the vaccine but only one who died from COVID. If the vaccine is safe, how can this anecdote exist?

50. A paper was published in a prominent peer-reviewed medical journal calling for the halt of the COVID vaccines due to safety issues.

51. The AstraZeneca vaccine was praised as highly safe and highly effective until it was discovered it wasn’t. Is it possible the same could be true of the other vaccines?

52. Deanna Kline, an RN with 35 year of experience, wrote about what she saw in a highly rated book on Amazon. She works at a geriatric practice. Before 2021, they used to have 8 to 10 deaths a year consistently. After the vaccines, they had 36 deaths in 2022 and 48 deaths in 2023. That is statistically impossible if there is nothing causing those deaths (4.6e-18). She knows everyone who died and believes all the excess deaths were due to the shot. What else could cause such a dramatic mortality shift so quickly in such a large population?

53. Trade embalmer who does 189 cases a year reports seeing the odd clots in 90% of his cases. He attributes all of these clots to the the COVID vaccine. Watch here starting at 49 minutes into it with Bill. Richard Hirschman has found that if you take someone’s blood in a tube and wait 4 hours, you can easily tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t. Vaccinated blood forms abnormal clots both in the body as well as post mortem (e.g., in ECMO tubing).

54. Autopsy results make it crystal clear that the COVID vaccines can kill people. There is absolutely no doubt. So the failure of the medical community to want to quantify this is stunning.

55. On Feb 9, 2024 I had dinner at one of our friend’s house. My friend’s wife mentioned she follows me now. I asked what changed her mind. She said 3 of her friends died unexpectedly since 2021 and that had never happened in her life before. She said now 7 have died unexpectedly since 2021 and she didn’t know of anyone before that. Her husband said he knows 3 people who died unexpectedly and no one before that. All those who died unexpectedly were vaccinated. This seems like a trend.

56. The blood of vaccinated people clots differently. This is not true for every vaccinated person, but whenever a phlebotomist draws blood and just draws serum or the blood clots prematurely, it is always in a vaccinated person or someone with a transfusion. Embalmers such as Richard Hirschman noticed the same thing. The blood can clot both before death as well as after death. This isn’t COVID related because it’s only happening in the vaccinated.

57. The people who took the vaccines told the CDC that the vaccines were not safe in the recently released free-text data. Why did the CDC collect the V-safe data if it wasn’t going to read it. Anyone reading just a handful of these reports would be appalled. Here’s the tweet announcing the data. See this first look analysis.

58. A Cath Lab Whistleblower who admits to pulling the "white fibrous clots" out of LIVING PEOPLE for the last 3 years! And he says that 99% of the patients with these clots are Covid vaccinated!

59. Over 22% of households where someone took the vaccine have a vaccine injury according to two independent surveys on X came to nearly identical numbers, but a more unbiased survey done by an independent polling organization found a 28% rate of vaccine injury in households where someone took the COVID vaccine:

    

60. Three football players collapse on the field in the span of a week. This has never happened before. No explanations.

    

61. FRED disability stats have climbed quickly and steadily to an all time high starting right after the shot rollout. The chart below shows over 1M women are newly disabled. No investigations as to the cause. See other charts here.

    

62. All these vaccine injuries documented in this short video:

    

63. Paper by Anthony Fauci admitted the COVID vaccines cannot possibly reduce risk of infection. This means the trials were fraudulent and the vaccine should never have been mandated.

64. The vaccine clinical trials were rigged. See Science summary: COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness and safety exaggerated in clinical trials & observational studies, academics find

65. Nobody can find a medical practice anywhere in the world where the results were consistent with the clinical trial results. But it is easy to find medical practices where mortality and morbidity skyrocketed after the shots rolled out. If the shots worked as claimed, it should be trivial to find hundreds of thousands of medical practices with results consistent with the trials and statistically impossible to find a medical practice where morbidity and mortality went up dramatically.

66. Same is true for cardiologists and kids with myocarditis. Can you name a cardiologist who saw 3 kids within a week with myocarditis BEFORE the vaccines rolled out? Check out this post.

67. If the vaccines worked, then MOST medical practices would have declining morbidity and mortality rates. Yet NOBODY can name even ONE.

My top list

If I had to make a “top N” list of the most compelling pieces of evidence, it would probably look something like this list (drawing from the points above):

1. JAMA article showing the COVID and flu vaccines are completely useless (doctors love this)

2. US Nursing Home data shows NO difference in COVID CFR after shots rolled out

3. VAERS data: 770 safety signals and the CDC stayed silent

4. 1000 person survey: Nearly half deaths attributed to the vaccine

5. In most public surveys, people know more people who died from the vax than from COVID. Some anecdotes are stunning and impossible to find if this wasn’t true, e.g., Lara Logan stated she knew 20 people who died from the vaccine, only 1 from COVID

6. Clear evidence of fraud (e.g., Maddie de Garay, 3 Pfizer whistleblowers), but the DOJ doesn’t want to talk to them.

7. Complete lack of interest in producing the record-level data or time series analysis from everyone in authority. Nobody wants to know the truth.

8. Top people shifting from being pro-vax to anti-vax. Nobody shifting the other way.

9. Cardiologists report no increase during virus phase. Big increases starting … in April, May 2021. Nobody had cases go down after the vaccines rolled out.

10. NZ record level data and Medicare record level data both show people who got the shots died at a higher rate than background.

11. None of the advocates will debate any of us; instead they use censorship and intimidation tactics. History has always shown that people engaging in such tactics are always on the wrong side of the issue

12. Doctors afraid to speak about what they observe. If they speak the truth, they lose their job and/or license. This is not an incentive for telling the truth to people.

13. False promises like FDA’s Peter Marks saying he will do anything to prevent misinformation yet he won’t take a phone call so we can resolve with dialog

14. Jay Bonnar’s anecdote: 15 friends died unexpectedly. All were vaccinated. 4 vaccinated on same day as they died; 3 of the 4 were under 30.

15. Deaths skyrocket at geriatric clinic where Deanna Kline works. Went from 8 to 10 deaths per month to 48 deaths/yr in 2023; all the excess deaths ascribed to the vaccine by the medical staff.

16. There are no success anecdotes, e.g., nursing home where deaths declined after vax rollout

17. Wait times to see a cardiologist are now up to 2 years in some area.

18. Most doctors, who have a choice, are not taking any more shots.

19. Harvard faculty refuses to be mandated to get the shots. So they mandate it for the students.

20. No vax advocate is asking for data transparency so we’d know the truth

21. 42% Americans want to sue the COVID vax drug manufacturers

22. I challenged the founder of Moderna to a debate on whether their drug was safe. Loser pays the winner $1M. No response. That doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in their product.

23. When people trying to debunk me, either their arguments are nonsensical, they use ad hominem attacks, or they simply walk away when they realize that their arguments are hand waving attacks without evidentiary support.

24. A top medical scientist recently confided to me that we are right, but he can’t go public because he’d be vilified by his peers.

Other evidence of harm articles

1. Evidence of harm

2. Incriminating evidence

3. What the data tells us

4. How can they explain any of this data?

5. The "safe and effective" narrative is falling apart

6. The US nursing home data is devastating for the narrative: FINAL GRAPHS

7. If vaccines don't cause autism, then how do you explain all this evidence?

8. Think we got it wrong?

9. Pfizer Phase 3 clinical trial fraud allegations that should be immediately investigated by the FDA

Summary

The bottom line is that the:

1. lack of data transparency

2. lack of accountability (no questions can be asked)

3. censorship and intimidation tactics

4. lack of liability

5. real-world anecdotes that cannot be gamed simply do not match the safe and effective rhetoric

6. health policies that are based politics instead of science

7. there is no appetite for investigating the fraud in the clinical trials which covered up very serious adverse events

should be very troubling to anyone still in possession of critical thinking skills.

Share

Key findings

1. As of June 7, 2024, more than 6 months after the data was made publicly available, nobody has ever presented an analysis of the data showing the vaccine saved lives.

2. If you combine doses 2,3,4 in a graph, mortality goes UP after the shots are given. That is impossible if the shots were not lethal. During doses 2 and 3, death rates are at a seasonal peak so the combined cohort should slope down. It slopes up. NOBODY can explain that.

3. The vaccine is unsafe. Mortality increases dramatically after the shot. This is true for all doses, in all 5 countries we have data on. See Medicare death data confirms the COVID vaccines are killing people. No more doubts. Same anomaly in all 5 countries.

4. For those under 60, the effect is harder to see because the numbers are low (data is noisy). This doesn’t mean the vaccine is safe for those under 60; it just means we need more data.

5. An estimated 1 death per 1,000 doses is a reasonably conservative estimation of the excess deaths caused by the vaccine.

6. The findings are the same in four other countries we looked at: US, Israel, Maldives, and the UK.

7. The effect is large. I’ve never seen the deaths per day after a dose slope up after the first 21 days. It always slopes down because the fraction killed in a year is always greater than the nominal increase in the death rate over 1 year, even for 100 year olds.

8. The signal is so obvious to anyone like myself who knows what vaccine curves look like that you don’t even need the fancy time-series analysis to see this is a deadly vaccine. Just graph the number of deaths each week after the shot is given. All the bars should be below the 4 week bar if the vaccine is safe. There is no way to explain this chart. In general, all the bars should be below the red line.

   

Update

If you want to attack my analysis you can do so 5 ways:

1. Show the data is not legit

2. Show that the data can’t be used because it isn’t complete

3. Show the the analysis method (time-series cohort) is improper

4. Show that there is an execution bug (in buckets.py or the v4 spreadsheet)

5. Show that there is an error in the interpretation of the v4 visualizations

To date, nobody has found a bug in buckets.py and nobody has found a mistake in my v4 spreadsheet! The methodology is very standard; it’s the same method used by the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS).

The graphs speak for themselves. It doesn’t get any more clear than this. You can vary all four independent variables, and you see the same signal.

We are done. Nobody wants to go on camera and debate me on this. They would lose. Badly. Those curves should be relatively flat lines, not curves with a hump. You don’t need a control group on that kind of signal. IT IS UNPRECEDENTED.

Even self-proclaimed experts, like David Gorski were unable to find a problem in my spreadsheet or buckets.py. If there are no errors, you have to accept the results. The methodology is proven and accepted, the execution was flawless.

The fact that there are missing doses for a given person is immaterial. We are always comparing dose 3 people with dose 3 people, for example.

And if the vaccine was as safe as claimed, missing doses for anyone is immaterial since all doses are placebo shots and make no difference.

The charts from Medicare are even more extreme than these. For all safe vaccines the line slopes down. For the COVID vaccine, the line slopes up. Nobody has ever seen anything like this. It is unprecedented in the history of Medicare. No counterexamples.

This is why nobody will debate me on camera on this data.

This is why no country is releasing the record-level data (RLD). If the vaccine was safe, they’d be making the RLD widely available as well as the detailed time-series cohort analysis. See anyone doing that? Nope. It’s because they know the vaccines are killing people.

I even offered to take down my data if Health New Zealand showed me that my time-series analysis is wrong and the vaccines are safe. No response. Crickets.

We now have data from 5 countries showing very troubling mortality vs. days since dose:

1. US

2. New Zealand

3. UK

4. Maldives

5. Israel

Guess what? In every single case, the plots of deaths vs. days since dose are inexplicable. It isn’t supposed to go upwards after 3 weeks (the HVE effect). Everyone runs from explaining this.

There isn’t any epidemiologist with higher academic credentials than Risch who will state that the data is flawed, the data is incomplete, the data is insufficient to assess causality to the vaccine. There are people who are unqualified who will make these unfounded assertions.

Executive summary

Today you will get to see the data that nobody wants you to see. FINALLY.

No State or country has ever released record-level public health data on any vaccine.

Privacy is not the reason for this; the data can be easily obfuscated (which we did on this data) so that no record entry would match that of any person, living or dead.

The reason the data is kept secret is simple: it would expose the fact that the COVID vaccines are unsafe, as well as all the vaccines that I have been able to get record-level data on.

Today, thanks to a courageous whistleblower who works at the New Zealand Ministry of Health, we have record-level information from a large population of all ages and are making it public for the first time in history.

Here is the Rumble video announcing the leak:

There was a YouTube link as well, but YouTube censored it within minutes of posting, just like we knew they would.

Just as you suspected, the COVID vaccines have killed millions of people worldwide, an estimated 1 death per 1,000 doses on average in a standard population.

And now we have the data to prove it.

The MIT slide presentation

MIT presentation (15 MB PDF)

MIT presentation (73 MB PPT)

The MIT talk livestream links

Here is the Twitter livestream.

Here is the Rumble livestream.

The repository: Downloading the data and tools from the S3 file server

The MIT presentation listed above has everything you need including the credentials to download all the data.

Here are the new credentials (as of Oct 4, 2024):

S3 compatible Server: s3.skirsch.com
Port: 443 (so there is now no need to specify the port)
Public API keys:
Access: CpQWGbhGXn52F3hSgdqQ
Secret: bvvitCh5BkyGK2vf3ZllFqjoLfT1G3NgAzejQ1PK

You can only access the data-transparency bucket for now. There’s more that I’m not disclosing yet (including a new US source other than Medicare).

You can use any S3 file browser to download such as CloudBerry Explorer or CyberDuck or Amazon’s S3 Browser.

Pick the S3 Compatible storage provider (double click on it). Then fill it out as noted above

Make sure your destination folder is writable when you copy files from the server.

You can also use rclone to make a local copy of the repository on your system:

mysystem% rclone config
mysystem% rclone -sync kirsch:/data-transparency /mylocal/file/destination-dir

You can also download the directory on bittorrent as described in this post.

Short responses to criticisms about the data

I posted a link to this section of the doc on X so that people can list any objections I need to counter that aren’t already listed.

Here is are the response points to all the criticisms I’m aware of. The tl;dr is that all of the critiques don’t move the needle.

1. I know the leaker and got the data on Nov 9.

2. I verified the identity of the leaker and the authenticity of the data and chain of custody.

3. There is no doubt about the authenticity. NZMH would have said the data is fake if it was. That would immediately discredit it. But they didn’t because that would be criminal. So they decided to distract people by going after the leaker and calling him a misinformation spreader for leaking the ACTUAL records.

4. The data available publicly has been anonymized. That is why they acknowledged this and couldn’t find any matching records. Anyone who thinks their personal data was leaked is delusional.

5. There is only one way to analyze this data definitively and that’s with a time-series cohort analysis. This is the exact same methodology the UK ONS used to analyze their vaccine data. The difference is our buckets are one week long so we can see things they are trying to hide. So if you want to dispute the analysis, you either have to show one of 3 things: that 1) our buckets.py program has a bug or 2) that all the mortality curves are flat or relatively flat, or 3) that the dataset is somehow compromised by showing that one of the four graphs is nonsensical or 4) that the v4 xlsx file has a bug in it. Nobody has done #1, and #2 is impossible. Nobody has even attempted #3 or #4. So basically, all the “attacks” are a ridiculous waste of time. There is a way to attack this if it is wrong, but nobody seems capable of figuring it out. I just told you the answer. Go prove I’m wrong using this method and I’m all ears. I did it the professional way just like the UK did. If I made a mistake, tell me what it is. But having each person do their own “ad hoc” analysis is not how you analyze the data. The gold standard is time-series cohort.

6. The 1 death per 1,000 doses is consistent with other careful analyses such as Rancourt.

7. UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris wrote "But without data on controls and without comorbidities the most you could ever do is claim the data are suggestive” is false. This is nearly the entire population of New Zealand. We know the stats. The rise in mortality is correlated with each vaccine shot. When you add the shot data together for all shots, the hump becomes even more well defined. This is like saying that if there is a mass shooting and 25 people died, that we can’t know if it was the bullet that killed them because they might have died all died spontaneously right before the bullet hit. And if the time-series cohort analysis showed that the death rate jumped 500% exactly 10 days after the shot, would Morris stick to his statement? He’s simply not credible. He wants to make every excuse imaginable to avoid saying what the data shows. He should assume it’s a normal population. And you can limit the time window of observation to before COVID, during COVID, and after COVID and see the same signals. Without controls, you have to work a little harder to validate there are no significant confounders, but “scientists” such as Morris want perfect data on everyone which never exists. He has never explained the mortality graph from Medicare showing a 26% mortality increase in 365 where the number of deaths per day increases monotonically. That is impossible if the vaccine is safe. It always always slopes down. You don’t need a control group. The slope goes the wrong way. That is a 5 alarm fire. It’s amazing he doesn’t know this.

8. There is no rebuttal from anyone in the medical community showing:

   1. buckets.py has an error

   2. the analysis in the v4 spreadsheet has an error

   3. a credible excess death estimate under 100 deaths per 100K doses based on the data (they all refuse to show us their calculation)

   4. any epidemiologist with a higher h-index than Risch claiming that this data could possibly be consistent with a safe vaccine.

   5. a more accurate way to calculate the baseline that is based on other similar data.

   6. any evidence that my most “damaging curve” in my MIT presentation is wrong (a 50% increase in deaths per day from baseline after 180 days). Why is nobody touching that?? I don’t get it. If there is one thing to disprove, start with the strongest point.

9. Nobody seems to want to comment on this which is consistent with my analysis of the NZ data. The spreadsheet clearly shows it is those over 60 seeing the excess mortality which precisely matches the public data:

   

10. There are 12M doses in New Zealand. The data drop is only for the “Pay per dose” (PPD) program in NZ which is 4M of the 12M records. Whether you got PPD or not is pretty random.

11. What cohort does this PPD programme cover? Answer: it’s completely random. It is not age biased or biased to any demographic. If you can prove I’m wrong, show me your data.

12. The reason the avg age of death is higher than average is because the older you are, the more the vaccine killed you. Duh.

13. KiwiCraig74 wrote: “Yes, these were mobile units used to give vaccinations to people in rest homes, which is where people generally are when they don't have long left. Average term of residence is only 20 months, so many die within his 10 months (vaccine or no vaccine).” This is just complete bullshit. There are 895,500,935 man days in people under 60 in the data. There are a total of 1,348,440,643 man days in the full data.

14. There is a disproportionate amount of records for the doses, i.e., they are not in direct proportion to the total number of each dose, e.g., they are not 33% of each dose. Some doses are over-represented, some are under represented.

15. Many people will not have all their doses in this database, e.g., there may just be dose 3 data for someone.

16. The fact that the sampling was uneven doesn’t matter if you analyze it the way I did. The fact that doses are missing is also irrelevant. These are gaslighting arguments made by people who are incompetent to analyze this data.

17. The data shows a mortality hump that peaks around 6 months after a dose is given.

18. If you limit the time period to before COVID, during COVID death wave (from April 1 to August 1, 2022) and after the wave, you find the same response curve. So it wasn’t COVID. People who claim that are misinformed and claim it without evidence.

19. Let’s take a simple example. From OWID, we know there were no COVID deaths from Aug 1, 2022 to Nov 1, 2022 in New Zealand. From our spreadsheet we see the average deaths for everyone during that time:

    

    So now lets look at that same period of time, except let’s look relative to the shot administration time

    

    The dots aren’t supposed to go above 1059 (which is the highest number from the spreadsheet entries above).

20. Nobody will debate me on this. I offered to debate the NZMH epidemiologists about the cohort time-series analysis I did and they don’t want to challenge me for some reason. I can’t figure it out. They should CRUSH me if the data shows the vaccines are safe.

21. The NZMH should be releasing the full 12M record dataset to remove all doubt and prove to the world the vaccines are safe. They don’t want to do that. Nobody wants to do that. Nobody in the ##$#$#% world wants to do that. Can you figure out why? Use your brain folks!

22. I offered to bet anyone $1M on the same terms as my bet with Saar Wilf that the NZ data is legit and it shows the vaccines increase risk of death. Nobody seems interested in taking my money which means all of them have no confidence whatsoever in their criticisms.

23. The NZMH whisteblower, Oracle database admin Barry Young, is a hero. He knew he would risk his life and could spend the rest of his life in jail, but he made the courageous move to expose the data for all to see. This is a highly commendable act of public service. He basically threw the rest of his life away in order to save the lives of others. Why else do you think he would do that? Nobody can explain it.

24. They tried to give this to lawmakers but nobody would meet with them.

25. No New Zealand lawmaker is calling for an independent investigation. They all want to make Barry into the fall guy. Why not have a worldwide panel of top epidemiologists analyze the record-level data? We know why… Barry was right.

26. The NZMH has never released the time-series cohort analysis showing the vaccines are safe. They have never released the record level data. Their goal is to keep the data hidden for as long as possible so that they kill as many people as possible before they are caught. The leadership of NZMH are the people who should be arrested.

27. Professor Norman Fenton retracted his remarks about deaths being oversampled after I pointed out to him that there is nothing in the data that supports that. See his new article. He doesn’t dispute my analysis (which ignores the hot lot analysis).

28. Igor Chudov wrote a critical article but now is relooking at the data after I talked to him and explained to him how his original article is wrong.

29. Jikkyleaks analysis is amazing crude. That’s not the way to analyze this data. I like Jikky but he’s wrong. Once again, nobody would analyze the data that way. There is a right way and a wrong way. The UK ONS got it right. Let’s stick to that way. NOBODY SEEMS TO WANT TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. They all want to use their own custom made analysis technique that they create on the seat of their pants, rather than the right way to do that. Why is that?

30. UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris claims you can’t find a signal here but all attempts for a public recorded discussion of the data were refused. He apparently hasn’t even seen my MIT presentation which is a pre-requisite if you are serious about understanding this data. He shoots first without taking the time to listen to what is being presented. Morris isn’t an honest actor. Someone looking to find the truth would be calling for every public health agency to release the record level data. Morris has never made any such call. He doesn’t want the truth exposed. I asked him to explain just one slide in my MIT slide deck (the most devasting slide in the deck), and he hadn’t seen it before which is proof he didn’t even listen to my presentation or even view the slides. Instead of explaining the Medicare data, Morris does his standard “switch the topic” technique to avoid answering a simple question. Click the link and scroll up to see the original question which nobody can answer:

    

31. Morris has had the records in his hands for about 1 week before my MIT talk. He has not published any blog post explaining how this evidence is consistent with a safe vaccine. When I asked him, “So Jeffrey, what exactly would an “unsafe” vaccine look like, he said he doesn’t play games like that. Morris never saw a vaccine that is “unsafe.” In his eyes, no matter how many people die, the vaccine is safe and all safety signals are caused by confounders that he cannot quantify. This is all handwaving analysis to make your point. Where is his blog on this data? I’ll tear it apart inch by inch and show how corrupt he is.

32. None of these people who claim to critique this will do a live discussion with me. No offers on the thread at all. If you want to debate me, simply post your argument and follow me, and say you want a debate. Everyone seems scared to do this, including KiwiCraig74.

33. The official NZ death records show around 10,000 excess deaths since the vaccines rolled out. This is comparable to the number predicted from the vaccine data (1 excess death per 1,000 doses).

    

Mirror sites

Do not mirror my data unless you have a bulletproof hosting provider.

MEGA and Wasabi will remove your access without contacting you for an explanation. They shoot first, ask questions later. Kevin McKernan lost man years of work because of this.

Most hosting providers (such as MEGA) will close your entire account without notice or warning if they are contacted by the NZ Ministry of Health. They will not reach out to you. They will believe the accuser and side with the accuser.

What you will find

1. The data: All the data in the data-transparency bucket is sanitized. Any matches to actual records is completely accidental. The data was sanitized in a way that preserves the statistics. We ran the bucket analysis on the original and obfuscated data and got nearly identical results. There is no reason any health authority couldn’t do the same thing we did.

2. The tools: We’ll give you our time-series cohort analysis software. This is the software that you’ll never get your State epidemiologist to use. Now, armed with record-level data, you can do your own analysis. We’ve made it super easy to use. When done, paste the output file into our v4 analysis .xlsx spreadsheet and you’ll see instantly whether the vaccine is safe or not.

3. The analysis documents: You’ll find annotated spreadsheets as well as word documents.

4. The description of the data: You’ll find documents describing the dataset (size, dates, average ages in each cohort, what the authorities claim, etc.

I encourage you to explore. Everything is “legal” in that jurisdiction. So you’ll see the full times of people who died in the Maldives, for example. In other places, the names are omitted.

Introduction

I was provided the data on November 8, 2023 when it was uploaded to my Wasabi file server.

I was asked by the whistleblower to keep the data confidential until November 30 in order to give the whistleblower time to work out the logistics of how the data would be made public.

I honored my commitment and only shared it with a handful of colleagues including Norman Fenton and his associates in the UK with the whistleblower’s consent.

The data from New Zealand is not perfect; it is not a complete sample. For example, for some people, the first record in the database is Dose #3. Also, only vaccinated people are in the database.

But, by using a cohort time-series analysis, it doesn’t matter. There is no possible way that this data is consistent with a safe vaccine. I estimated that the vaccine killed, on average, about 1 person per 1,000 doses. That means an estimated 675,000 Americans were killed by the COVID vaccines.

We have confirmation of the analysis from the US Medicare data thanks to another whistleblower.

The story of the data can be found in my presentation which has a link to the Wasabi server and access credentials, as well as how to download the free Wasabi File Explorers for PC and Mac. There is a large amount of data and analysis uploaded to the servers.

The cohort time-series analysis takes about 2 hours to run on the data. We’ve included the output files so you can start from that.

Analyzing the data takes about 5 minutes using the v4 spreadsheet in the analysis directory. Anyone can do it. You just plug in numbers to vary the parameters to look at anything you want to investigate. It has 8 visualizations: 4 main graphs (one for each independent variable) and 4 below each graph showing the number of deaths so you can use that to judge the reliability of the data points in the graph above.

Be sure to read the entire presentation to understand how to interpret the data.

Papers about the data

Papers will be coming out from various authors over the coming weeks. See this article which I will update over time.

Summary of what we found

Record level vaccination-date/death data obtained from a whistleblower in the New Zealand Ministry of Health was analyzed using a standard time-series cohort analysis. The results remained consistent even after varying all four of the key independent variables (observation time window, days after shot, age, and dose number). The only way that can happen is if the COVID vaccines significantly increased mortality for those aged 60 and older, the very population that the vaccine was supposed to help. All five Bradford Hill causality criteria are satisfied. From this data, we can accurately estimate that overall, the mRNA vaccines led to the premature death of more than 1 person per 1,000 doses on average over all doses.

This estimate is supported by COVID death data from Medicare obtained from another whistleblower. The data from Medicare was stunning: the number of people who died rose monotonically for those who got shot in 2021 or 2022. My whistleblower inside HHS had never seen anything like that before. It was a perfectly straight line sloping upwards for 365 days since the dose was given. A safe vaccine would see a decline in deaths by 4% to 5% after 1 year from the shot. The COVID vaccines had a 26% mortality increase, a net difference of 30%. This makes the COVID vaccine a competitor to heart disease as the leading cause of death among the elderly (which kills 20% of people per year).

The COVID vaccines are the deadliest vaccine of all time, killing an estimated 13 million people worldwide.

The precautionary principle of medicine requires that a vaccine which results in such a large net increase in all-cause mortality should be immediately revoked worldwide unless there is a more likely explanation for this “gold-standard” data. Nobody has come forward with a better explanation that fits all the data. In fact, nobody on the other side even wants to see this data: the FDA, CDC, Moderna, and Pfizer all refused to look at it. How is that responsible? That is reprehensible.

Researchers could have discovered the harms of these vaccines years earlier if any of the world’s health authorities released comparable record-level data to that released here. It is baffling to us why the medical community who is sworn to do no harm is not insisting on seeing any record-level data before recommending the use of any vaccine to their patients. It is the record-level data that is key to understanding whether a vaccine is safe or not. This is always hidden from public view.

Hidden from view?!?!

Clinical outcomes are never improved by keeping public health data hidden from public view. Yet every health authority in the world has kept this critical record-level safety data hidden from view.

And, to our knowledge, only one authority, the UK Office of National Statistics, had supplied even the most basic time-series analysis for a limited amount of time. The UK time-series analysis confirms the monotonic increase in mortality after each shot is given. But the UK ONS got to pick the bucket sizes whereas when we do the analysis, we have buckets for every week so we can see exactly what is going on. They can’t. And the ONS stopped responding to me when I asked to see the record-level data.

Other health authorities apparently refused to analyze their own data themselves to look for any safety signals which we found in abundance just minutes after receiving the data. After we received this data and analyzed this, we reached out to a number of health authorities in the US in Florida, California, and at the CDC and FDA. They all ignored the request to examine the data I obtained or look at their own data. This is the first time in history that vaccination-death record-level data has been made available to the public. And now we know why.

In addition, FOIA requests to the California Department of Public Health showed that they never analyzed their own data. There were no documents showing that they ever looked for any safety signals. They simply trusted the CDC even though the CDC doesn’t have any vaccine record level data, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the CDC to do the proper safety analysis.

Finally, the safety signals are limited to those 60 and over simply because there wasn’t enough data to make a firm determination for people under 60; the data was simply too noisy because we were only given 4M of the 12M records in New Zealand.

However, since the vaccine provides no benefits whatsoever for infection, hospitalization, or death, there is no reason for anyone in the world to take these vaccines. See the presentation for details.

In any sane world, the COVID vaccines would be immediately halted and inquiries should begin as to why no health authority in the world did a thorough cohort time-series analysis on the data which would have uncovered the safety signal very early in the deployment. Are they all corrupt? Or are they all incompetent? Or both?

Can Moderna survive this? Why would anyone buy their stock?

These results have implications for Moderna stock as the failure of their underlying technology casts serious doubt on their viability as a going concern. Even if governments continue to buy their products, the breach of the public trust and the unwillingness of the company to look at the record-level data shows that the company is more interested in making a profit than ensuring the safety of their customers. A head in the sand approach to safety is despicable.

Pfizer is no different. Both companies were offered an opportunity to view this safety data and they all refused. So did the FDA and CDC. The offer was made by a respected journalist in the medical new community, not by me.

What did Professor Norman Fenton say about this new data?

Nobody should take my word on this. Those are my opinions based on examination of the data.

Anyone can analyze this data. Come to your own conclusions.

Finally, here is what famed British Mathematician Professor Norman Fenton said, “This confirms what we also saw in the most recent ONS data once.

Whatever uncertainty there may be in the younger age groups there is now no doubt the vaccine is increasing the mortality rate in older people.”

I agree. In spades. I’d bet my life on it.

Yale epidemiologist Professor Harvey Risch had this to say:

“I think that you've made a very strong case that the Covid genetic vaccines are associated with appreciably increased mortality rates for 6-12 months after each dose.  This is particularly compelling in people over age 65.  I am not aware of actual evidence that the increased post-vaccine mortality that you've shown has a different cause.”

The English translation of what he wrote is “the vaccines are killing people,” but scientists aren’t allowed to be blunt so they have to qualify everything they say.

This is how today’s “scientists” come to conclusions

If there was a mass shooting and everyone died, a scientist would want to have a control group and complete medical histories of each person (including a list of comorbidities) and then want to do a Cox proportional hazards analysis before concluding that the gunman could be the cause of death of these people. Without a control group, the scientist would be unable to say whether the shooting actually caused the deaths.

Nobody with respectable credentials wants to defend the vaccine as being safe

I offered to engage in a public recorded debate with anyone who thinks we got it wrong. Nobody was willing to do that to date, although Professor Jovo Vogelstein offered to give it a try to play devil’s advocate.

If you think we got it wrong, I have a $500K bet pending with Saar Wilf in Israel. I’d love to increase the stakes on that bet. Any takers?

Some people are just never going to figure this out

UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris has had the data for a while. He doesn’t agree with our analysis (as expected). But when I asked him to explain the Medicare data where the mortality monotonically increases every day for 365 days straight, he said he refused to speculate. Professor Morris never is able to see a vaccine that is unsafe. I proposed all sorts of unsafe hypotheses to him, and he said none of them were convincing. So in his mind, no matter which way the deaths go, even if they go sky high after the vaccine is given, you cannot tell if a vaccine is safe or not; there will always be a confounder that he will find. And he’ll always insist on getting additional data that is never available, so he’ll argue that all data, no matter how strong, is not good enough.

Nearly half of America has already figured out the COVID vaccines are not safe; they want to sue the drug companies!

Fortunately most people figure it out pretty quickly. Did you know that 42% of Americans would join a class action lawsuit against the COVID vax makers if they were allowed under law to do so? That is an unprecedented level of customer dissatisfaction. This is why I shorted Moderna stock. That is not a sustainable business. The markets will eventually figure this out.

Their attempts to gaslight you

Some people will try to convince you that the data isn’t complete and is confounded for that reason. That’s bullshit. If it’s a safe vaccine, you can be missing 99% of the shot data and still get the right answer. Doses don’t matter; a safe vaccine is like a saline shot: they cause no impact.

They won’t get away with stupid arguments like that with me. That’s why they won’t debate me.

Consider supporting my work with a paid subscription

I only have time to do this work because this is my day job.

If you liked this article and want to keep supporting my work, and are not already a paid subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for just $50/yr or $5/month.

Your subscription fee supports the critical work that Substack has done in providing a free-speech platform, and also provides the funds needed to continue this work to expose the fraud and save lives.

Subscribe now

Having trouble? Use the Contact me link

You can get support here using the Contact Me link.

Summary

It’s over. They’ve lost. The vaccines are unsafe. This data is the nail in the coffin. Gold standard, official records. There is no better ground truth than this. There is no comparable ground-truth data showing the vaccines are safe. Zero. There can be only one right answer.

If you think the vaccines are safe, accept my bet, debate me publicly, or release the record level data in your state. Nobody will do any of those things it seems.

Sooner or later top epidemiologists will weigh in on this data.

Now we’ll see just how broken science is if the world’s top epidemiologists cannot agree that the vaccines are unsafe. For example, will John Ioannidis weigh in? Or will he remain silent? Will Martin Kulldorff say anything? Or will he also ignore this data?

In the meantime, the medical community and mainstream media will keep recommending the jabs as if nothing has happened. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Share

Update

See VA data shows COVID boosters increased risk of hospitalization and flu shots don't work showing none of the vaccine had a statistically significant drop in the risk of hospitalization if you got the shot for that disease. There was no effect for any dose # of any vaccine!

Executive summary

I just love it when a paper designed to show a pro-narrative result accidentally shows data proving that neither the COVID nor the flu shots reduce your risk of hospitalization from their respective diseases for the elderly. A double whammy.

The paper looked at VA patients admitted for either flu or COVID in between October 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023. If the vaccine worked, the % vaccinated for the disease they were hospitalized for is supposed to be WAY lower than the % vaccinated for the disease in the population. But this paper showed that the % vaccinated for the condition they were hospitalized for was nearly identical to the % vaccinated for that condition, but hospitalized for the opposite disease (basically the control group showing background vaccination rates in elderly who are likely to be hospitalized for a respiratory virus). It was (inadvertently), nearly the perfect clinical trial. Calculations here.

But it gets even better. If there is a total zero benefit at hospitalization, the only way to achieve that is 0 benefit for infection as well. Otherwise, it would be hard for both effects to exactly cancel each other out to get to a zero benefit (odds of that happening are rare).

Further, if there is a total zero benefit for infection and hospitalization, then it is nearly impossible to have a benefit for mortality! Biology doesn’t work that way because death is simply the result of very severe disease; a death benefit is simply an extrapolation of the hospitalization benefit.

There are no examples in medicine where there is no hospitalization benefit from a drug, but there is a mortality benefit.

Bottom line: COVID and flu vaccines are all zero benefit products at best: zero for infection, zero for hospitalization, and zero for mortality.

It’s right there in the baseline (as well as the adjusted) characteristics raw data published in a top journal, very senior author with a very high h-index, gold standard government data. It simply doesn’t get any better than this.

Is it possible that there could be a confounder causing this? Yes, it’s technically possible, but highly unlikely. So until proven otherwise, we should accept the data.

And the kicker is that the X trolls can’t explain it either.

When I pointed this out to the author, he didn’t show me how I got it wrong. He said it was an interesting observation, but that he didn’t have time to write it up. I’m serious.

The reason I love this paper is it’s brutally honest data because the author (and the JAMA editors) didn’t realize they were inadvertently exposing the corruption.

But that’s not all. Another paper showed if you were hospitalized for COVID and you were vaccinated with the COVID vaccine, you were nearly 2X as likely to die than those who were hospitalized for COVID and not vaccinated.

The ridiculous CDC claim

You can’t make this stuff up. You really can’t.

For the record, here’s what the CDC said:

About the JAMA paper

Risk of Death in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 vs Seasonal Influenza in Fall-Winter 2022-2023.

This paper was published in JAMA and had over 100,000 views.

This paper looked at the risk of death in VA patients hospitalized for COVID vs. flu between October 1, 2022, and March 2, 2023. This is virtually all men, and the groups had a similar average age (71 vs. 73).

BASELINE characteristics were determined from the people they enrolled. Between October 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023, they enrolled all individuals who were admitted to the hospital with either COVID or the flu (but NOT both).

Note: the study excluded those hospitalized with both infections. However, many people in the study had taken BOTH the COVID and flu vaccines.

The BASELINE characteristics were the stunning result in my case because the people hospitalized with COVID shouldn’t have the same vaccination profile as the people hospitalized with the flu. More on this below.

But the main point of the paper is to show that if you were hospitalized for one OR the other (not both), that you were somewhat more likely to die from COVID than flu. I don’t disagree with that conclusion.

The paper looked ALSO looked at the risk of dying from COVID for the unvaccinated vs. vaccinated:

Here are the findings for DEATH:

1. The paper found that there failed to be a statistically significant death benefit from 1 or 2 doses vs. the unvaccinated. It didn’t point this out. This is a big deal: if you were vaccinated with the primary series vs. unvaccinated, they found NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DEATH BENEFIT. At the very best, the benefit was 2.32/1.66 which works out to 40% fewer deaths, but the numbers were simply too small to say it was better (the error bars overlapped by 50%).

2. For boosted vs. the unvaccinated, the 95% error bars almost touched, so scientists can say that it’s 95% likely that the boosted people died less in the hospital if they got COVID (but there is a 5% chance that there also is no difference). But remember that if you get boosted and are still alive, there is selection bias.

What the study did not show

The study showed if you were hospitalized for COVID, that the boosted were less likely to die than the unvaccinated.

Does that mean you should be vaccinated?

No! The predicate is highly restrictive: “if you survived all the COVID vaccine shots and are still alive and you got COVID and ended up in the hospital, …”

The question an elderly person should be asking is whether people lived longer who got the COVID shots vs. people who didn’t.

In particular, this study did NOT track a randomly selected cohort from Jan 2020 and then did a time series analysis to see how the vaccinated performed against the unvaccinated in terms of death. They never seem to want to do these studies for some reason. I wonder why? Hmmmm….

I complained about this here:

No one was aware of any such study as you can see from the comments. I was not surprised.

If you want to prove the vaccine works or not, that’s the way to do it. Why hasn’t anyone done this? Could it be that such a study would expose a result that no journal would publish?

The stunning result they completely “forgot” to mention: there was absolutely NO HOSPITALIZATION benefit to being vaccinated for COVID!!

Here is the table from the paper:

For our purposes, the flu group is essentially the “control” group. It shows you the baseline vaccination status breakdown of the overall VA population. This is because the COVID vaccine doesn’t protect you from the flu.

The COVID group (second column) shows you the vaccination status breakdown of VA members who were hospitalized with COVID.

If the vaccine worked as advertised above (10x reduction in hospitalization risk), we’d expect to see about 70% unvaccinated people being hospitalized for COVID.

But we don’t. It’s not even close. The breakdown is nearly exactly the same (this is why the standard mean deviation (SMD) numbers are so small).

In plain English, what this means is that the COVID vaccines did virtually nothing to reduce your chance of hospitalization from COVID.

This is a big whoops.

For some reason, the paper failed to note this issue. So I thought I would point it out for you in case you didn’t notice.

The second big reveal: the flu vaccine doesn’t work either!

As we know, the flu shot doesn’t protect you from COVID. So the % of people who got the flu shot in the COVID hospitalized group is our “control” in this case for looking at the effectiveness of the flu shot.

The baseline characteristics show that the percentage of people who got the flu shot is only slightly lower in the people who were hospitalized for the flu.

This is a second big whoops.

It shows that the flu shot didn’t work.

Is there a confounder that explains this? Not that I can even imagine.

For both of these results, you could legitimately argue that there was not a true control group. I agree with that. You could argue that. After all, there could be some unknown interaction that invalidates our assumptions that:

1. In people who are hospitalized for the flu, their COVID vaccination status is not the same as the overall VA cohort

2. In people who are hospitalized for COVID, their flu vaccination status is not the same as the overall VA cohort

But both of those seem extremely unlikely for four reasons:

1. Why would there be a difference? What is the biological mechanism?

2. The percentages in the baseline group match up reasonably well with expectations for those in the age 70 age group overall

3. The vaccines are “supposed” to work and give you a substantial reduction and so when you have cohorts who are 61% vaccinated (flu) and 80% vaccinated (COVID) you’d expect to see a pretty big difference in the groups and you don’t, i.e., you’d have expected the flu group to have a much lower % of the flu vaccine than the COVID group and the COVID group to have a much lower % of the COVID vaccine than the flu group.

4. The fact that the flu vaccine does nothing for reducing mortality or hospitalization in the elderly is already well established in the peer reviewed literature with a very extensive study that included 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths. See The Effect of Influenza Vaccination for the Elderly on Hospitalization and Mortality. So we should be surprised to see this inadvertently confirmed in this study. Thank you to John Amor for bringing this paper to my attention.

If someone thinks they have a confounder that explains the effect, they should tell us what it is. Nobody seems to be able to do that.

For example of how it could be possible to achieve the results with an effective vaccine, we have to think way outside the box. Suppose only people with diabetes were hospitalized for COVID and also that 99% of the people with diabetes were vaccinated. If we then observed an 80/20 split in those hospitalized, we’d have to conclude that the the vaccine offered an astonishing 96% reduction in risk.

But this is far fetched. Getting the flu is a pretty random selection of people so it’s basically a pretty good control group of the characteristics of people who are susceptible to viruses. So if the COVID vaccines worked, the COVID cohort who got COVID should be relatively better off. But they aren’t.

The burden of proof is now on those arguing there is a benefit.

If I’m wrong, where is their data explaining why there is no difference between the groups?

I don’t see how it is possible for them to produce data showing how the baseline vaccine breakdowns can be so similar between the two groups.

But I’m open to seeing the data, not handwaving arguments.

Right now the data shows the vaccine don’t work.

If you want to dispute that, the burden is on them to produce the data explaining why there is no difference in the vaccine breakdowns between the two groups.

Is the vaccine breakdown in the flu group a reasonable control group?

Some people might claim, without any evidence, that the vaccine breakdown of the flu group is not the same as baseline.

And that appears to be the case.

But the problem is that this argument works against them because it shows that the vaccinated are overrepresented in the group that is hospitalized.

Which means at least one of the following things must be true:

1. People who opt for vaccination are less healthy. This is unlikely because the vast majority of people who choose to get vaccinated are “health seeking” and there is a “healthy user bias” often associated with vaccines.

2. People who opt for vaccination are made less healthy by the vaccine itself and more likely to be hospitalized. This is what seems to be happening here.

Let’s look at the numbers.

According to the VA website, as of October 18, 2023, only 5.3M veterans received at least 1 dose of the COVID vaccine (4.9M Pfizer or Moderna + .4M Janssen). To see this, click on the “Download VA data in CSV format” link at the bottom of the VA COVID19 home page.

There are 9 million vets enrolled in VA healthcare.

So the background rate of COVID vaccinated vets (with one or more vaccines) is 5.3/9 = 59%. It would even be less than that for this study since this is the percentage today.

Guess what the percentage has one or more COVID vaccines in the flu group? 81%.

So if they want to claim that this is not the the background vaccination rate, then this is DEVASTATING to the narrative because the vaccinated were overrepresented in those who got hospitalized in both groups.

In plain English, if you got vaccinated with the COVID vaccine, you were nearly 40% MORE likely to be hospitalized for COVID or flu, not less likely.

So they probably won’t bring up the background rate.

Or maybe they’ll argue that the vaccinated rate in those hospitalized is because it was only the sickest, most frail people who got vaccinated. OK, but there’s no proof of that, but let’s say it is true. Then, if the COVID vaccine worked as promised (since it is supposed to save the sickest from death from COVID), why is there no differential in the COVID vaccine breakdown in the flu group vs. the COVID group at baseline? That’s what nobody will explain.

Another paper showed if you were hospitalized for COVID, you’re nearly 2X more likely to die if you got the COVID vaccine…. another major WHOOPS! That’s the exact OPPOSITE of what people were told

Brief research report: impact of vaccination on antibody responses and mortality from severe COVID-19 showed that vaccinated hospital patients had a 70 percent risk of mortality compared with 37 percent in the unvaccinated group.

Summary

If the vaccines worked, there would be a difference in the vaccine breakdown of the two groups at baseline with respect to each other. There wasn't. The profile for both vaccines was identical between the groups. This means that neither vaccine worked to reduce hospitalization.

This paper unintentionally shows two important things for the elderly, which is the population most at risk of dying from these infections. It shows that:

1. the flu shot doesn’t materially reduce your risk of being hospitalized for the flu and

2. the COVID shot doesn’t materially reduce your risk of being hospitalized for COVID.

These results are likely applicable to everyone else as well, but the paper couldn’t explore that since it used a VA dataset which was primarily elderly men in their 70’s.

The paper was published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in a “gold standard journal” using “gold standard” fully reported data from the VA.

This is really very embarrassing for mainstream medicine. I just wanted to point that out since nobody else has.

Share

Executive summary

There seems to be no end of people who purport to be champions of science who seek to discredit me and claim that I am spreading misinformation.

In the interest of exposing who is telling the truth and who is not, it’s important to make this easy.

That is what this article is about.

Simply respond to as much as the evidence here as you are able and show either that 1) I misinterpreted the data or 2) an explanation for why it is misleading and the correct answer.

For example, Wayne Root has gathered data showing dramatically higher rates of death and injuries in his vaccinated friends. All you have to do is find some verifiable anecdotes showing even more dramatic statistics the other way for someone with a roughly equal number of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed friends. Simple!

Since the vaccines are so safe and effective, for every bad anecdote I can cite, there should be hundreds that are even more dramatic the other way. Funny thing is that nobody seems to know about them.

Similarly, for every survey showing the vaccines are causing injuries and deaths, there must be hundreds of surveys showing the opposite. Where are they?

So if you want to debunk one of my twitter polls, show a more credible twitter poll showing the opposite. If you want to debunk a follower poll, show a more credible follower poll showing the opposite result and allow me to verify each of the entries. If you want to debunk one my third party polls (Pollfish, etc), simple show your poll using the same independent polling company showing the opposite result.

Another example: I have 3,400 papers in the scientific literature showing the vaccines are associated with serious injuries. To counter, you can show >3,400 papers showing the vaccines cause minimal injuries. Or you can show that there are 3,400 papers written about the flu vaccine showing a comparable range of serious injuries associated with the flu shot. This should be easy since the flu shot has been given to far more people than the COVID shots.

If you want to dispute the v-safe data, simply show that people have an 8% rate of hospitalization following the flu shot.

If you think my per country data is wrong, saying it is wrong is insufficient evidence. You would need to produce the “correct” graph of the same measurement over the same periods of time and tell us what your source was so I can compare it with my sources.

For meta-articles (dozens of bullet points), simply cherry pick those bullet points you are able to refute with evidence.

Hand-waving arguments are not acceptable without evidentiary support of the argument, e.g., VAERS was over-reported is a hand-waving argument. You have to have evidence of that. For example, I paid thousands of dollars to survey healthcare workers on their VAERS reporting habits. They didn’t suddenly change on Jan 1, 2021. Just because certain requirements change, it doesn’t mean that people’s behavior changes.

To make your job as easy as possible, you can cherry pick any specific piece of evidence. You can pick a single bullet point, or a single slide. You don’t have to refute the entire slide deck. If there are multiple points, focus your energies on refuting those key points that are most important to public health.

In short, if you want to refute my evidence, show evidence that is as credible or more credible showing the opposite result. It’s that simple.

And you must be willing to engage in discussion to defend your attack on my evidence.

You should follow me on Twitter so I can DM you to ask questions about your rebuttal such as sources that may not be provided, etc. I’m interested in the truth and if I’m wrong, I will correct my articles.

This is a target rich environment and I’m letting you take your best shot. If you can’t refute anything under those terms, that would not be impressive.

Make sense?

Evidence that the COVID vaccines aren’t safe and/or effective

Debunk the following which collectively show that the COVID vaccines are doing more harm than good:

1. Respond to the written challenge here which deals with recommending the vaccine for kids.

2. Explain why there are over 17,000 US death reports in VAERS. It’s not from background events because the death categories don’t match background deaths. If it wasn’t the vaccine, what is causing the deaths?

3. How can Rasmussen poll America and find the number of deaths caused by the vaccine is comparable to the number of deaths caused by the virus? Isn’t that unprecedented? If it isn’t unprecedented, when has it happened before?

4. Explain how the rate of doctor visits can be so high in the v-safe database if the vaccine is so safe. How can 8% require medical care? And why did the CDC fight so hard to not release this data if it shows the vaccines are so safe? How can the Rasmussen poll get an event worse result (7% of the 70% vaccinated had a major side effects so that is a 10% rate)? Doesn’t that suggest that the v-safe database is underestimating the harms? If not, please show us your poll results done by a respected independent third-party market research firm so we can compare. We aren’t aware of a single poll like that. Why, if the vaccines are so safe, are they avoiding doing these polls?

5. How can independent surveys show that the vaccine kills as many people as COVID did?

6. Do you have a counter-anecdote to Wayne Root’s statistics? He’s 57:3 for vaxxed:unvaxxed serious injuries/deaths. Heard anyone whose stats are the reverse? See the original story. Wayne has roughly an equal number of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed friends (because he’s a conservative).

7. I did an injury/death survey where 1,000 people responded. I have the contact info for all respondents. Here is the survey and here are the results. There was no incentive to lie or make up numbers and all results are verifiable. If this survey is not reliable, can you point to a survey which is reliable?

8. I can easily produce doctor stories where the doctors say that a large number of their patients are worse off after getting the vaccine such as this story where 80% of the doctors vaccinated patients are worse off. Can you supply success anecdotes for doctors, cardiologists, first responders, nursing homes, geriatric practices, funeral homes, and embalmers where the vaccinated clients in their practices were significantly better off than the unvaxxed clients?

9. Devil’s Advocate analysis

10. Josh Stirling longitudinal data

11. Medicare data

12. Ontario data

13. Australia data

14. Netherlands data

15. Germany data

16. Singapore data

17. In the case [2022] SGHC 141 in Singapore, evidence presented showed that the government statistics showed that on April 10, 2022, there were no unvaccinated patients in the ICU for ages 70 and above. The government removed the data from their website. So we have an admission and then a confirmation that the government agrees the results were damaging because they deliberately removed the data from public view. See page 54.

18. Elephant deck

19. Sorli paper concludes: “COVID-19 vaccines increased the mortality rate.” Did he get it wrong?

20. The Pfizer RCT didn’t show an all-cause mortality benefit. Where is the RCT showing this?

21. I just talked with Alina Lessenich who put together a COVID vaccine injury treatment protocol. It’s written in German and it’s been downloaded 1.5M times. There are only 80M people in Germany. How can this be so popular if the COVID vaccine is so safe and adverse events are so rare and resolve quickly?

22. Vaccine adverse reaction papers: Simply show how these 3,400 papers in the peer-reviewed literature are wrong. There have never been 3,400 papers showing vaccine harms for any vaccine in history. That alone should tell you we’ve been lied to.
    
    Note that as of Jun 28, 2023 links are currently non-functional, but the titles are accurate and you can get each paper with a simple Google search. I’ve reported the problem to React19.

23. Evidence of harm

24. Why can’t we talk about it?

25. Incriminating evidence

26. 100 Questions they don’t want to answer

27. Think we got it wrong?

28. Questions I’d love to ask Congresswoman Anna Eshoo… that she’ll never answer

29. My testimony in the Pennsylvania Senate June 9, 2023 (Twitter 2M views) (4 minute) (full testimony)

30. If I’m wrong about the vaccines being unsafe, why not join the one person brave enough to bet money against me? He was only willing to bet $500K so you can help him fill the pot.

31. Any issues raised in any of the thousands of Substack articles written by me and my friends

Vaccines cause autism

1. See the written challenge here

2. Accept my $5M bet. You can bet against me for $10,000 or more.

No vaccines —> better health outcomes

1. What the Data Says

Finding one error does not invalidate the list

If you want to fully debunk what I have claimed, you must debunk the entire list. If you want to show that most of what I say is false, you can simply debunk at least half the items (you can even cherry pick the items).

Not everyone agrees with his. For example, according to “Facts are good” if he finds one error and debunks it his satisfaction without my concurrence, it means I am a misinformation spreader. So by his definition, pretty much everyone in the world is a “misinformation spreader.”

If you want to post a rebuttal, I’ll post it here

There are three sections to this post: COVID, autism, all vaccines.

If you want to create a rebuttal to any of the three sections, you can post a link you your full rebuttal to the PINNED comment so everyone will see it.

For example, “Danny” is a debunker of COVID misinformation who is followed by Susan Oliver:

I told Danny he is free to cherry pick anything single numbered point in this document he wants to debunk. He’s not a real scientist (he believes that surveys are not evidence), so I suggested he start with item 21 above which is 3,400 papers in the peer-reviewed literature showing vaccine harms that were compiled by React-19. This is always a good starting point for debunkers, because most scientists trust the peer-reviewed literature. So if Danny can’t show these papers are flawed, he’s pretty much lost the game. There have never been 3,400 papers showing vaccine harms for any vaccine in history. That alone should tell you we’ve been lied to.

Evidence

If you want to challenge me, read this excellent essay by Norman Doidge, “Medicine’s Fundamentalists” regarding using the all-available-evidence approach.

Science is about explaining all observations with your hypothesis, not just RCT evidence. If you have the right hypothesis, you can explain all the evidence.

Summary

Just respond to as many of the numbered points above as you are able and publish it and post your link in the comments.

I’m looking forward to learning how I got it wrong.

Executive summary

Here’s my favorite short list of evidence that can’t be explained if vaccines don’t cause autism. Does anyone think I’m wrong and can explain the list?

Note that I only claim that vaccines are THE major cause, not the sole cause. There are other things that contribute. But if we could change only one thing, eliminating use of all vaccines is the single best way to reduce the rate of autism in the US.

The bottom line is that for questions like whether vaccines can trigger autism, there is only one answer: it does or it doesn’t. It doesn’t change.

We have 25 years of evidence. It’s all either supportive of Hypothesis A or B.

It is a colossal failure of evidence-based medicine and the medical community that they cannot figure out which bucket all the evidence is consistent with.

The answer is so simple because all the studies cited as the strongest evidence on their side are all deeply flawed and can be easily disproven. It is astonishing to me that so many smart people cannot figure this out.

But they are paid not to look. They always completely ignore the studies that go against the narrative and only focus on studies where the studies are designed to minimize the chance of finding an association.

Making statements such as “you review all evidence, giving more weight to the quality and quantity of evidence” is science via “expert opinion.” It is hit or miss.

If you want scientific certainty, you need to be able to show that every known piece of evidence is either consistent or not inconsistent with your hypothesis.

We believe we can do this in this case and that they cannot.

It’s that simple. This is the key.

Let’s go though all the top evidence, both sides in the same room, and let’s let unbiased experts (with no conflicts of interest) listen to the arguments.

If you want a shortcut to the truth, compelling anecdotes or a well done case study are generally powerful tools to reveal the truth. We certainly have this in this case as there are many many anecdotes that they simply cannot explain and they have no anecdotes that we cannot explain.

We can come up with amazing anecdotes, e.g., 40 cases of instant autism within 2 weeks after the vaccine in a medical practice and 0 cases before. Can the other side come up with anything even close to that for 2 weeks before the vaccine?

But it’s actually simple to disprove the null hypothesis because all we have to show is a single black swan… if we show a single case where vaccines cause autism, we’re done. Single cases are always hard to prove since someone can argue “coincidence; it was going to happen anyway.”

But triplets in the same family happening to all the triplets at the same time (who were not identical), is statistically impossible as I point out here. It’s only happened once in history that I know of. And here’s the really weird thing: this “can’t possibly ever happen event” just happened to occur starting 2 hours after a vaccine injection! Do you think that that was just “coincidence”?

Keep this quote in mind as you read this article

A quote from Michael Crichton, MD: “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

Is it “settled science” that vaccines don’t cause autism? No! Here’s the proof

Michael Simpson claims it is “settled science” that vaccines don’t cause autism. He said it right here:

Paul Offit says that the medical consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism. Watch this video. It’s right there. The experts in the video say if there was a link they would have found it. You can absolutely rely on this because they are the experts! <sarcasm off>

But it can NEVER be “settled science” that vaccines don’t cause autism as Paul Offit admitted in that video.

And it can NEVER be settled science when there are cases where the US vaccine court have admitted that the vaccines caused autism such as for Hannah Poling and Porter Bridges. Those cases have NEVER been overturned with evidence to the contrary.

In a shocking admission under oath in 2018, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, one of the world’s top experts on vaccines, agrees with attorney Aaron Siri that the data is insufficient to make the claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism.’

In 2018, the data was simply insufficient to make the claim for the Tdap and DTaP vaccines. Anyone who claims this is “settled science” must show a study after Jan 11, 2018 showing that the ambiguity has been resolved for these two vaccines as well as all the other vaccines on the childhood schedule. This has never been done.

What was also stunning to me was Plotkin’s outright dismissal of the Geier paper. Plotkin cites no evidence whatsoever that the study was wrong. If the study was wrong, why isn’t there a VSD study showing the error?

Despite his admission, Dr. Plotkin asserts he would lie to his patients about this, in order to convince them to vaccinate.

Is this a fringe view that vaccines cause autism?

Apparently not. I have on order of 1M followers world wide, so even if this poll is only accurate for my followers, that is a huge number of people who agree with me that mainstream science got it wrong in declaring the lack of a link as “settled science.”

But it’s not just me and my followers. It’s so obvious that even this well known personality noticed the same thing everyone else is noticing.

So it is stunning that there are no debates. The people who believe there is a link want the debate. RFK Jr. has been trying to get a debate on this for 20 years. No takers.

My challenge to Richard Frye

Papers: Frye paper on aluminum Autism pathogenesis: Piecing it all together Early exposure to metals can cause ASD

I threw down the gauntlet on July 7, 2023 with this tweet

Here’s the tweet where I challenged any qualified scientist in America to challenge us. Here the database of who has accepted.

Should the issue be decided in the peer-reviewed literature?

People who claim that the issue must be settled in the scientific literature are living in a fantasy world.

There are over 214 papers in the peer-review medical literature showing the link and 164 papers showing no link. How does that settle which papers are right? By the number of articles on each side? Of course not!

As John Ioannidis has shown, a large number of published papers are false.

The purpose of the challenge in the previous section is it to determine whether it is all of the 214 confirming papers that are false or all of the 164 papers claiming no link that are false. It has to be one or the other because it’s a binary question.

The DeStefano paper (2004) is a perfect example. To decide whether this paper is true or false requires looking into the claims of one of the co-authors (William Thompson) and examining the evidence he produced. The evidence clearly shows scientific fraud took place: it is required for the authors to publish the race subgroup analysis, but they didn’t even mention it in the paper. Co-author Thompson admitted this breach of ethics in a press release. Even worse, CDC management ordered Thompson to destroy any evidence of that subgroup analysis instead. Yet the journal refused to retract the paper. This paper is a perfect example of why it is important to have a dialog on issues such as this. In fact, we are willing to concede the whole debate if we lose on this one paper. Are they willing to do the same?

This has never been done AFAIK. If I'm wrong, please provide the reference in the comments.

A single verifiable anecdote is all it takes to disprove the null hypothesis (and prove that vaccines can cause autism)

We don’t need peer-reviewed papers in the medical journals to make our proof.

If the medical community consensus claims there are no black swans, but I have evidence of a black swan that anyone can easily verify, then I have shown the medical community is wrong, even with a single anecdote.

We can do this quite easily for vaccines and autism as shown in this article.

It is statistically impossible for this event to have occurred by random chance, i.e., if something other than vaccines are causing autism cases.

This doesn’t prove that all autism cases are caused by vaccines, but it does prove that vaccines can trigger autism.

The list (in no particular order)

Here is a list of some of the most compelling evidence I’ve run across.

If there is a hypothesis that is a better fit to this evidence than vaccines cause autism, I’d love to hear it.

1. We have a single case that is statistically impossible if the vaccines don’t cause autism. This is all we need to prove our case. Details here.

2. Lack of a single case where a child became “overnight autistic” before a vaccination appointment: There are thousands of parents who report that their child became “overnight autistic” within 24 hours after a vaccine shot. I personally know dozens of these parent (and here are some parents who agreed to have their name used publicly if you want to verify this). So if vaccines don’t cause autism, there must be a roughly comparable number of parents who noticed this within 24 hours before a vaccine appointment (because the number of cases will be comparable on any day you pick). Yet, nobody has ever heard of a single kid who became “overnight autistic” even within 2 weeks before a vaccination appointment! All the “overnight autism” stories are all after a vaccination appointment, generally within a 2 week window but sometimes as short as just 2 hours after the shot is given. Here’s an example of overnight autism. And here’s another where 3 twins all developed autism within hours after the shot. Note that in general that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if there was such a story, someone would have heard it. None of the experts I contact had heard of a single “before” case. Note that I also asked on Twitter for a counter-example, and nobody had one there either. Here’s yet another ask for exceptions. If vaccines weren’t causing overnight autism, the anecdotes of this happening pre-vaccine appointment would be as easy to find as the anecdotes of it happening post-vaccine appointment. Finally, the argument that nobody would remember if their child got overnight autism before their vaccination appointment is silly as this simple Twitter poll demonstrated (relating a sudden death of a friend and when the friend was scheduled to be vaccinated). As a second demonstration of recall, I did a second poll on getting COVID right before the COVID shot appointment. People remember this stuff. In both cases, people easily recalled a big event happening right before a vaccine appointment. Bottom line: If you are a critical thinker, you really don’t need anything more than this one point to prove causality. We’re done.

3. Their studies don’t prove what they claim they prove. See this 92 page article created by SafeMinds, Vaccines and Autism What do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us? which describes what you need to know about many of the most important studies they cite as strong evidence including both widely cited studies such as the Verstraeten study (where it describes in detail the five generations of the study) and some of the more esoteric studies like the Honda study (where the just replaced a single vaccine MMR with separate vaccines M. M. and R. and found no difference). See also this analysis by Jerry Hammond entitled: “Why the Claim ‘Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism’ Is Disinformation” as well as this article which debunks the 16 most cited papers on their side: Part 2: Vaccines and Autism - What Do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us?. The reality is that their evidence isn’t compelling at all. There is also the Hviid 2019 study which was debunked by Brian Hooker here.

4. 214 papers in the peer-reviewed literature linking vaccines and autism: Autism mom Ginger Taylor compiled a list of 214 studies showing the link between vaccines and autism. Here’s the list as a single download. Here’s a short list (30 key papers). There are also 400 papers showing how dangerous the vaccines are in general. See Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.

5. We can show how every one of the papers brought forward by vaccine proponents are flawed. For example, there are 164 papers listed in this Michael Simpson article which he claims is proof that there is no association between vaccines and autism. He asserts that the single best paper is a 2014 meta-analysis by Taylor et al., “Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies” (you can see a proof of the article here without a fee) which analyzes 10 studies (5 of each type), including Madsen (2002), Hviid (2003), DeStefano (2004), Andrews (2004), Smeeth (2004), and Verstraeten (2003). The problem of course is that all of these papers were debunked in the SafeMinds analysis. The best studies were the cohort studies and one of the cohort studies was judged to be “high risk.” The other four cohort studies were described in the SafeMinds analysis. For the case-control studies, the two largest ones in the study were also described in the SafeMinds analysis. So the best of the best of their best studies were debunked. These meta-analyses are only as good as the underlying papers. Can we talk in detail about the top 3 papers in each group? I’d love to meet with Simpson and we can debate his strongest evidence vs. my strongest evidence and let’s see what happens. But Simpson ignored my request. We cannot get a debate on this with anyone.

6. The other side declares victory (that it is “settled science”), yet runs when challenged to a simple debate on the top 5 papers on both sides. It is odd that they write pages and pages of text attempting to explain why they are right, but when challenged to discuss the top evidence, they don’t even reply. There are two “tells” here: anytime someone uses the term “settled science” when there is such a massive reality disconnect as demonstrated here, that’s disingenuous. Secondly, the side declaring “settled science” subsequently refusing to even respond yes or no (with a legitimate reason or counter offer) to a legit debate challenge with experts is a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong.

   

7. They won’t meet with scientists on our side to discuss all the data on the table to see if we can get a consensus. This is tragic. Kids suffer because their side won’t meet with our side. We are willing, they are not. What does that tell you? Someone is afraid of debate. RFK Jr. has been trying to get a debate on autism for 20 years.

8. Their argument for why vaccines don’t cause autism is to cherry pick all the studies showing no signal, and completely ignore every study with any signal. That’s dishonest science. An honest scientist would present credible studies and then explain with evidence the other studies that show the opposite to show why those studies not credible. They don’t do that. They avoid the studies that show the linkage like the plague. Watch this Susan Oliver video to see how they argue by cherry picking flawed studies and ignoring studies that conflict. Note in this article I include supportive studies and I debunk every study that they use. So I’m walking the talk here.

9. The McDowell triplets all became autistic within hours of each other on the same day (full video here). How is that possible? Easy. They were all vaccinated at the exact same time in the same pediatrician appointment with just one vaccine shot: the pneumococcal vaccine! Date of vaccination 6/25/07. They never held hands again after that day. The girl (Clair) shut completely off just 2 hours after the shot. The first boy, Richie, shut down 4 hours after the shot. See also this article. They were all 9 months and 4 days old at the time with no problems. The geneticist that was consulted told the McDowell's that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY for this to happen due to GENETICS. It is impossible for three different siblings to genetically get autism on the same day. What they mean by that statement is that the odds of this happening are so rare that you are highly unlikely to see a single case like this in your lifetime if it happened by chance. The article goes on to say, “We hear about children getting autism ALL THE TIME after their vaccinations.”

10. Hannah Poling developed autism within 2 days after her shot. She went from perfectly healthy to autistic. It was even determined scientifically that her autism was caused by the vaccine. So that should have ended the debate.

11. There are way too many of these “coincidences” (like Hannah and the triplets) to be random chance. You cannot orchestrate anecdotes like you can game a large research study.

12. There are apparently no cases of a unvaccinated child who was meeting all their milestones, then suddenly regressed into profound autism at 12 months or older. Note that profound autism affects 1 in 4 kids with ASD. See this tweet for details and the references.

13. Madsen study: A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism (Madsen, 2002). This is cited by Martin Kulldorff as proof vaccines don’t cause autism. Even in this heavily flawed study, the raw data showed a strongly elevated risk of autism. So they never showed the raw data odds ratio (did you know that the rate of autism was 45% higher in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group?) and the paper only showed the adjusted numbers! That’s unethical. You can read the flaws in this study that was widely cited to prove that there was no association here. Over 1,000 scientists didn’t see anything wrong with the study! It’s really stunning how easily bad science propagates into the mainstream. Note that this is the single best study that is cited to prove that vaccines don’t cause autism and it is deeply flawed. The authors wouldn’t provide the underlying data and refused to answer any questions. Is that the way science works? There is also the Hviid 2019 study which was debunked by Brian Hooker here.

14. Wakefield 1998 paper: Wakefield’s retracted paper reported that “We investigated a consecutive series of children… Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another.” So 66% of the cases were associated with the MMR vaccine.

15. The 2022 Morocco study: 70% of the 90 parents surveyed affirmed that the first autistic features appeared after vaccination with the MMR vaccine. The rates are nearly identical to the 66% rate in the Wakefield study.

16. DeStefano paper evidence destruction: CDC scientist William Thompson was ordered by his bosses at the CDC to destroy ONLY the evidence linking vaccines and autism. Furthermore, the race subgroup analysis showing the link was omitted from the paper which is also unethical. When Congressman Bill Posey tried to get Thompson to testify in Congress, they shut him down so there was no testimony. This coverup was what convinced Wakefield that he was right: vaccines cause autism. DeStefano refused to release the data when James Lyons-Weiler requested it. Also, all data has to be retained for 7 years. You can’t destroy data before that. The FOIA request took 10 years before the CDC responded to it. More about the DeStefano paper in this article.

17. Simpsonwood meeting: CDC scientist Thomas Verstraeten did a study in 1999 linking thimerosal with autism. They tried to make the autism signal go away. They couldn’t. The original signal was a RR=7.6 (see also this abstract) which is a huge signal. See my article for details and a link to the original Verstraeten study. See also this article and this historical overview and Simpsonwood 23 years later and the transcript. More history here.

18. Paul Offit lied to RFK Jr. about thimerosal: RFK Jr told me the story personally, but now, it’s on the Joe Rogan podcast Episode #1999. Start listening at 23:00. The punchline is at 28:33. Basically, the ethylmercury in the thimerosal makes a beeline out of your blood and deposits into your brain (unlike the methylmercury in fish which has a harder time entering your brain so it stays in your blood longer). Offit tried to convince RFK that the mercury gets excreted by referring to a paper. When RFK brought up the Burbacher study, there was dead silence on the line because Offit knew he had been caught in a deception. In short, thimerosal can seriously damage people’s brains. Vaccines are not supposed to cross the BBB. This creates biological plausibility needed for causality. See also my article about Offit attempting to respond to the episode.

19. Japan, France, and Sweden have fewer vaccines with better health outcomes. Why not adopt one of their schedules in the US?

20. There was a House bill (HR 3069) asking the NIH to compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, but it never made it out of committee. They know the damage.

A 1998 CDC study admitted that the measles vaccine can cause permanent brain damage and death. It’s right there in the peer-reviewed literature.

If the measles vaccine causes permanent brain damage, is it feasible that autism might be within that spectrum of damage?

The most remarkable paper showing the MMR vaccine causes permanent brain damage and death is this 1998 paper Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It is written by CDC authors and has not been questioned or retracted and cited by 90 papers.

The really important piece of this paper that most people miss is the part highlighted above:

“No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine.”

This is huge. Only the measles vaccine caused permanent brain damage. Does that mean the other two didn’t? No, it just means that the incident rates for the other two vaccines were much lower (or zero).

The fact that the permanent brain damage effect was vaccine-type dependent is a smoking gun that nobody likes to talk about.

Of course, if the authors wrote that the vaccines killed these kids, they wouldn’t be able to get their paper published (that’s how “science” works). So you have to read between the lines that severe brain inflammation/damage might cause death. Do you think that might be reasonable?

There is no other explanation than the vaccines caused the effect. If there is, let’s hear it. If not, the precautionary principle of medicine demands that we should assume that was the cause until proven otherwise.

Here’s is simple example of that principle. Suppose you are a physician and you inject vaccine X which the CDC says is safe and effective into your first 5 patients and they all die the next day. What do you do? Do you say that correlation isn’t causation and continue to vaccinate patients? Or do you stop vaccinating until you can find out what killed all 10 patients?

This excellent Substack article shows the statistically significant peaks at days 8 and 9 after the shot. That’s causality.

So the CDC knew in 1998 that the measles vaccine was causing brain damage. But the paper said that the relationship “may exist.” Right. No other way to explain the data if it wasn’t causal.

This gives us more biological plausibility.

My survey of my followers

I surveyed 10,000 parents who follow me to ask them about their kids.

The results were striking: the more vaccines the kids got, the more likely they were to suffer from chronic diseases (including autism, ADHD, epilepsy, seizures, PANDA/PANS, autoimmune diseases, sinusitis, type I diabetes, food allergies, etc.):

I fully acknowledge that there is selection bias in the people who respond to my survey. But this just affects the mix of my respondents in terms of number of vaccines they give their kids. It’s going to be lower for my followers than a full nationwide survey.

But if the measures are independent of the mix of the respondents, then it simply doesn’t matter that I have a skewed mix of respondents.

If vaccines don’t cause autism, the rate of autism among parents who gave their child 0 shots will be identical to the rate of autism among parents who gave their child any number of shots. So that blue line above should be a horizontal line (slope of 0).

Just to be sure, we found that the rate of birth defects didn’t change no matter how many shots you gave your child since birth defects happen before the shots. It was the control for the survey.

But the rate of autism increases based on the number of shots the child received as the blue line above shows. That’s a huge problem for the narrative because they can’t claim my data is biased or flawed; it won’t work.

This is a dose-response relationship. The higher the dose, the higher the response. That is a “smoking gun” for causality.

The only argument left is that kids who got more shots saw the doctor more and had more chances to be diagnosed with autism. The problems with that explanation:

1. It was disproved in the Lyons-Weiler study; the kids who didn’t get vaccinated were more likely to keep their wellness clinic visits, precisely the opposite of what is claimed. If anything, the kids who got no vaccines should have been diagnosed with autism more because they kept their wellness appointments.

2. Missing autism in doctor visit is like missing a train wreck. It’s generally not a subtle thing. It’s very binary. You either see it or you don’t.

3. You can’t get through the kids vaccine schedule in fewer than 7 visits. If diagnosis is simply proportional to vaccination visit frequency, the kids who are fully vaxxed would have at least 7X the rate of autism as the kids who are sparsely vaccinated.

4. Kids see their pediatrician more times than just the vaccine appointment. The Paul Thomas study showed the fully vaccinated kids had 25X more healthcare visits than unvaccinated kids. So the rate of autism for the fully vaccinated should be 25X higher than rarely vaccinated. It’s not. It’s only around 4X higher.

And nobody on earth seems to have the courage to do their own survey!!! Isn’t that interesting? Mine took only 24 hours to return results. What is everyone so afraid of?

More importantly, how come in over 25 years, nobody has done the survey I just did? Are scientists afraid of the truth?

My data is available for anyone to download and analyze just like independent statistician Matt Briggs did.

Would anyone want to fact check my survey and talk to all 10,000 parents directly to validate they were telling the truth? You can do a statistical sample of 100 at random. Please!!! Why won’t anyone fact check this?? I’d jump at the opportunity to have the responses “fact checked.” There is simply no way, even if my followers wanted to support me, they could have gamed the survey. I really want the fact check because it would end the debate. There is no way to explain such a smooth effect.

My survey found the same odds ratio for autism and vaccines as found in the Hooker and Mawson studies. Again, more confirmation that my survey reflected reality rather than distorted view of reality.

Studies of the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed

There are numerous studies of the unvaxxed vs. vaxxed which show a statistically significant higher rate of autism and other chronic diseases in the vaccinated.

More importantly, those who argue that this is not the case cannot produce a single study of the fully unvaxxed vs. fully vaxxed showing that the number of autism cases are comparable in the two groups. In fact, even in the highly acclaimed (but deeply flawed) Madsen study, there was a statistically significant higher incidence of autism in the “got MMR vax group” vs. “didn’t get MMR vax group” (p=.01) in the raw data before they made the signal go in the opposite direction by doing undisclosed adjustments (changing the relative risk from 1.45 to .92. The “adjusted” RR value had a confidence interval of .68 to 1.24 which means that even after applying all their “adjustments” they can’t rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism. And this is their best study!! Nobody ever tells you about this paper showing the underlying data they used is flawed. And nobody seemed to be bothered by the fact that the number of black male children in this study severely underestimates the number of black kids in America. In fact, it doesn’t look at race at all in the study. Whoops! See this article for more about the Madsen study.

1. Paul Thomas (2020) had 0 autism cases in 561 unvaxxed patients total. For patients who followed the CDC vaccination schedule, there were 15 autism cases in 894 patients. The Fisher exact test p-value is 0.0008 which is stunning. See also this excellent article about the study which points out that “unvaccinated children are healthier in several metrics and enjoy 25 times fewer pediatric visits.” The bad guys were able to get the paper retracted by claiming the higher rates of autism among the vaccinated were due to more office visits. The problem with that criticism is that the reason for retraction was later disproven in a subsequent paper.

2. Hooker (2021): 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

3. Mawson (2017): 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)

4. Geier (2013): 2.1 to 3.4 odds ratio in the VSD database depending on age at injection. Higher odds ratio when older. That study, published in the peer-reviewed literature, was done using a two-phase methodology used by the CDC. It showed that the HepB vaccine was strongly associated with autism. They looked at each of the 3 injection times and in all cases the OR was high and the p-value was low! The study has never been retracted. After Brian Hooker found this signal in VSD, his access was immediately revoked by the CDC with no explanation. Nothing like being open to data transparency is there?

5. Garner / Control group (2022): 82 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. “For those with zero exposures to post-birth vaccines, pre-birth vaccines, or the K shot, the total rate of autism in the entire CGS is 0% (0 of 1,024)” Doing an OR calculation relative to my survey of 10,000 children: OR=82 CI:5.1197 to 1315 z statistic: 3.114 Significance level. P = 0.0018. See also the Control Group website.

6. Lyons-Weiler (2022): The study was too small to assess autism risk, but showed better health outcomes among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated in other conditions. See this article which notes that the unvaccinated had better compliance to their wellness checks than the vaccinated which eliminates a common argument that anti-anti-vaxxers use. It says, “the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.”

7. Liz Mumper study: She reduced the incidence of autism in her practice by 10X limiting the vaccines given to kids. How does the medical community explain this?

8. A new study of 50,000 kids (submitted for publication but not yet published) shows the same odds ratios for chronic diseases as the Hooker and Mawson studies. The author is well respected and the dataset is very large.

9. The Generation Rescue (GR) study that was done on June 26, 2007 showed that vaccinated kids were significantly worse off in every category they looked at. “For less than $200,000, we were able to complete a study that the CDC, with an $8 billion a year budget, has been unable or unwilling to do.” Where is the CDC survey? Nowhere to be found! They simply don’t want to do it. Read the survey and see this article for more information. GR couldn’t tamper with the study or manipulate the results because it was done by a third party survey firm with no conflicts of interest. If the drug companies didn’t like the result, they could have easily commissioned a different polling company. But they didn’t!!! Or maybe they did and simply chose not to publish the results because they were so bad. In any event, the lack of a poll showing the opposite of the GR poll is very very problematic for the “safe and effective” narrative.

There is a failure on behalf of the other side to cite a single study that shows the opposite of what these studies show, e.g., that the fully vaccinated are either as healthy or healthier than the fully unvaccinated.

But aren’t vaccines the reason kids live longer today?

Nope. From PEDIATRICS 2000;106; 1307-1317.

Nearly 85% of the decline in child mortality for children over 1 year of age in the 20th century took place BEFORE World War II, "a period when few antibiotics or modern vaccines and medications were available." (p. 1313)

"... nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available." (p.1314)

There are large cohorts with a no vaccination policy which have ZERO or near zero autism

1. The Amish: We couldn’t find an Amish child with autism who wasn’t vaccinated or adopted.

2. A large clinical pediatric practice I am personally very familiar with has eschewed the use of all vaccines and acetaminophen and achieved a zero autism rate over the past 25 years even though autism rates were skyrocketing in adjacent clinics. Furthermore, despite the lack of vaccination, the kids were also uniformly healthier than the kids in any of the surrounding clinics. This means that we can end the autism epidemic merely by altering individual choices we make. Unfortunately, this clinic cannot “go public” with this information because the medical boards would take away their license to practice medicine because they failed to push the vaccines on their patients like they were told to do by the medical establishment.

3. There are other pediatric clinics in the US which eschew vaccination. For example, at Homefirst Medical Services, “We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.” What makes this believable is that other clinics who didn’t vaccinate reported the same results.

4. My survey of the parents of 10,000 kids showed more vaccines mean that an autism diagnosis is more likely.

The Homefirst clinic in Chicago run by Mayer Eisenstein had tens of thousands of patients and not a single case of autism over 47 years. He died in 2014.

From this article in UPI:
In the past, public-health officials have said such an approach [surveying the public to look at health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated] would be impractical due to low numbers of never-vaccinated children, but this column found tens of thousands of such children -- beginning with the Amish -- in various locations in the United States. In our anecdotal and unscientific reporting, the rate of autism seemed strikingly lower in never-vaccinated children, …

But this column identified several groups that might fit the bill -- from the Amish in Pennsylvania Dutch country to homeschooled children to patients of a Chicago family practice.

"I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century.

"You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that's just the way it is."

In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never-vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois' relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst's medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We have a fairly large practice," Eisenstein told us. "We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. "We do have enough of a sample," Eisenstein said. "The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We're all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there's no communication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's not something that anyone would miss."

The VAERS evidence is damning: it’s vaccine dependent

There are two different ways we can use VAERS to show vaccines cause autism.

1. If a group of vaccines are given around the same time and in the same number, then the number of VAERS autism reports for these vaccines should be comparable. They aren’t. The reporting rate is dependent which vaccine is given. That is impossible if vaccines don’t cause autism.

2. It turns out that that there is a second peak in autism reports for some vaccines around day 15-30. Strong peaks like this after vaccination are a smoking gun for causality because if it was just coincidence, there would be a peak near the date of the shot and the curve would go down from there. It doesn’t. There is a second peak for several vaccines. I bet you can guess which ones give that second peak, can’t you? It’s the same vaccines parents most often cite as causing autism. Coincidence? Nope. It’s a statistically significant effect that nobody ever noticed before I pointed it out.

See my article on VAERS and autism for details.

Expert opinion

People who work with autistic kids regularly report experiences similar to this testimonial. The remaining kids have a slow regression into autism so the “starting point” is simply hard to pinpoint. In cases where there is a definitive rapid regression, it is nearly always shortly after a vaccination. I’ve never talked to an autism worker who has had the opposite experience. In fact, I don’t know of a single case of a child who rapidly developed autistic behaviors anytime 2 weeks before a shot.

The before:after odds measures

The before:after odds measures are the most stunning pieces of evidence there is for vaccines causing autism. Many parents notice a sudden, dramatic change in their child shortly after vaccination. But the funny thing is, none of them noticed this right before the appointment with the pediatrician to get the shot. It’s simply nearly impossible to achieve a disparity like this if the shots are safe.

This isn’t observer bias either. If a child suddenly developed autistic behaviors right before the doctor appointment to get vaccinated, you can bet the first thing out of the parent’s mouth would be telling the doctor before the shot of the sudden change. What pediatrician in the world can recall that ever happening?

Yet we are inundated with stories of parents saying their child got a fever right after the shot, the parent may have given the child Tylenol (which makes everything worse), and within hours, the child is never the same.

These clearly aren’t anti-vaxxer parents who believe Wakefield because if they were, they wouldn’t have vaccinated their child!!! So there is no way to ignore these reports.

1. Pediatrician Doug Hulstedt statistics: He had 150 autism patients, about half where the parents linked the autism to the vaccine. He said there were 44 cases where autism signs developed very quickly. In every single case, the regression happened within 2 weeks after a vaccine shot rather than in the days or weeks before a vaccine appointment. That is statistically impossible if the vaccine is a placebo (poisson.cdf(0,44)=7.781132241133785e-20). But even more devastating is that you cannot find a pediatrician in the world where the before/after stats are comparable. Why not? If the vaccines are safe, every pediatrician should have comparable before vs. after stats and it would be impossible to find a single Doug Hulstedt.

2. My survey of parents of 300 autistic kids showed a 0:66 odds for getting autism the month before a vax shot vs. within a month after a shot. This is in remarkable agreement with Doug Hulstedt’s numbers. This is impossible if vaccines don’t cause autism. Even if my study is biased because many of my followers joined after their kids got autism, those parents comprise a small fraction of my follower base. How could the same be true for the kids of the vast majority of my followers who follow me for other reasons?

   

3. The fact that nobody is doing these studies. This article points out that the most effective way to answer the question about whether vaccines cause autism is to plot the before:after data for each vaccine and each dose.

What’s interesting and telling is that I can easily name 24 parents whose kids first developed very obvious telltale autistic behaviors within 24 hours after the shot. And I’m not an autism expert. I have their contact info!

Yet all the autism experts in the world cannot come up with a list of 24 parents in the entire world that suddenly developed these symptoms within 24 hours of their vaccination appointment.

“Overnight autism” statistics are easy to verify and unexplainable

Some people claim that “overnight autism” doesn’t exist.

I define this as normal the day before and severely autistic within 24 hours of a normal observation.

Prominent examples of this include Hannah Poling and the McDowell triplets who have been mentioned earlier.

In order to prove that “overnight autism” doesn’t exist, at a minimum you’d have to show that:

1. These two cases regressed very slowly over time, rather than a dramatic change.

2. None of these kids were diagnosed with autism

Nobody has ever been able to do either that I’m aware of.

Citing possible contributing factors such as fragile-X syndrome or mitochondrial enzyme deficiency does not change the fact that these kids went from normal —> severely autistic within 24 hours. See this tweet for a discussion.

If the vaccines didn’t cause the transition, then there should be the same number of these cases pre-vax vs. post-vax. Nobody has ever heard of a pre-vax case (developed 24 hours before the vax.

Retired pediatrician Doug Hulstedt had nearly 150 autism cases in his practice. 44 were “overnight autism” and they all happened within 2 weeks after a vaccine shot.

I did a survey of overnight autism cases among parents who are my followers. The results were stunning: 33% of the cases happened within 1 day of the vaccine. 50% of the cases happened within 3 days after a vaccine shot appointment.

No one else in the world has ever dared to do the survey I did. Ever. I wonder why?

I always tell people, if you think I got it wrong, can I see the survey you did? I always get crickets when I ask that.

Hulstedt’s numbers and my survey both show a clustering of cases right after vaccination that is impossible to explain. If vaccines didn’t cause autism, you’d expect that the chance of getting autism would be equally likely on every day after vaccination for at least 30 days (assuming kids are vaccinated on average no more often than every 30 days). You simply cannot have half the cases within 3 days of vaccination.

Other evidence

1. I have a $5M bet that vaccines cause autism. Nobody will bet against me $10,000 or more. Why is that? Isn’t anyone confident in “settled science”?

2. There isn’t a single study in peer-reviewed literature looks at the time between a vaccine shot and when a parent notices clear symptoms of autism. This should be easy to do retrospectively in dozens of pediatric practices. How is it that nobody is curious about this? If there is no relationship, the time to first symptoms will be a horizontal line. Every survey I’ve done shows it is nothing close to being a horizontal line.

3. Vietnam had virtually no autism. Then they introduced the vaccines. Autism took off. Coincidence? The Japan numbers are even more staggering: Annual incidence of ASDs for children born in 1987 was 20-per-10,000, but after MMR was introduced, in 1988, annual incidence more than quadrupled, to 85.9-per-10,000 for children born in 1990. But then, MMR coverage began to decline dramatically, as concerns over the mumps viral component grew. ASD incidence likewise declined during this period, to 55.8 for children born in 1991 – representing a drop of 35%. So you add it, the problem increases; you subtract it, the problem decreases. That’s a clear marker of causality.

4. Autism really took off exponentially in the US in 1986, right after Congress made the vaccine manufacturer not liable for injuries.

5. “Overnight autism” is unlikely to be triggered by something you eat or is in the environment because all of these would be a very slow effect. So it MUST be something injected. That’s the most likely biologically plausible cause of something so dramatic in your brain. The only thing injected into most people are vaccines. What else could have caused the McDowell triplets to have become overnight autistic within hours of each other?

6. Autism is brain injury. The only things that could cause such an injury is a pathogen that is either injected, ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by the skin. There may also be a genetic cause. This limits our solution space.

7. There is not a single cause for autism. If you remove the major causes (e.g., vaccination, use of Tylenol, etc.), autism will still happen, but at a much lower rate.

8. Tylenol given to a child after vaccination will increase the risk that the child will develop autism. In 2/3 of the autism cases, the parents gave the child Tylenol in an attempt to reduce the fever post vaccine. Most scientists I know believe that this actually exacerbates the risk rather than reducing it: the body is basically trying to get rid of the pathogen and the Tylenol disarms the body’s ability to do that. Here’s a Twitter survey showing some rough statistics showing vaccine+tylenol is more common than not, but that tylenol doesn’t have to be given for your child to get autism:

   

9. Vaccines are much more likely to cause a febrile seizure than a virus would. If vaccines are perfectly safe, then how can anyone possibly explain this Twitter poll in which the perfectly safe vaccines are 5X more likely to cause a febrile seizure than a virus? And if the poll is wrong, can we see the correct polls? This poll makes perfect sense. It says that a vaccine’s ability to cause brain injury is far greater than any virus. Are you surprised?

   

10. I recently learned of a police investigator who was assigned to investigate SIDS cases. She had 3 to 4 cases a month over 7 years. She found that 75% of the SIDS deaths happened within 48 hours of a vaccine shot. In short, the vaccine killed the child’s brain. If a vaccine can do that, is it any surprise that it can can irreparable brain damage?

11. Tylenol given in pregnancy can increase the risk of autism. Tylenol given after an type of activation of the immune system (through a vaccine but not a virus) can increase the risk of autism. The biggest single mistake parents make is vaccine—> fever—> tylenol. This dramatically increases the risk of an autism outcome.

12. The pathogen must be relatively new because autism rates didn’t “take off” until 1983. In 1983, the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") recommended a total of 10 vaccines for our children up to the age of 5. In 2007, the CDC recommended 36, an increase of 260%, or 3.6x. You can see the slope change at both those dates in the graph below.

This rapid climb was not due to a change in criteria to diagnose ASD. Such a change would create a quick step function and just shift the existing line upwards; the slope wouldn’t change.

Also, this growth isn’t due to a genetic issue because genetic traits don’t replicate exponentially over short time periods like this.

The fact that we can dramatically reduce the rate of autism by withholding all vaccines suggests that the vaccines are the major driver.

Distortion of truth

When people on the other side of the argument have to lie and distort the truth to make their point, you really have to wonder why they have to do that.

For example, For example, Matt Carey when he wrote about William Thompson’s study, he claimed that there was nothing wrong with excluding the RACE subgroup analysis from their published paper or being ordered to destroy ONLY the documents that were related to the RACE subgroup analysis (i.e., to ONLY destroy that data that goes against the CDC narrative).

Carey excels at gaslighting people who don’t know how science works. He wrote another article which deliberately misrepresented the results of the Generation Rescue survey (Matt claimed they showed the opposite of what they actually did). Nobody can read the results of the GR survey and think that the vaccines are bad. But he deliberately didn’t link to the source so you can’t easily check out that he’s lying.

As a result, none of the comments pointed out the huge misdirection.

Professor Anders Hviid had to create a bogus study which was designed not to find a signal. And when I notified him that another paper proved that his underlying data was inaccurate, he ignored me. When I asked to see the data, he blocked me. Lots more in my article.

Finally, in general, the anti-anti-vaxxers will not engage in a civil dialog to discover the truth. That should be very very concerning.

Can they simply “explain away” everything in this article? Can we talk about it?

Mechanisms

The best explanation I’m aware of is in JB Handley’s book How to end the autism epidemic in Chapter 5. The short story is that man-made nano particles such as aluminum never clear the brain and result in persistent inflammation. It lists 11 key papers.

Also read this comprehensive review written by A Midwestern Doctor on what causes autism which elaborates the arguments in Chapter 5 of JB Handley’s book.

Here’s Peter McCullough explaining that the only cause that fits the evidence are vaccines in general (some vaccines are more toxic than others):

For example, here’s a very short video explaining how thimerosal which contains mercury can destroy brain neurons. When testosterone is added, the effect increases. This might explain why boys are more likely to be autistic than girls. This video would be hard to just “explain away” by the other side.

Here’s another possibility.

Other material I’ve written on autism

1. What the data tells us: A slide deck about vaccines in general as well as autism showing vaccines are bad news

2. How can I be so sure that vaccines cause autism? I asked the ONE question that no autism researcher has EVER asked.

3. The data is clear: the more vaccines you give your child, the more likely it is that they will develop chronic diseases including autism

4. Vaccines cause autism.

The admission of a top autism expert

Finally, one of the most damaging pieces of evidence comes from James Lyons-Weiler who got a call from one of the top autism experts in the world (whose name I know but will not reveal to protect him). He told James that “We all know vaccines cause autism. We just aren’t allowed to talk about it.” He was referring to his fellow autism experts.

If they admitted this, they would lose their funding, their job, their license to practice medicine, their hospital privileges, their board certifications, etc.

That’s why I can’t get a debate and when I try to reach out to these experts they ghost me.

And that’s why there are never the before:after studies and why all there are so many studies are designed to not find a signal.

Are vaccines safe?

None are tested against a placebo.

Gardasil had a very small saline placebo arm, but for all the critical measures (Tables 5 and later), they either lumped in the placebo with the adjuvant control or they omitted the control group entirely in the table. See this tweet which got over 200K views:

Causality criteria

If all 5 Bradford Hill criteria are satisfied, you have causality. All of these criteria are satisfied in spades.

Challenge anyone who claims this is not causality to tell you which criteria is not satisfied.

What do you think?

My best 7 arguments

Here are the top 7 arguments that I think are the most compelling and impossible to explain if vaccines don’t cause autism:

1. No autism in clinics that don’t vaccinate. There is zero autism rates in clinics that don’t vaccinate, even though surrounding clinics have normal rates of autism. You simply cannot find a single clinic where the kids who don’t get any vaccine have comparable rates of autism as fully vaccinated kids. Zero.

2. No overnight autism cases ever happen prior to vaccination. For cases of overnight autism, where a definitive date can be determined, these always cluster disproportionally in the days after a vaccine, never before the vaccine appointment. In one clinic (Doug Hulstedt), all 44 cases of overnight autism happened within 2 weeks after a vaccine. There are many cases, some very high profile, of kids turning autistic within 24 hours after a vaccine. By contrast, there are no cases in history that anyone is aware of where a child became autistic 24 hours before the child was scheduled to get a vaccine. If vaccines don’t cause autism, the frequency of cases before a vaccine and after a vaccine should be identical.

3. Autism risk is proportional to dosage. Multiple independent surveys (including 3 published in the peer review literature: Mawson, Hooker, and Garner) show clearly that more vaccines lead to higher likelihood of autism (and other auto-immune disorders). Mawson, Hooker, and I all found a 5X odds ratio of autism for vaccinated kids vs. unvaccinated kids.

4. DeStefano paper corruption: When the CDC looked at the MMR vaccine, they had to have one of the investigators destroy the data showing the link between MMR and autism. This was done before the paper was published so this wasn’t just “housecleaning.” The only data ordered to be destroyed was the data relative to the race analysis which showed a strong signal that could not be obfuscated. All the other data was preserved.

5. Verstraeten 1999 paper corruption: When the CDC looked at thimerosal and vaccines they found a huge signal. The goal of reanalysis was to make the signal go away. It should have been to expose the truth. The final paper never acknowledged the raw data signal. That’s unethical.

6. Madsen paper corruption: The raw data showed a 1.5 increased risk in autism in the MMR vaccinated. This was never acknowledged. That’s unethical. Furthermore, a Cox regression analysis should have only considered the independent factors known to affect rates of autism: race and gender. Why didn’t they show that?

7. 1998 paper showed causality of vaccines causing brain damage: The CDC admitted that permanent brain damage was caused by the measles vaccine and not other vaccines. Permanent brain damage is thus dependent on the type of vaccine given. This is a smoking gun. If the measles vaccine didn’t cause the permanent brain damage, what did?

8. The Geier paper showed adding thimerosal increased the rate of autism: Done using the CDC’s own methodology and gold standard database, they showed thimerosal increased rates of autism by 2X when added to the DTaP vaccine. Result highly statistically significant. CDC cut off all access to VSD for the researchers after this.

Top 5 papers

What are my “best five” papers to argue vaccines can trigger autism?

Here are some of the finalists for the top 5.

1. DeStefano 2004. This is a clear winner due to the clear corruption and large signal for black males.

2. Verstraeten 1999. This is another clear winner due to the high OR and Simpsonwood.

3. Geier (2013). They used the CDC’s own two-phase methodology and all data was obtained from the CDC. They found that the DTaP vaccine with thimerosal had a 2X higher rate of autism than the DTaP vaccine without thimerosal. p<.02. The CDC permanently terminated the researchers access to VSD after they discovered this result.

4. Hooker (2021): 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

5. Mawson (2017): 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)

6. Delong 2011: Confirms association between vaccines in general and autism. The title of the paper is “A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population.” Conclusion: “A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI.”

7. Madsen (2002): Because of the raw data and the corruption to bury the signal. The funny thing is that the opposition will use this paper to make their point!

8. Holland (2011): Cases from US Vaccine court that nobody wants to talk about and they hope you never discover. As of 2011, nearly 5,000 parents (p. 481) applied to the VICP program claiming their child became autistic after vaccination and awards were made in 83 of these cases where there was autism in the vaccine-induced brain damage cases (p. 482). There are now over 100 of these cases according to one of the authors of this paper. Analyzing a database of VICP published decisions and online federal court records, the authors found 83 cases of acknowledged encephalopathy and seizure disorder that included autism or autism-like symptoms. Most involved the combination vaccine for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus. The second most common was the combination vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR). Awards ranged from $80,000 to $5.9 million. See also this Medscape article. So if vaccines can cause brain damage, is it that much of a leap to believe they can cause autism (since in many of these brain damage cases, the child had autism).

9. Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (1998) showing ONLY the measles vaccine, not mumps or rubella, was shown to be causing permanent brain damage. So it is vaccine-specific.

For more information

1. How to end the autism epidemic. JB Handley’s best book of all time on autism. If you only read one book, this is the book. Chapter 5 which explains how the brain’s immune system is triggered by adjuvants from vaccines causing autism.

2. The Brave Ones: The Highwire episode featuring JB Handley and RFK Jr.

3. The story that caused RFK Jr. to look at the science behind vaccines and autism

4. 214 papers linking vaccines and autism: Autism mom Ginger Taylor’s list of of relevant papers. Searchable! This is a subset of the most important papers but I’ve found some that aren’t listed, so there are now over 220 papers showing the link.

5. 130 studies linking vaccines and autism. A separate list independent from Ginger’s list.

Summary

Science is about matching hypotheses to data to which hypothesis is best able to explain all the data.

It’s clear that there have been studies which have been deliberately or inadvertently designed to not find a signal. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a link; it simply means the study was inadequate to find the link or the underlying data was compromised.

The thing is that if there really is not a link, then no matter what you do, you won’t find a link.

But the problem they have is that there have been other studies which show very clearly that vaccines cause autism that cannot be explained away because the signals are too strong.

Furthermore, I was unable to find a single study showing that the fully vaccinated had better health outcomes than the fully unvaccinated. Judy Gerberding, the former head of the CDC, promised to do such a study in 2005.

Twenty years later, that study has still never been done.

So in the meantime, the precautionary principle of medicine is pretty clear on what we should be doing: nobody should be getting any vaccines.

Share

I’m happy to take on all qualified people who want to challenge our beliefs and believe that they can challenge our beliefs.

In order to make the interaction productive for both sides and for the audience, I am proposing these ground rules. However, I’m also open to accepting any other similarly well thought out ground rules as well (or modifications to these rules).

1. Goal: We don’t want to spread “misinformation” but nobody will take the time to give us evidence-based arguments that we got it wrong. This is your chance to do that and reduce the amount of misinformation. For example, we think the elevation of the VAERS death reports is caused by a deadly vaccine. Is there evidence we are not aware of that can explain away this anomaly? This is your chance to educate us on evidence we are missing.

2. How to apply: Apply here and select the “debate me” option. In the Notes section, provide a URL with the required information (as noted in the points below). Also, to let all my followers know, also post here.

3. Be respectful: No insults. If the moderator feels that someone insulted another person, the person doing the insult will be ejected from the debate room by the moderator.

4. Tell us who is on your team: You must pre-specify the names of the people on your team. You can have up to 5 people. The names must be real names. Show us that the combined h-index (Google Scholar or any other reliable source) of your team sums to 20 or more. This sets a base level of academic credibility to the debate. You can do this with a single person or use the combined score of all 5 people. Minimum h-index of 5 required for any person on your team. We will guarantee the same standards for people on our side.

5. Team sizes: The size of our team will be set based on the number of questions you ask, but no more than 1 person per question. So if you ask 5 questions, we get 5 people. If you want to ask us just 3 questions, we’ll only need 3 people. You may have up to 5 people on your team. We will tell you the names of the people on our team within 10 days of a successful submission. We can’t tell you this in advance because it depends on the questions you ask and the dates you gave us.

6. Here are 5 questions we’re confused about and want you to answer for us:

   1. Provide your best estimate of the number of Americans that the COVID vaccine has actually killed? Show as many ways as you want for how you calculated this number and the 95% confidence bands. Why are the VAERS numbers so high (over 17,000)?

   2. Do vaccines cause autism and other neurological disorders as noted in this article? If not, what’s the better hypothesis? And why is the CDC concealing the public health data from the public?

   3. How is it OK to vaccinate kids? In Israel, the government admitted that nobody under 50 who is healthy died from COVID. Their risk of dying from COVID is 1 in 1M. So that means we’d need proof that the vaccine kills fewer than 1 in 1M. Where is the proof and more importantly, why isn’t anyone publishing it (we have the underlying data, but it is kept secret by all the states)?

   4. What does the Cleveland Clinic study Fig. 2 mean to you? How do you explain that? Why are there at least 3 other studies confirming that? Is there a larger study showing the opposite is true?

   5. In Ontario, Canada, in 2021 vs. 2022, hospitalizations/deaths from COVID are up 31%/39% respectively. They are highly vaccinated. Why would the COVID deaths be higher after the vaccines are rolled out? There are more treatments, more vaccinated, and the variants were less deadly.

   6. Extra credit: Do you agree with my article on Data Transparency?

7. Tell us the questions you want us to answer: At least 2 weeks before the meeting, you should specify up to 5 questions that you are confused about that you want us to answer.

8. Let us know when you can do it: You should specify 4 dates when you can do the debate where you have 2 hours. The times should be within 9am to 9pm PST. We will pick from one of the dates you supply

9. Tell us who you want to moderate it: You should supply a neutral moderator who has an h-index of 5 or more. The moderator will not ask or answer any questions but is there just to mute people or otherwise keep the peace. The h-index is simply just a screening tool to ensure scientific integrity.

10. Two hour time limit: Each side gets a total of 60 minutes of total speaking time for asking/answering all questions. All time speaking is counted against the side doing the speaking, whether they are asking a question or answering a question. The moderator will have a chess clock to track the times. This prevents a side from running down the clock.

11. Alternate who gets to ask questions: The questioning party will flip after each question (alternate who gets to ask the next question). A coin flip determines who gets to ask the first question.

12. Question order: The order of the questions will be up to the side asking the question.

13. Maximum time per question: A maximum of 15 minutes of elapsed time is available for each question.

14. Moderator duties: The moderator will flip to the other side to ask the next question after the first to occur of: 1) 15 minutes total time spent on the question or 2) both sides are done speaking and want to move on (this allows more time to be spent on other questions). Note that if equal time is spent on each question, it would be 12 minutes maximum per question, so there is incentive for both sides to close a question early to allow for more time for other questions.

15. Yielding the floor: The floor flips to the other party when either 1) the speaking party has indicated to the moderator that they are done speaking 2) 3 minutes, whichever one comes first. The 3 minute limit keeps things moving.

16. Modifications: These rules are negotiable and I’m happy to make reasonable changes for any team who qualifies. Submit any proposed rule changes with your application. Clarifications are likely to be approved. Changes in intent are not likely to be approved. This is not a “gotcha” type of dialog; if you think we got it wrong, this is an opportunity to educate us on what we are missing.

17. Zoom, recorded: Debate will be on Zoom and recorded by the moderator and by both sides.

18. Distribution rights: All sides will have rights to publish the debate video and excerpts

In short, the rules are symmetrical, but the challenger has five advantages to show that we are being more than fair about this:

1. They pick the moderator (who can eject people)

2. They set the dates

3. They always get 5 people on their team. We get only as many questions they want to ask us on their team.

So this can hardly be construed as “unfair.” There are no advantages for our side.

So if you are a troll and claim this is an “unfair” challenge, you need to spell out exactly what is unfair because it is highly skewed to favor the challengers.

I look forward to seeing the applications!

I debated ChatGPT

Here’s what happened when I debated ChatGPT on COVID deaths.

She admitted that she had no paper comparing the gold standard tissue sample stains with the opinion of experts.

Thus, we have no evidence that any of these experts assessments are correct.

That’s comforting.

Whoops!

Summary

I’ve presented a fair framework to debate.

I can’t wait to see the applications.

Share

There are many ways for the CDC and FDA to regain the trust of Americans. This article lists over 20 ways.

I was not asked to speak at the conference, so I thought I’d prepare my list for people who attend.

The conference to restore trust

More details here. You can still register. It is free.

20 ideas for how to restore trust

1. Admit your mistakes, starting with the COVID vaccine, the biggest mistake of all time. Admit the COVID vax did the opposite of what you promised, mandates were a mistake, masks don’t work, every mitigation strategy made things worse.

2. Stop lying to people

3. Start telling people the truth about the vaccines (like how dangerous they are)

4. Stop hiding the data; be the champion for data transparency: Show us all the data that you’ve been hiding instead of making us spend millions in lawsuits to release it (v-safe data for example). Don’t force us to use FOIA to have you release the safety signal information. And so on.

5. Engage with people who disagree with you: Answer questions/engage in meaningful dialog with people who disagree with you starting with the people you want to censor. Those are the people you should be listening to.

6. Condemn censorship: Instead of encouraging high tech companies to censor scientists, criticize them publicly if they censor alternative views.

7. Public accountability: Top leadership should accept debate challenges from qualified experts.

8. Replace the current leadership with people who are committed to the truth and data transparency

9. Ignore the people you listened to and listen to the people you ignored. Surely someone inside the FDA and CDC got it right. Those are the people you should be listening to.

10. Acknowledge all the past mistakes that have been made. For example, admit that fluoride in drinking water was a huge mistake, that vaccines cause autism, that thimerosal deposits in your brain, that the COVID vaccines were a disaster, that masks never worked, that you simply made up the 6 foot rule out of thin air, that lockdowns were a huge mistake, that masking kids was idiotic, that vaccinating kids was a grave mistake, that the vaccines cause severe injury and death, that the vaccine injured should be compensated, etc.

11. Rebuild the organizations from scratch. This may be required to restore trust.

12. Require solid science before making recommendations. Stop trusting “experts” and look at what the data says, including the anecdotal data. Instead of just trusting papers, double check it out with physicians on the front line to see if it is consistent. Also do polls. Trust but verify.

13. Replace the outside committee members with people who got it right on the COVID vaccines and who are not afraid to look at data that might be counter to their belief system. You need to get rid of all the current members. There isn’t a single person who got it right about the COVID vaccines, for example.

14. Establish an oversight commission for each agency. That commission should be headed by people like Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, etc. The oversight committee should have the power to replace any of the top management at any time.

15. Seek out ideas for improvements on a regular basis from qualified experts who are critical of the organization.

16. Require that clinical trials be carried out by qualified third party firms and have zero tolerance for protocol violations.

17. Reward and protect whistleblowers

18. Eliminate the liability protection for the vaccine manufacturers

19. Replace the inspector generals with people who realized that the COVID vaccines were a disaster.

20. Make it a criminal offense for these agency heads to misrepresent health data or make decisions that are not in the best interest of the public.

21. Make all the public health data publicly accessible to all at no charge

22. Create special outside committees to recommend sweeping changes to the FDA, CDC, and NIH. These committees should be headed by and populated by experts who were calling these organizations out on their corruption.

23. Stop publishing bogus studies

24. Embrace people who are courageous with different opinions

25. Let doctors be doctors

26. Be an advocate of the public instead of the Administration and drug companies

27. Stop blocking people like me who are offering you constructive feedback on what you are doing wrong. Why not respond to my emails and phone calls?

28. Stop hiding the URF in VAERS

29. STOP propagating the myths, e.g., that VAERS can’t be used to establish causality

30. Demand that the histology slides for people who die within 30 days of a vaccine injection be made publicly available

31. Instruct pathologists in the proper method to assess whether the COVID vaccine caused the death.

32. Train all senior leadership on the precautionary principle of medicine.

33. Independently QA medications purchased at a pharmacy on a regular basis looking for efficacy, contaminants, gene sequencing

34. Make it legal for any researcher to obtain vaccine vials and analyze them

35. Re-examine the safety of all vaccines. Assess benefits against all cause morbidity and mortality.

36. Drop the childhood vaccine schedule

37. Speak out publicly against doctor witch hunts like Meryl Nass

38. If a drug like ivermectin is controversial, hold public hearings like Congress does where the public can hear from experts like Pierre Kory.

39. be on the lookout for early treatment procols like Fareed and Tyson. Educate doctors on protocols that work. Encourage innovation rather than conformity with respect to treatment procotocols.

40. Reward doctors who achieve superior clinical outcomes instead of seeking to remove their license to practice medicine or having them fired.

41. Publicly rebuke ACIP Chair Grace Lee for refusing to see the Israeli MoH safety data. What kind of scientist tuns for cover instead of embracing the receipt of data that can save lives?

42. Investigate allegations of clinical trial fraud expeditiously in public hearings. Why haven’t we heard about Maddie de Gary or Brook Jackson?

43. Investigate allegations of vaccine injury and death expeditiously and publicly.

44. Eliminate commissions, royalties and incentives that lead to decisions not made in the public interest

45. Eliminate the revolving door with Big Pharma, which is clearly being used to impart influence within those agencies.

Executive summary

Every state should make their public health records public. This doesn’t violate privacy and would provide an amazing resource to show everyone objectively whether vaccination increases or decreases all cause mortality in any significant way.

There is absolutely no excuse for this data not to be made PUBLICLY available now.

But as of November 16, 2023, not a single legislator, anywhere in the world, wants to do that. They all want to keep it secret. Nobody will carry a bill to expose the public health data.

Strongly preferred method is record level data like they issue publicly in the Czech Republic

Here’s the record-level data they release in the CR which is awesome. One record for each individual. It doesn’t need to be this extensive.

Minimum columns would be:

Unique ID, 5 year range for year of birth, sex, vax1 date, vax2 date, etc…. vax1 mfg, vax2 mfg, …., week of death (if died).

You can add: race, batch number for each injection, DCCI, etc.

Note: If anyone has a privacy concern, due to release of partial public data that could enable identification of records, they can have their record redacted just like we do in the US. I don’t think anyone can identify anyone using the Czech reporting style.

Alternative #1

For each person alive in the UK on 1 April 2021, the enrolment date for this research, please supply in an electronic form the following information:

1. An identity code unique to that person (the person will thus remain anonymous);

2. The DECADE of birth of that person;

3. The TOTAL number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine received by that person at 1 April 2021 (if the person had not been vaccinated by that date, enter “0”);

4. The week of death (or 0 if the person is still alive)

Alternative #2

For each enrollment date (every 2 weeks from Jun 14, 2021 though May 11, 2022), then for each decade of birth from 1920 to 2000, .

• On enrollment week start, you place people into one of 5 bins (0,1,2, 3, 4+) based on the number of COVID vaccine doses they have had as of that date. 4+ means 4 or more doses.

• Then you count the number of alive people in each of the 4 bins

• Then for each week thereafter, report the number of deaths in each of the bins (0,1,2,3,4+) by week from enrollment until the end of 2025 or whenever your data ends.

• If there are any bins with count between 1 and 4 inclusive, you can blank them out.

• There are no transitions allowed so ignore vaccinations given after enrollment.

Suggested language

Here is the North Dakota bill text.

Alternative method

You simply allow people to submit queries and pay a fee to cover costs to have the health department code and run them and return the results to the person doing the query so long as no PII is revealed.

Simple method

Return two tables where the second table is for the vaccine of interest, e.g., the COVID vaccine

1. RecordID, DOB, DOD (blank if still alive), Gender, Race

2. RecordID, Date given, manufacturer, Dose #

where there is one record of type 1 for each person, and as many as needed of records of type 2.

Most typical method

A table like this:

You obfuscate as described before.

Other options

1. Restrict the unobfuscated record level data to people who affirm under penalty of criminal prosecution that they are researchers and agree not to disclose the data and try to match the data with a person.

2. Make the time-series cohort analysis (by week and by 5 or 10 year age ranges) available to the public without restriction:

   

An example of record-level data

Record level data example has 3 unique patients in the database. This is the result of a Join on the structure above.

A proposal

Better information always leads to better decision-making. Public health data should always be made public as long as privacy rights aren’t violated.

Each state should make publicly available the following records:

1. Death record: Identifier, DOD, and ICD10 codes. This must have the full date of death. Ideally, it’s the same format as used by the CDC, except we need the full date of deaths to compare with the date the vaccines were given.

2. Birth record: Identifier, DOB, gender, race. The DOB will exclude the day and month unless the person dies within the 2 years. Otherwise it is simply year to protect privacy.

3. Vax record: Identifier, Date of injection, vax type, vax manufacturer

4. Disease record: Identifier, Date of diagnosis, ICD10 codes (for those diseases reportable to the state). The state should require reports for all diseases that we vaccinate for at a minimum.

The identifier is the same for all records belonging to a given person. This allows us to link the records.

Any person can request privacy at any time for their record in which case:

1. the DOB will be randomly manipulated (moving the day randomly by +/- 90 days). These records will be noted as “privacy enhanced” records.

In addition, the US government is already doing this for death records today and has been doing this for years with no problem.

We are already doing this today. If you misuse the data you can be put in jail for 5 years

Using the data

For example, today we only have summary records such vaccination numbers by age range and sex for each of the doses in California (they don’t give age ranges for each sex separately which is a problem).

You should then be able to fill out this spreadsheet which is all you need to know the truth. It’s that simple. That’s the most powerful way to analyze the data.

Also, by plotting the days after vaccination (plotting after dose #1, #2, #3, etc) until death, you will see it is not a flat line which would be the case if the vaccines are safe (and had no effect). In short, the records would INSTANTLY reveal the truth.

How do I know this? Because I have seen the records from Medicare and from the UK. It’s not a flat line; it goes up after the shot is given. See Figure 4, 5, 7, and 8 in this article. Here is the UK data (from Clare Craig):

Any state grand jury could compel these records from the state health authority and the grand jury could vote to make the records public. A federal grand jury could compel these records from EVERY state and make them public. NOBODY violates a grand jury subpoena (because it has criminal penalties for non-compliance). So a single state or federal prosecutor could INSTANTLY prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the vaccines are killing massive numbers of people. This is why NOBODY is making these records public; they don’t want to expose the truth. The CDC isn’t even asking the states for this data. They don’t want to know either.

If we can also get other death data as well, such as sex, race, ICD-10 codes for the causes of death and ICD-10 codes for comorbidities, that would be even better. In general, the more info, the better.

One record for any person who died or was vaccinated (or both). The birthyear can be a 5 year range, but the other dates should be exact.

To eliminate any privacy objections, the authorities could apply a probabilistic algorithm to each record, e.g., randomly choose one date on each line to move by 1 day. That way, it is guaranteed that nobody can find their own record. Secondly, by releasing a randomly picked 80% of all records, nobody can possibly identify their own record with certainty. Or they could guarantee to make at least one tiny shift on every record. This means that nobody in the world would be able to identify their own record so privacy is guaranteed.

For people who are dead, we can probably eliminate the obfuscation. I am not aware of any dead people who have objected to having their death-vaccination records released. Are you? Also, the last time I checked, the US constitution doesn’t guarantee privacy rights for dead people. So Congress can easily allow this. Why don’t they?

I’ve been in conversation with health authorities worldwide and when I suggest this and offer to pay any expenses to get the data, they all stop talking to me.

I have released the Medicare records publicly for people who died and I can assure you that I didn’t get any privacy complaints from anyone.

This database would end the debate and should be made publicly available for all researchers. It would end all debates.

The death-vax records can be analyzed in seconds using a variety of totally objective methods to show whether the COVID vaccines have increased or decreased all-cause mortality in each age range.

No medical records, cause of death, etc. are required or needed. Just the age, date of death, and dates of vaccination are all that is required for each death since the start of the COVID vaccination program.

The death-vax data has been collected, but it has never been made publicly available anywhere in the world. There is no PII or HIPAA violation by disclosing the records.

Because kids are most at risk, universities in particular should be demanding data transparency of the death-vax records or they should halt their vaccination mandates.

It is immoral and unethical for universities to mandate COVID vaccines if the health authorities refuse to show us the death-vax database records that would justify their use.

Why isn’t the CDC collecting this info?

In the US, the death data is already collected by the CDC for the entire country. The immunization data is available from each state.

The CDC could quickly collect this information, do the database join, remove the PII fields, and make this database publicly available.

This would reveal to the entire world whether the vaccines are safe or not. Instantly. No more debates.

No medical records are required. No judgment is required. The analysis is all based on mathematics and the law of large numbers. If the vaccines are saving lives, we’ll know it. If the vaccines are killing people, we’ll know it.

Introduction

EVERYONE should be demanding to see this data. It can be easily compiled. It is dispositive. We’d know instantly whether the vaccines are safe or not. No more arguments. No more debates. No more censorship. One and done.

Yet, nobody in the mainstream infectious disease or epidemiology community seems to care about seeing this data. Nobody is calling for it. Why is that? Are they afraid of being proven they are wrong?

If the vaccine is so safe, they should be shouting for the release of this data from the rooftops because nearly 80% of the public is no longer drinking the Kool-Aid:

But the authorities are remaining silent and keeping the data under wraps. That can only mean one thing: the data is horrible and they know it. That’s why they are hiding it from public view.

That’s not just a hunch. I did my own data collection and analysis. Even after adjusting for the bias of the reporters (by restricting the analysis to just parents and grandparents of the reporter), the signal of harm was huge.

Science used to be about data. Not anymore.

Science used to be about data and what the data shows. Sadly, today, science is about what the CDC says, even if there is no data in support of the recommendation whatsoever.

The most stunning example of this is the “six foot rule.” Did you know that it was entirely fabricated out of thin air? From Presidential Takedown page 49:

What is even more stunning is that the CDC has never admitted this publicly. This is evidence that they are a corrupt organization and the corruption goes to the very top of the organization.

We have over two years of data. Why not make it public?

We now have over two years worth of death and vaccination data for people who died after getting a COVID shot, yet nobody wants to see the record level data tied to the vaccination dates?!?!

Let me be perfectly clear:

This is an abject failure of the entire medical community for not demanding to see this data.

The Ohio example

In Ohio, for example, the death records were public until COVID hit. Then they made them impossible to obtain. How does that save lives? It doesn’t. They are not trying to save lives; they are trying to make it hard for anyone to make the government authorities look bad.

The data is being concealed worldwide. Not a single country is releasing the data needed

From the Sorli paper, for example:

The status of the vaccination of these patients is not publicly known, which makes it impossible to calculate the exact impact of Covid-19 vaccination on the increase of these diseases. Despite several calls of researchers from different fields, NIJZ is keeping these data confidential. It is unprecedented that a scientific organization of public health is hiding data that could prove the danger of a given medical treatment. In the lives of people in Slovenia, the only big change of life in 2021 was massive Covid-19 vaccination, so the vaccines represent the most logical candidate for the increased morbidity and mortality. Only when the data become publicly available will we be able to carry out calculations of exact percent of patients that were vaccinated.

There isn’t a jurisdiction in the world releasing the needed data.

People paid for us to see this data with their lives. Why is it being hidden from us?

In the US, hundreds of millions of people participated in a massive clinical trial and have data to share with people. At least 500,000 of the participants paid the ultimate price: they sacrificed their lives to send a message to America about the vaccines. It is extremely disrespectful to these people to ignore their death data and not share it with the public. Why are we not allowing these people to share their data?

Do you think if we could ask those people right before they died, “Do you want to let others know what killed you?” Do you think they would all say, “No! Don’t let anyone know. Please keep it a secret!”?

el gato malo agrees with me and suggests we go even further than my proposal. I agree!

The reason we have debates on vaccines and deaths is because the health officials keep the association between vaccines and mortality a secret, hidden in databases few people have access to (and rarely look for counter-narrative hypotheses).

Wouldn’t it be great if public data were actually “public” as el gato malo has suggested in this excellent Substack article:

I couldn’t agree more.

Every institution in the world that is recommending or requiring COVID vaccination should be DEMANDING to see this data made public

John Beaudoin and I have been calling for the death data to be set free and made public. We have been ignored.

Why aren’t any of these organizations calling for data transparency here so we can learn the truth?

1. The mainstream medical community

2. Heads of state throughout the world

3. The CDC

4. The FDA

5. The White House

6. Congress

7. The mainstream media

8. Public health authorities

9. Any doctor or nurse who recommends the jab to patients

10. Universities who mandate the vaccines for students, staff, or faculty

11. Any organization that supports COVID vaccines for their members, employees, or visitors

The data exists in VSD as well. But the CDC won’t allow anyone to see it.

The data exists in every state health department. But you can’t FOIA it because it requires a join to avoid PII problems and FOIA requests are not allowed if they generate effort like that. So FOIA requests won’t work.

It’s time for everyone to demand that our health authorities “Show us the data!”

We should all refuse to comply until they produce it.

Do you remember the movie Jerry Maguire?

Who could ever forget the classic “Show me the money!” scene from the movie Jerry Maguire?

In the same way Tom Cruise said passionately “Show me the money,” everyone all over the world should be equally passionate with their doctors and healthcare authorities and demand: “Show me the DATA” before we agree to comply with their requests/demands regarding vaccination.

Civil disobedience in Canada

Check out this video from True North entitled “Show us the data and evidence” that described the civil disobedience in Canada:

Business owners and local politicians are pushing back against the government's lockdown measures. Their ask of the government is simple – if you're going to shut us down, show us the data and evidence.

Calling all parents: ask your school why they aren’t calling for the data to be produced

The data that we have shows that the biggest harm is being done to kids.

Therefore, the biggest urgency is to put pressure on any school or university that recommends or requires the COVID vaccines to drop it immediately

Please ask the university president or head of school at any school your child attends to contact the CDC and let them know that if the CDC doesn’t make the death-vax record level data publicly available with the next 30 days, that the school will suspend their COVID vaccination policies until such time as this data is produced and scientists can analyze it. That is the only ethical thing to do.

You can refer to my article in your email.

The public health authorities have been voluntarily keeping the data secret for two years now. That data would end the debate. We should not let them continue to get away with it.

All the excuses for not revealing this data are just that: excuses

I was just notified I will have the death-vax record data from one of the US states soon. It’s in progress.

So if the other states in the US are not able to produce their data, we’ll all just have to rely on the data from this one state, won’t we?

Wow. Talk about an epic failure of 49 out of 50 states…

It doesn’t end with publishing the data

Let’s say the data is finally published. It won’t end there.

For example, suppose the data says that the vaccines make you more likely to die. They’ll spin this by saying, “Sure, that’s because higher risk people got vaccinated! It would have been much worse if they weren’t vaccinated.”

This is a ridiculous argument! The mix of healthy/unhealthy people is irrelevant; if the intervention is safe, the days to death must be a flat line, just like it is for the flu vaccine (after day 0 which shows it isn’t as safe as they claimed).

Note: the only time it isn’t a flat line is is the vax wasn’t given out randomly over time, e.g., 90% was given in Q1; this is because deaths for older people are seasonal.

So no matter what the data says, they will try to interpret it in their favor, no matter how ridiculous their argument is. They know the press will eat it up without engaging any critical thinking skills.

Poll

My “no excuses offer”

I am willing to pay for the data merge and obfuscation costs so that a state or country can publish the vax-death records for 2019-2022.

Any takers?

Summary

John Beaudoin and I have been publicly calling for data transparency.

As of February 9, 2023, we still stand alone.

It’s time for everyone to be demanding that the death-vax record data as described above be made public for everyone to see. There is absolutely no reason to keep this data hidden.

That data will tell us everything we need to know. It’s time to set the data free.

Show us the data. Show us the data. SHOW US THE DATA.

Share

This is the story of how I moved from 100% blue pill to 100% red pilled in just 9 days.

I’ll show you the Twitter DM thread that launched my career as one of the world's top "misinformation spreaders"

Just 6 days after I went red pill, I wrote a 130 page article for TrialSiteNews entitled “Should you get vaccinated?” which laid out the case against the vaccine, Fauci, Cliff Lane, and more.

That led to an appearance in Darkhorse Podcast with Bret Weinstein. I dragged a friend of mine, Robert Malone, with me, because Bret wanted someone with a medical background on the show. Good move. That video launched the anti-vax movement.

Introduction

In March 2021, I got two shots of Moderna thinking that it was a safe way to reduce my chance of getting COVID. I was fully buying the narrative and I thought Fauci was a hero.

Of course, I now regret the error.

The Twitter thread that started it all for me…

I was able to find the original Twitter DM thread that originally planted the seeds of doubts in my mind about the vaccine.

It was an unsolicited message from one of my followers. It shows that on May 10, 2021, I was FULLY blue-pilled praising the vaccine, but by May 19, 2021, I was FULLY red-pilled, never to return to the blue-pilled world:

Look at how blue-pilled I was… I was buying the “safe and effective” narrative hook, line, and sinker. See the comment in the red box below:

The math on 3 relatives died right after getting the vaccine

The vaccine was supposed to be safe which means kills 1 person per million doses.

Assume my friend has 50 relatives and they all got 2 shots. So 100 doses which means we should expect to see 1e-4 deaths.

My friend saw three deaths. The probability of her seeing 3 or more deaths is given by the survival function:

>>> poisson.sf(2, 1e-4)
1.6665416716665328e-13

We can do a Fisher exact test as well, looking at the observation in terms of 100 doses and seeing 3 deaths when the FDA claims it’s 1 in a million doses:

Statistics for my genesis story: 3 relatives who died post jab 999999 100 1 3

One-sided p-value 4.242807269127334e-12
Odds ratio= 29777.881266210083
ConfidenceInterval(low=2368.4142767228445, high=1574773.2998588986)

So I knew instantly that either she was lying to me or the FDA was lying. They couldn’t both be telling the truth.

Tim’s story

It was the combination of the Twitter DM, Tim Damroth’s story, and my investigation into VAERS that caused me to instantly flip my beliefs:

A week after the conversation started, our carpet cleaner, Tim Damroth, showed up at our door wearing a face mask.

I remember I gave him a hard time… “Hey, if you are vaccinated, you don’t have to wear a mask. Get with the program!”

He then explained that he had a heart attack 2 minutes after he got the first Pfizer shot. He had to spend the night in the hospital. And he’s NEVER been the same. Nearly two years after that one shot, he’s in extreme agony and thinks he might die.

And that his wife, who was vaccinated in a different place and time, developed Parkinson’s-like symptoms in the arm where she got the shot right after the shot.

At this point, I was looking at 5 black swans in a one week period (3 from the DM and 2 from Tim and his wife) and it was very clear to me that the reality wasn’t matching the rhetoric.

I started looking at the VAERS data to see if it was consistent with the other observations. It was. In spades.

That was the nail in the coffin for me. My blue pill life was over. The FDA was lying and the medical community was clueless (and lacked any intellectual curiosity to even calculate the odds that what they were observing in their own practices was statistically “impossible”).

No doubt about it. I was right. All these other experts were wrong. Mathematics never lies. All these events were too improbable to be observed if the FDA was telling the truth.

The TrialSiteNews Article

Just two weeks after that initial Twitter message brought the possibility that I could be wrong, on May 25, 2021, I wrote this 130 page article for TrialSiteNews entitled “Should you get vaccinated?” which laid out the case against the vaccine, Fauci, Cliff Lane, and more.

The article went viral.

Mass resignation of the CETF scientific advisory board

Less than a week after I published my article, all the members of the CETF Scientific Advisory Board resigned in protest even though none of them could find any errors in the article.

I said if I was wrong, please explain to me what was incorrect in my article. They refused. They said I was a “bad person” and to “never talk to them again.”

Apparently, this is how “real scientists” engage in constructive dialog to resolve disagreements.

They did tell me (before they resigned) that science is not about opinion, but about data. All the data I could find (including US government data such as VAERS as well as person anecdotes) showed the clinical trials were fraudulent and that the vaccines were killing people. It was all consistent. There were more deaths in the vaccine group than the placebo group in the clinical trial. They hadn’t done any autopsies on any of the people who died in the trial and done the proper stains to exonerate the vaccine as a proximate cause of the deaths. And since the deaths peak 6 months after a dose is given, the trials were way too short to find a safety signal.

But none of them wanted to talk about the evidence. They resigned over their beliefs and refused to talk about the data.

Not only that, but some of them started trash talking about me to the press, comparing me to a snake-oil salesman because I wanted to help save lives.

When you can’t win your argument on the facts (which they couldn’t, they didn’t have any facts at all to dispute what I wrote), you bring out the ad hominem attacks.

Now that the record-level data is released, I was right and they were wrong. There is no doubt about it.

They should be ashamed of themselves for not looking at the data.

A real scientist would have demanded that the record-level data for all vaccines be made public before any doctor should continue to recommend them to patients. Instead, doctors have a “head in the sand” mentality and have no interest in the record-level data that is needed to make a safety assessment on a vaccine that has been launched.

Furthermore, any scientist who runs from a debate on the data, or who runs from offers to see credible data, should be fired, including the head of the ACIP Committee Grace Lee who refused all offers to see the Israeli Ministry of Health data. Watch the Grace Lee called the cops on me video which had over 40,000 views and 766 thumbs up and 3 thumbs down.

The CCCA call with Dr. Byram Bridle

On May 26, as luck would have it, I was on the weekly CCCA zoom call where Dr. Byram Bridle presented the results of his FOIA request to the Japanese government on the Pfizer mRNA vaccine submission. There, for the very first time, we learned that the vaccine doesn’t stay in your arm, but transits to all parts of your body to create inflammation and blood clotting everywhere. I was the one who tipped off Robert Malone.

The Darkhorse podcast that launched the anti-vaxxer movement against the COVID vaccines

On June 10, 2021, I flew to Portland, OR and appeared with Dr. Robert Malone on the DarkHorse podcast the next day on June 11, 2021.

A condensed version of the famous DarkHorse podcast with Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone (only 1 hour).

A repost of the original 3.5 hour DarkHorse podcast is available on Rumble

You can also find it on Spotify and Apple.

And the rest is history.

Thanks to their efforts, I’m now the top hit on Google when you search for “misinformation superspreader”:

I’m proud of that. Really proud. I’m the #1 guy in the entire world! I finally found something I’m really good at!

Of course, we lost a lot of friends after that. But I now have millions of new friends all over the world!

And, by the way, the reason I’m a “superspreader” and not just a “spreader” is because so many people agree with me and follow me.

So there you go. My life history in a nutshell.

That’s how it all began for me.

I have no regrets.

Share

Executive summary

It’s stunning how the entire world is only being told one side of the narrative by the mainstream media. While we can’t change that, what we can do is to make everyone aware that nobody on the pro-vaccine side will engage in an open, public civil discussion or debate on the relevant issues. I intend to do just that through non-stop advertising all over the world.

Introduction

I am writing this from Auckland Airport in New Zealand awaiting my flight back to San Francisco. I was just informed that my attempt to have a discussion about COVID policies with Michael Laws on The Platform was denied. The message I received read as follows, “He isn’t interested in having his views tested by yours.”

So effectively, I’ve been “de-platformed” by The Platform which bills itself as “New Zealand's only independent media site giving you unbiased coverage, commentary, and opinion and the chance to have your say.” Wow. That’s really bad.

This is ridiculous. Enough is enough.

This isn’t about me. Everyone on our side of the narrative is denied an opportunity for an open, public discussion about any issues regarding the COVID response including mandates, masking, vaccines, early treatment, lockdowns, VAERS reporting rates that are off the charts, safety signals deliberately being ignored, trust in public health officials such as ACIP committee chair Grace Lee who doesn’t want to see the Israeli safety data, etc.

It’s time to try a new approach

It’s time for a new approach. I want to make sure that everyone realizes two things:

1. That the mainstream media is only considering and telling one side of the narrative which means that they are essentially involved in propaganda rather than news.

2. That NOBODY pushing the narrative is willing to be challenged about their beliefs.

So you might start to see ads in newspapers, radio, TV, online, and on billboards with headlines like:

• Why can’t we talk about it?

• Why doesn’t anyone on their side want to talk about it?

• Why is it forbidden to talk about it?

• Why are physicians threatened with loss of their jobs if they talk about it?

• Why is it taboo to talk about it?

• Why can’t we have a civil discussion to resolve our differences about it?

• Why are <they> so afraid to talk about it? where <hey> is replaced by local, state, federal lawmakers, government organizations (CDC, NIH, FDA, …), local, state, federal health officials, professional organizations (AMA, CMA, IDSA, etc), infectious disease experts, medical schools, etc.

These ads will be targeted sometimes to organization other times to individuals in a position of power or influence such as a member of Congress or a even a talk show host like Michael Laws who doesn’t seem to practice what he preaches about free speech.

We’ll start with an ad in the Washington Post displaying our letter to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky offering to setting who is telling misinformation by coming to the debate table. If she refuses, we will launch a massive ad campaign on radio, TV, newspapers, billboards, and online asking the question:

“Why is the CDC so afraid to be challenged on their policies?” and suggesting that misinformation costs lives and that censorship has not worked, and that traditionally differences of opinion in America have been settled by dialog. I’ll refer to the Vinay Prasad op-ed.

We’ll send it also to all the CDC employees as well.

Our discussion team of experts

I’ve invited the following people to represent our side of the vaccine debate. I don’t expect everyone to accept my invitation or be available for all discussions (should they ever happen). Here’s the initial list which comprises a mixture of people who are experts on our side of the story (in no particular order):

1. Robert Malone (a)

2. Peter McCullough (a)

3. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (a)

4. Joe Mercola (a)

5. James Thorp (a)

6. Dr. Naomi Wolf (a)

7. Del Bigtree

8. Norman Fenton (a)

9. Jessica Rose (a)

10. Joel Smalley (a)

11. Aaron Kheriaty (a)

12. Pierre Kory (a)

13. Paul Marik (a)

14. Chris Martenson (a)

15. Aseem Malhotra (a)

16. Ira Bernstein

17. Vinay Julapalli (a)

18. Bret Weinstein

19. Ryan Cole (a)

20. Richard Urso (a)

21. Aaron Siri (d)

22. Byram Bridle (a)

23. Paul Alexander (a)

24. Retsef Levi (a)

25. Jay Bhattacharya

26. Scott Atlas (d)

27. Angela Wulbrecht (a)

28. Caroline Stepovich (a)

Notes:

1. (a) means accepted, (d) means declined.

2. Over half of these people accepted within minutes of my sending the invitation.

3. Robert Malone isn’t listed because he doesn’t like debates.

4. Not everyone on the list agrees with everyone on every one of the topics listed below. In general, they were picked because they are experts in certain key aspects of the COVID response.

It’s interesting to note that the people on the other side of the narrative have had nearly two years to accept the challenge or issue their own challenge. They’ve done neither. My hypothesis is that the reason is as simple as this:

What is “it”?

Thousands of issues regarding the worldwide government COVID response including, but not limited to the following items, should be discussed but there is silence from the other side. This is just a list off the top of my head. Ask your friends if there is an item or two from this list that they are willing to discuss. Don’t be surprised if they are unable to talk about any of the items.

1. Why is nobody in the world publicly calling for data transparency except for me and John Beaudoin? The data we have already collected settles the question. Nobody wants it to be public. They won’t release it and nobody is calling for it, just a couple of misinformation spreaders… Wait a second… why would the MISINFORMATION spreaders call for exposing data that would show the vaccines are safe?!? And why would the CDC not want to release that information? Data transparency, and the lack of it with respect to the COVID vaccines, is the single most important issue of the pandemic. Why are officials not releasing the data?

2. Refusing to see credible safety studies: Why are public health officials ignoring credible safety data that proves that the COVID vaccines cause side effects that are serious and that do not resolve? The CDC was offered an opportunity to see the Israeli safety data from the leaked video which shows the vaccines are unsafe. The offer was sent to nearly 300 people at the CDC who work in vaccine safety. ACIP chair Grace Lee refused to see the adverse safety data as well. How do you defend her decision to ignore the data? The video was authenticated by a Reuters fact check. Why did the Israeli Ministry of Health refused to talk about it? Why wasn’t anyone fired? Why was there no investigation about the coverup? Why did the Israeli mainstream media agree to not writing about it. Neil Oliver covered it on GB News, the only on-air anchor to talk about it in the world. Nobody in the US mainstream media wanted to see the safety data either. Isn’t it time for the CDC and mainstream media to admit they are both propaganda organizations and that protecting the public is not even close to being a top priority?

3. CDC is ignoring the VAERS death safety signal. The death safety signal triggered in VAERS just a month after the vaccines were rolled out. The CDC said nothing despite the fact that it was their own data and their own safety signal monitoring algorithm! I personally noticed that the death safety signal triggered in VAERS, it was verified by 3 independent experts, but the CDC ignored it even after it was expressly brought to the attention of senior CDC staff. Where is the calculation proving it didn’t trigger and why can’t we see it? Why was Dr. George Fareed who wrote the CDC and asked about this gaslighted by the CDC and not shown the calculation? Doesn’t this show the safety signals are being ignored? Also, isn’t using PRR a huge mistake in the CDC formula? A vaccine that generates huge numbers of adverse events is considered “safe” using this formula and it is ANDed with other conditions. Is this really the best way to assess safety of a vaccine? The death safety signal triggered a month after the shots rolled out, so the CDC has been ignoring it for more than 2 years now and saying absolutely nothing.

4. Government agencies responsible for safety are deliberately suppressing the safety signals and the mainstream medical community is remaining silent about the coverup. Why? Because that’s the way “science” works. There were over 770 safety signals that triggered in VAERS but the CDC covered them all up; we only found out about these via FOIA. The Israeli Ministry of Health only seriously started monitoring safety 1 year post vax rollout. When their hand-picked scientists found out the vaccines were causing severe issues that did not go away, the MoH cut their funding and pretended they never heard the report. The Israeli and US mainstream press is silent. So is the mainstream medical community. When the regulators look the other way on safety signals and the “scientists” don’t call them out on the corruption, you have a very broken medical system that should not be trusted until major changes are made.

5. If I’m wrong, why is it that no prominent pro-vax advocate will debate me? Not for any amount of money. Not even Pfizer or Moderna will defend their own product. If the manufacturers refuse to defend their own product, why should you trust them? Heck, I can’t even get a live recorded debate with any pro vaxer, even for free. Why are they so scared of the camera.

6. I claimed the vaccines cause strokes. The CDC says no, false alarm. So why isn’t anyone taking my $1M bet on this? Doesn’t anyone believe the CDC?

7. If pilots aren’t failing EKGs, why did they change the standards? Even the FAA couldn’t answer that one. Do you know?

8. Why weren’t we warned that more boosters —> worse results? In December 2022, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic reported that they had found “the higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19." Why shouldn’t we be concerned? What about biologic plausibility? Is there any mechanism of action which will explain why the likelihood of infection goes up but the risk of hospitalization and death go down? We aren’t aware of any. Are you?

9. If this analysis of all-cause mortality isn’t right, then how come nobody is willing to supply the correct version? It shows that by May 2021 (when they stopped publishing the data by vaccination status, that every single age cohort had higher all-cause mortality if they were vaccinated. How do you explain that? If you think it is wrong, why are you not showing us the correct analysis?

   

10. UK excess deaths: What is causing the 650,000 excess deaths in the UK (as reported by the BBC)? It’s the worst in 50 years. It can’t be COVID since everyone is vaccinated and the vaccine works and Omicron is VERY mild. The article claims “pandemic effects on health and NHS pressures” are among the leading explanations, but the Devil’s advocate article shows this isn’t correlated and the argument was hand-waving with NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT. How did they rule out the vaccine? They did so by not looking at the graph, for sure! So if the graph above can’t be attacked (by showing us how they got it wrong and the correct graph), then we have our answer as to what is causing the excess death.

11. If Norman Fenton/Martin Neil’s The Devil's Advocate: An Exploratory Analysis of 2022 Excess Mortality article is wrong, how come nobody has pointed out the error and showed us the correct analysis? It shows that countries with higher vaccination rates have higher excess mortality and points out all the other explanations don’t fit.

12. If the vaccine is so safe and effective, how come I can’t find a single success anecdote? They are all negative by a highly statistically significant amount. Whenever I bring this subject up with a pro-vaxxer, they change the topic. Instantly. Look, if there was even a SINGLE success story, that would be their poster child and they’d be touting it. But they can’t find one either. It’s all negative. Very negative. Read all the stats in this article including the New Zealand funeral director who reports that 95% of his cases were vaccinated less than two weeks before they died or the Clifton Hill, Australia nursing facility that lost 33% of their residents in 12 months after the vaccines rolled out (normal is 1% a year). How do you explain that?

13. A reader in Australia wrote: I waded through Victorian and Commonwealth data the other night. it showed that monthly, All Cause Deaths in Victoria had increased by 25% from the beginning of 2021 to the end of 2022, which ties in with what the funeral director told me for his business, 1000 funerals in 2021, increasing to 1240+ in 2022. Isn’t the vaccine supposed to lower ACM rather than increase it?

14. What is the half life of the spike protein in people? Does it trouble you that nobody knows?

15. Why isn’t there any birth data in 2022 in Australia? They stopped publishing it right when the birthrates started dropping precipitously at the end of 2021.

16. The death safety signal triggered in VAERS triggered just one month after the vaccines rolled out. The CDC has never told the public this. It’s now been two years! They also lied to the public about ischemic stroke; they said it only appeared in VSD and not VAERS. So what does the medical community do when the CDC is caught in a lie like this? They say nothing. Is that how science works? You conceal all the safety signals and that is OK? Whenever I bring this subject up with a pro-vaxxer, they change the topic. Instantly.

17. The Lancet is censoring dissent. They even admit it in their own journal. The most recent case is stunning where they refused to correct or retract an important paper. Their reason: they didn’t hear from the author for a rebuttal. When the scientific journals are corrupt, all bets are off. Yet nobody in the mainstream medical community is calling for the editors to be replaced. Is that how science works?

18. There are zero prominent people who switched from anti-COVID vax to pro. But plenty of highly respected, prominent people that switch in the other direction: Aseem Malhotra, John Campbell, Paul Marik, and Joseph Fraiman. Even the most highly respected mainstream vaccine expert, Paul Offit, isn’t getting any more boosters. Why should you?

19. Nobody will take my $1M bet. Why not? If they are so confident they are right, prove me wrong in public. Not even the drug companies will defend their product. The reason is simple: all the data from physician offices is negative. We can’t find a single nursing home, geriatric practice, pediatric practice, etc. where the numbers improved after the vaccines rolled out. They all got dramatically worse. How do they explain that they cannot come up with a single success example where all-cause mortality was tracked and improved?

20. The polling data is horrible. Explain this poll. This isn’t my followers due to the high number of retweets. How do they explain this? There are 130M households. That’s roughly 11M dead people over 2 years. But our poll is likely skewed since the all-cause mortality stats didn’t double. Let’s say our poll is off by a factor of 20, i.e., 95% of the Yes votes are due to sampling bias (people with deaths are more likely to fill out the form). That’s still over 500,000 deaths over 2 years. However, we know the bias isn’t that large because we ran several pollfish surveys (which don’t have the bias), and got a 6% rate of households with an excess death from the vaccine (7M excess deaths from the vaccine). The poll also found that more people died from the vaccine than from COVID (again, the audience is neutral; selected by pollfish). How do they explain that? Where are THEIR polls? Where are their success examples?

    

21. Nobody wants to acknowledge the millions of vaccine injured. Even today, the FDA thinks these people are making it up. It’s really disgusting.

22. There is no end-to-end quality control. Zero. There was no informed consent because nobody knows what is in the vials. Former FDA #3 person, David Gortler, reveals that there is no end-to-end testing for the vaccines. So the amount of drug, the integrity of the mRNA, and the level of contaminants in the vaccine is completely unknown because nobody is measuring it on a regular basis. In addition, EMA documents admitted that over 25M doses given to people in US and Europe were not GMP. This is a minimum number of doses; the real number is likely much more, but nobody knows how large it is. Lab rats are treated better than this. People became magnetic because early vials had magnetic material contaminants. Duh. They were not making this stuff up.

23. The drug companies withheld negative booster data from the FDA panel. The data showed that the boosters made people more likely to be infected with COVID. Members of the FDA panel publicly spoke out about this as outrageous, but the medical community remained silent.

24. The massive German insurance company database. Read this article: The Most Important Dataset of the Pandemic Was Just Released. Explain how all the effects in the graphs are happening if it isn’t the vaccine. What is the more likely cause and how can you show that? This looks pretty devastating and unexplainable to us, but we are just misinformation spreaders. Explain this:

    

    

25. Medical practice survey: Shows 2 deaths per 1,000 vaccinated; 30 deaths per thousand vaccinated (in those over 65), >5% disability in armed forces from the shot, and that the vaccine has killed at least 5X more people than the virus. Tell me again why this is success. The survey findings are here and anyone can replicate the survey but nobody wants to for some reason. Why?

26. VAERS excess deaths. There are over 15,000 excess deaths reported for the COVID vaccines. If these deaths were not caused by the vaccine, then what caused them? Also, the minimum underreporting factor is at least 30 and more likely 41 or more. This is over 500,000 excess deaths. Shouldn’t that be a stopping condition? If not, how many people have to die before we take these vaccines off the market? How many children have to die before we take these vaccines off the market? How many people have to die or be disabled before we stop mandating these vaccines for the US military? Why was no stopping condition ever defined? What should the stopping condition be? There are only 3 possible ways the numbers in VAERS can be wrong: gaming, overreporting, the vaccine is extremely dangerous. There is no evidence anywhere of the first two. In fact, all the evidence we have shows gaming is tiny and that the propensity to report is the same this year as in other years. So how do you explain the dramatic uptick in all countries of the world which monitor safety events? For more on VAERS, please see the questions in this article. While you could argue correlation isn’t causation, if it isn’t the vax, you have to ask what else meets this criteria:

    1. Never been seen before

    2. Deployed at start of 2021

    3. Injected into you

    4. Able to kill people in MULTIPLE different ways

    5. Deployed into massive numbers of people all over the US at the same time

    6. Rates of reports coincide with number of people being vaccinated

27. VAERS reliability. Why is it when the VAERS numbers are low, VAERS is cited as proof of safety, yet when the VAERS numbers are high, VAERS is unreliable?

28. VAERS underreporting factor. Why does the CDC refuse to calculate it? Jessica Rose used the adverse event data in the Pfizer trial to estimate a URF of at least 30. I used the anaphylaxis data to estimate 41. But now it turns out that serious adverse events in the Pfizer trial may have been underreported by a factor of 10 or more. What is your calculation for the URF and why doesn’t the CDC release its estimates? Also, how do you explain this article showing that the VAERS reporting rates are flat? Where is the data showing there is overreporting?

29. Polling data showing cure worse than the disease. Why are independent polls showing that the deaths from the vaccine outnumber the deaths from COVID? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? For example, this poll, done against a NEUTRAL audience by a professional independent polling company, showed more than twice as many deaths were caused by the vaccine than the virus. How do you explain that? Got any polls showing the reverse? Why not?

30. Why would anyone get a vaccine which increase their risk of getting COVID? See this article which has many references to papers (including Rintrah) showing the vaccine is damaging your immune system by elevating IgG4 (which is not your friend) and reducing IgG3 (which is your friend) to zero after the 3rd shot. Whoa.

31. Pulmonary embolism safety signal. This safety signal triggered over a year ago. Today, more than a year later, the FDA spotted it, but the CDC is still clueless. Why didn’t the CDC spot it a year ago? It was there in plain sight of everyone. I wrote articles on it. How could I easily find it a year ago, yet the CDC still can’t see it at all? Can we at least see the calculations they are doing so we can point out their errors? They seem not to be able to perform a simple division of two numbers. They refuse to show any of the calculations showing that we are wrong and there is no safety signal. One of our doctors asked nicely for this information and they gaslighted him rather than responding to his request to see the calculation. Why didn’t they just supply the calculation?

32. Why are none of the cardiologists in the UK getting any more jabs? Are they all misinformation spreaders? Should we take away their licenses to retaliate? Why is the mainstream media not reporting this?

33. How come nobody has published (in a peer-reviewed journal) a rebuttal to Aseem Malhotra’s papers explaining the issues with the COVID vaccine? Why didn’t the press cover it? They’ve covered all his other papers? Note: Susan Oliver created a rebuttal which starts off calling Aseem Malhotra and John Campbell grifters. The general rule is that you have to attack the people when you can’t attack the data.

34. Why can't anyone explain how these 14 kids died after getting vaccinated? Two of the 14 died from pulmonary embolism. Two died from bleeding in the brain. In the entire 32-year history of the VAERS system, there hasn’t been a single death from intracranial hemorrhage. Why didn’t the CDC think this was abnormal? In fact, in one case, the bleeding developed within 24 hours of the COVID shot. Bad luck?

    

35. Wait a second… isn’t the vaccine supposed to make it LESS likely I get COVID? The vaccine is making it more likely I’ll get COVID if I get vaccinated. Tell me again why we want more people to get COVID? I must be missing something.

    

    

36. If the benefits of the vaccine are so compelling, why are fewer and fewer people believing the narrative over time? The % of fully vaccinated in Israel is now around 2.4%. This is astonishing in a country where everyone does what the government says. If the vaccine is so safe and works so well, why are fewer and fewer people believing it? This is true in every country I’m aware of. Note that this is from Sept 2, 2022:

    

37. Was science redefined? Science used to be about having a hypothesis and showing your hypothesis fits the data better than any other hypothesis. What’s it about now? Why won’t anyone defend the narrative?

38. Died suddenly. My survey data (which anyone can replicate but nobody will) showed that, among other things, “died suddenly” wasn’t an issue for those <65 who were unvaccinated in 2021 and 2022. But it was the #1 cause of death for those in that same age group who were vaccinated. How do you explain that?

39. Risk benefit of the vaccines vs. early treatment: Early treatment protocols such as the Fareed-Tyson protocol are arguably over 99% effective in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID; they’ve treated over 15,000 patients without any hospitalization or death. The risk of death from these early treatment protocols is vanishingly small. In comparison, any hospitalization and death benefits from COVID vaccination are not clear at all (if there is a clear benefit, where are the repeatable studies showing the same level of risk reductions in every study? Have you noticed they NEVER quantify the hospitalization and death benefit reductions?) and there is a clear significant risk of death as we see from the VAERS data, the German FOIA data, physician reports, and the Schwab paper. Why we would ever even consider a novel vaccine which has not been thoroughly tested with unknown long-term consequences as a viable option is unthinkable. What are we missing? Science is about repeatability. If the vaccine hospitalization and deaths benefits are real, we should see the same numbers repeatedly. We don’t. Nobody even talks about any of the numbers, have you noticed? They never give a number. Why not? There is a “consensus” number of a 50% benefit that the UK published (see page 14) for hospitalization and death for all three vaccines. This was a UK expert panel. Even if that was correct, it simply pales in comparison to the early treatment numbers (i.e., a factor of 2 vs. 100).

40. Why is it OK to go ahead without evidence? “To the extent that "use" of Covid-19 products after Feb. 04, 2020 "shall not constitute clinical investigation," use of such products is authorized even if there is no safety or efficacy data, even if such products are toxic and ineffective.” See Biomedical security state and state-run bioterrorism programs: six American statutory frameworks for context.

41. The answer is in the morgue. John Beaudoin pointed out we have all the data we need at this point and refers to Exhibit F. The data in Massachusetts is compelling: deaths went from respiratory to cardiac when the vaccines rolled out.

42. If the safe and effective story is so compelling, why are >10X more people switching from believing the narrative to believing the misinformation spreaders than switching the other way? The misinformation spreaders are being outspent by 10,000 to 1, yet are converting 10X more people to the other side. Hmmm… Can you name a single prominent person who looked at the data and switched from red to blue pill, i.e., from anti-vax to pro-vax? I can name plenty who moved the opposite way: Pierre Kory, Paul Marik, RFK Jr., Robert Malone, Aseem Malhotra, …

43. Black swan event for top medical officer. How do you explain this: the former Australian Medical Association (AMA) president has broken her silence about the “devastating” experience — emerging as the most prominent public health figure in the country to speak up about the taboo subject. Why is she breaking her silence? Is this the way medicine works today that you look the other way when there are injuries? But not only was she vaccine injured but so was her partner. “Former federal MP Dr Kerryn Phelps has revealed she and her wife both suffered serious and ongoing injures from Covid vaccines, while suggesting the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators.” Is she lying? The chance of this happening is near zero if the vaccines are as safe as claimed.

44. UK Consultant Surgeon calls for halt to Covid injections and speaks out against medical censorship. Is he a misinformation spreader too?

45. Why not drop the liability protection? We are constantly assured that the vaccines are so safe and effective, so why not just drop the liability protection for the manufacturers? No other product enjoys this kind of immunity. It would reduce vaccine hesitancy and there is no risk in doing this since we all know how safe the vaccines are, right? What do you think would happen if they dropped liability protection in a country? Why do you think nobody wants to find out? Is there some scientific reason a vaccine requires liability protection but all other drugs do not?

46. The Herve Seligmann, Spiro Pantazatos, David Wiseman analysis shows ACM increases for the boosters. See this Dr. Drew video at 59:00 mark. Is there a more credible study showing the reverse?

47. Why were any of these mitigation strategies needed? Why didn’t the government immediately recommend C, D, and zinc if you got COVID. Nurses have known for decades this is very effective against viruses. Now that we have a clinical trial proving this that is highly significant, why not recommend this? You can also add a twice a day nasal rinse with iodine to the mix. What do you have to lose? "Uptake of vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc were significantly associated with the reduced risk of infection and severity of COVID-19 (OR: 0.006 (95% CI: 0.03–0.11) (p = 0.004)) and (OR: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01–0.22) (p = 0.005))... this study was conducted before the start of mass vaccination against COVID-19 in Bangladesh." Is anyone going to replicate this in the US? Why not treat like masks were … for masks there was no RCT,

48. VAERS adverse events. There are more adverse events reported for the COVID vaccines than for all 70 vaccines over the last 30 years combined. Why shouldn’t this generate a safety signal? Doesn’t this suggest that there is something seriously wrong with both the safety signal formula and the CDC for not realizing the obvious? Here’s the chart that Liz Willner presented at the start of the Johnson hearing (at 11:00):

    

    Did she make a mistake? Shouldn’t this be troubling? If not, why not? As we sit here today, through November 25, 2022, the CDC VAERS system reports 15,508 deaths in the United States from COVID-19 vaccination, 22% of them within 96 hours of vaccination. There were 15,505 disabled Americans, 9,266 with heart damage, and 356,269 doctor visits, urgent care, or hospitalizations attributed to vaccine side effects. Is this what we should expect from a safe vaccine? On what basis can you conclude that?

49. Germany reports 460X more deaths from the COVID vaccine than all other vaccines combined in 2021. That seems pretty unsafe to me. What do you think? Is that safe and effective to you? See this article: German Government Confirms 460 Vaccine Deaths for 2021.

50. Informed consent. Do you think that “This page intentionally left blank” is an effective way to inform patients of the thousands of side effects of the COVID vaccines? Did you speak out about this? If not, why not? See 2:00 into this video where Professor Renata Moon MD testifies at Senator Ron Johnson’s hearing.

51. Why are the authorities so afraid of defending their viewpoints? Senator Johnson named all the people he invited to his forum at 1:37:50 in this video. None of them came to defend the narrative. Why not nip the misinformation in the bud? Instead, nearly a million views later, the information is disseminated without challenge. If it is so easy to debunk this information, why are all the experts afraid to do so?

52. Determining causality. If the vaccine didn’t cause the events reported in the VAERS system, then what did? The symptoms caused by the vaccines satisfy all the Bradford-Hill causality criteria. So why shouldn’t we believe it? And how could the vaccine phase 3 clinical trials have missed the myocarditis link? When you have 1 in every 29 teenage boys developing myopericarditis, subclinical myocarditis, or pericarditis after the second dose (see Table 2 of the Thailand prospective study (published in the peer-reviewed literature) which looked at 301 teens between 13–18 years old), that’s a huge effect! How was it missed? And we know the vaccine does CAUSE serious adverse events because this was proven by the data collected by the scientific panel appointed by the Israeli Ministry of Health. Even after these adverse events were revealed, nobody in the world was able to find a safety signal for these known symptoms. How is that possible? Is our worldwide medical community really that lame that after we tell them the answer, they still can’t find a safety signal? Isn’t it time the medical community leveled with the people of the world and admitted that their ability to determine causality and detect safety signals is abysmal? Why didn’t anyone else in the world do vaccine safety monitoring using the techniques deployed by the Israeli panel where they looked at the symptoms of people who were re-challenged with multiple doses of the vaccine? Also, a free public heart screening of 12-25 year-old in Southern California found 2% with heart issues. A recent French study shows incidence of post-vaccine myocardial injury is 2.8% vs. 0.0035% myocarditis in retrospective studies. Can you explain how that can happen with such a safe vaccine. In particular, what is the mechanism of action of the damage and how do you KNOW it is limited to just the heart? Put it this way: 28,000 cases per million post vaccine vs. 35 cases per million background. That’s an 800X increase. So is that what they mean by “slightly elevated” risk? What would be a “significantly” elevated risk then? This paper says rate is 40 per million from infection compared to 2.8 per hundred from the vaccine in the Swiss paper which is 700 times higher. Plus cardiologists are all reporting more myocarditis post-vax than post-infection.

53. The V-safe data. Aaron Siri discussed the V-safe data starting at 12:30 at the Johnson hearing. V-safe is the official safety monitoring system for the COVID vaccine with over 10M people reporting their experiences so we know the denominator. Many questions arise from Siri’s attempts to determine what the data said, but the primary question is why did the CDC try for 1.5 years to prevent the release of the data? If the vaccine is so safe, why wouldn’t the CDC simply make the data public just like the VAERS data since doing so would increase public confidence in the vaccine and reduce vaccine hesitancy which is a key goal of the Biden administration? What public interest is served in keeping the V-safe data secret for so long and then releasing it after people have gotten their shots? Isn’t it troubling that nearly 8% of the people who got vaccinated had to seek professional medical care after getting vaccinated? This was even confirmed in a huge new Rasmussen survey. Nearly 25% of those people had to seek emergency room care or were hospitalized. Why didn’t the V-safe system ask about myocarditis or any other serious side effect? These were known side effects and they were listed in the v-safe protocol version 2 document. Why were they never included in the V-safe survey that users were given? How did the public benefit from this omission?

    

    Shouldn’t 25% of the full 10.1M being unable to continue normal activities or miss work/school suggest that the vaccine is causing an abnormal number of problems? Why did the CDC only report out the first week number for people who needed medical care? If the vaccine is safe, the % seeking medical care in any given week should be nearly identical. It isn’t. It’s not even close to flat. Why was this alarming statistic not disclosed? If it wasn’t the vaccine causing this, what was the cause? Note, the numbers listed below are NOT cumulative.

    

54. Hospitalization and death benefits? Where is the reliable data showing these claimed benefits and why didn’t they show up in the clinical trials? In fact, we saw the opposite: in the Pfizer clinical trial, more people died who got the vaccine than the placebo. Where is the more definitive data showing a statistically significant all-cause mortality and morbidity benefit? But if we believe that data, then it means that the clinical trials (which showed statistically significant all-cause morbidity) are invalid. You can’t have it both ways: either the trials were wrong or the new data is wrong. Which is it going to be and why isn’t anyone talking about this?

55. Why didn’t anyone come to Senator Ron Johnson’s hearing to defend the narrative? Nobody from any of the drug companies, federal agencies, or medical community was willing to show up at Senator Johnson’s December 7 hearing on the vaccine. They were invited. They all say they want to stop misinformation, so why not stop it at the source? This would have been a perfect opportunity with all these experts in the room. What was the benefit by passing up on this opportunity? How many lives were saved by refusing to challenge the statements that were made?

56. Japan: Why are death rates going up in Japan on each COVID wave? Nearly everyone there is vaccinated and the data is very reliable. How do the authorities explain these numbers?

57. Professor Fukushima’s public rebuke. Japanese infectious disease Professor Masanori Fukushima publicly rebuked the Japanese Ministry of Health for not investigating the harms caused by the vaccine. His remarks are scathing. If the vaccine is so safe and effective, why would he do this? Was anything he said false?

58. Wayne Root’s prospective study. 200 of his friends (about half vaxxed) attended an event. He tracked what happened to them since the event. The vaxxed had significantly more severe adverse events and deaths. Injuries 26:0. Deaths were 7:0. Shouldn’t it have been the other way around? How do you explain this?

59. The Levi study about a 25% increase in cardiac events in Israel correlated to the vaccine rollout. The research was published in Nature. How do you explain this? If it wasn’t the vaccine, what caused is the more likely cause? If you can’t explain the more likely cause, then doesn’t the precautionary principle of medicine require that you at least warn patients? But the most interesting part wasn’t mentioned in the paper. The researchers tried to get data after the May 2021 cutoff and were denied access. If the vaccines are so safe, what is the benefit of hiding the data that would prove that the Jan-May 2021 data was just an anomaly? It looks like they are hiding the safety data, doesn’t it?

60. Death survey comments. I asked my readers to report any deaths in their friends from any cause; vaccinated and unvaccinated. While the numbers were too small to draw any conclusions, it was actually the comments on the deaths that told the story. If the vaccines are so safe and effective, how do you explain that the deaths were tied to the vaccine in over 75% of the cases of all-cause deaths? Are you willing to replicate the survey yourself? Even if the results are biased by a factor of 10X, this is still a devastating number of deaths.

61. Insurance company excess all-cause mortality is unexplainable if it isn’t the vaccine. How can you have a 40% increase in all-cause mortality among a generally very healthy cohort and have no idea what is causing it? (see 21:40 in the Johnson hearing). And why do the insurance companies not want to ask about the vaccination status of people who died? Here’s a link to Pierre Kory’s May 10, 2022 tweet which has a link to the insurance industry report (Society of Actuaries) where Table 5.7 below was taken from (see page 23):

    

62. Sudden death tied to the vaccine by respected German researchers: See this article on Peter McCullough’s substack published on December 4 entitled Found Dead at Home after COVID-19 Vaccination: 71% of a random sample of people who died unexpectedly within 20 days of the vaccine and underwent an autopsy to determine the cause of death, died of a primary symptom that is caused by the vaccine. In the paper, German scientists conclusively linked the COVID vaccine and sudden death for the first time. This is a direct quote: “Our findings establish the histological phenotype of lethal vaccination-associated myocarditis.” There were 35 patients; 10 were excluded as having died from pre-existing conditions, leaving 25 people. Of the 25, the study found 5 which likely died exclusively from myocarditis and no other case. So they only examined the histopathology of five bodies (3 female, 2 male) who met the criteria of myocarditis and had no other likely cause of death because they were looking to assess whether the vaccine caused myocarditis leading to sudden unexpected death. They basically were looking for the “cleanest” proof of death, but it’s likely that all 71% of the cases (25 out of 35) died from the vaccine, it’s just harder to “prove” that. They pointed out that one of the 5 they investigated had herpes, but nobody ever dies from herpes so they left that patient in. They found heart damage consistent with vaccine-induced myocarditis in all 5 cases. More interestingly is the death timing: “All [five] persons died within the first week following vaccination (mean 2.5 days, median 2 days).” (see Table 2 in the Schwab paper for the death timing of each case). If it was not related to the shot, it wouldn’t be clustered so close to the shot.
    
    ”During the last 20 years of autopsy service at Heidelberg University Hospital we did not observe comparable myocardial inflammatory infiltration.”
    
    ”Based on the autopsy findings and all available data, no other cause of death except (epi-)myocarditis was identified in any of the cases presented here. Hence, myocarditis has to be considered the likely cause of death.”
    
    ”In three cases, the overall autopsy findings, in particular presence of (epi-)myocarditis in combination with the absence of other plausible causes of death (especially pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, severe brain infarction or bleeding, other cardiac disease), together with the close temporal association with the vaccination event lead to the conclusion that vaccination was the likely cause of (epi-)myocarditis and that this cardiac affection was the cause of sudden death.”
    
    Schwab was the first author but Peter Schirmacher was the senior author on the paper. They pointed out that “It has to be emphasized, that a comparable (epi-)myocardial infiltration was neither found in any of the other 20 autopsies performed on bodies found dead within 20 days following an anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.” I recognized Schirmacher instantly; he is internationally recognized as one of the world’s top pathologists and was also one of the first pathologists to link the vaccines and deaths and tell the world about it. I was told that they threatened to kill his family so he went undercover which is why he was completely unreachable when I tried to contact him in August 2021). See this news story on the vaccine-related COVID deaths and this FOX News segment featuring Peter McCullough. This is the consistent with the research described by Dr. Ryan Cole here. More than a year ago, on August 1, 2021, Peter Schirmacher looked at 40 deaths within 2 weeks after vaccination and determined that at least 30% to 40% of the deaths could be linked to the vaccine. The question everyone should be asking is why is this research only now appearing two years after the vaccine roll out? Why are no autopsies being done in the US? Why is nobody in the US publishing similar research? Watch this video from John Campbell entitled Myocarditis German evidence who explains the significance of this important paper published by top pathologist in a top German cardiology journal. Here is Dr. Been’s video about the Schwab paper. Here is Dr. Moran’s video about the Schwab paper which in the first 5 minutes talks in detail about the prospective Thailand study where 7 out of 202 males developed myocarditis or pericarditis within just two weeks after their second dose of the vaccine. This is far greater than the risk of myocarditis from COVID (which creates NO added risk per this large-scale Israeli study of 196,992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection). A rate of 3.5% of teenage males (which is 1 in every 29 teenage males) being diagnosed with myocarditis post-vaccine is a disaster. If the vaccine isn’t causing this, what is? This cannot be simply “bad luck” that these kids all developed spontaneous myocarditis; the rate is too high and the timing is suspicious. The precautionary principle of medicine requires us to halt the vaccine for kids, but the US ignored it, no further research is being done. In a move contrary to medical evidence, Yale University is now requiring the vaccine for all undergraduate students including the latest boosters. The question for the reader is whether you have a more likely explanation for these deaths than vaccine induced? Also, did you notice that throughout the video (such as at 12:10), Campbell has to expressly point out what he is “allowed” to talk about? Have you ever wondered what he would say if his speech wasn’t muzzled? Don’t people have a right to know that? Or is the public better off when clinicians’ speech is muzzled? Finally, look at all the comments on the video. In particular, this comment tells you all you need to know:

    

63. Rates of myocarditis observed by cardiologists. Can you find a cardiologist who experienced a DECREASE in the rates of myocarditis after the vaccines rolled out? I have yet to find one. Why is that? They should be easy to find based on the narrative about COVID being more dangerous. This article uses ICD-10 codes in German to show that myocarditis rates went up by 12-15X higher than the rates from the virus.

64. Interest in myocarditis in Google. It peaks shortly after the vax was rolled out for kids. But I thought it was higher for COVID. After the vax rolled out, it should have dropped. How do you explain why the opposite is happening in Google Trends?

65. DMED data: The DMED data shows something is drastically affecting the health of our soldiers. If it isn’t the vaccine, what is it and why isn’t anyone talking about it (or even curious about the cause)? See 30:39 in the Johnson hearing

    

66. Misinformation: Were there any misstatements made at the Senator Ron Johnson’s 3 hour hearing on Dec 7, 2022? Can you name one? Can we talk about it?

67. Paxlovid order. Why is the US government order billions of dollars worth of Paxlovid when the Fareed-Tyson protocol is much cheaper, safer, and more effective?

68. Should misinformation be a crime? Francis Collins says misinformation is responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people. He wants misinformation to be a crime. What do you think of this idea? How long do you think they should be put in jail for? Doesn’t this mean long jail sentences for Biden, Jha, Collins, Fauci, Walensky, and most of the the doctors in America?

69. Death and disability numbers: Why didn’t Fox News investigate my death and disability claims that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions have been disabled? They said on air that they can’t verify them. They can’t or they won’t? Dr. Naomi Wolf was easily able to verify my claims. Fox wasn’t interested in discussing this after I made the statements and offered the data. They did not want to see the data backing up my claims.

70. Absence of critical thinking skills: masks and the 6 foot rule. Masks and 6 foot distancing are two mitigation techniques that have never been deployed for a respiratory virus before COVID. What new data was discovered that caused each of these intervention to suddenly “work”? Did the laws of physics change? Even after the first two randomized trials made it painfully obvious that masks did nothing, nothing changed! The BMJ noted that the Danish study had its conclusion changed in order to be published. The Bangladesh trial showed in a large population any effect was simply too small to measure; it contained a critical error since it was cluster randomized yet the journal did not respond to the complaint made by Professor Norman Fenton. Despite all of this, there were no protests from the medical community with the lone exception of UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad who wasn’t fooled by any of the shenanigans. Is the medical community really that lame that only one professor in the US figured it out? This was obvious to me and I’m not a doctor, just an engineer with two degrees from MIT. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure any of this out. Professor Norman Fenton wrote the journal to complain about the Bangladesh study. The journal refused to reply to his very legitimate concerns which completely overturn the conclusions of the paper. If those concerns weren’t legit, then explain why?

71. Hypertension: Robert Malone’s systolic blood pressure shot up to 230 right after his COVID vaccine which almost killed him. That’s not just an anecdote. VAERS confirms this is a common side effect. How do you explain that?

72. Can you debunk Denis Rancourt’s evidence showing when the government intervenes, deaths go up? Here’s the video.

73. The more you vaccinate, the greater the harm. How would you interpret this chart? Wasn’t the vaccination program supposed to reduce mortality?

    

74. Birth rates: Read this article about the Missing Babies of Europe showing a massive sudden decline in birth rates that happened EXACTLY 9 months after the vaccine rollout. Does anyone care? If the birth rates dropped to zero, does anyone care? How low do the birthrates have to go before anyone says anything? . Why are birth rates down worldwide by substantial numbers? Why is Dr. James Thorp seeing an “off-the-charts” rise in sudden fetal death and adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as fetal malformation and even fetal cardiac arrest, among his patients? He has said, “Miscarriage has increased by a massive number… Fetal malformation…fetal cardiac abnormalities… fetal cardiac arrhythmias…fetal cardiac arrest…severe placental problems causing inter-uterine growth restrictions (unable to grow fetuses)… [it’s] a significant increase, and this is all compared with appropriate controls (like the influenza vaccine)… it’s way off the charts." Is he lying? Will anyone challenge his patient data?

75. Excuses for avoiding debate on these topics don’t make any sense. UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad co-authored an op-ed two years ago bemoaning the lack of debate. Nothing has changed. It doesn’t matter how credentialed the person asking for the debate is: nobody in a position of authority or influence who is pro-narrative will agree to be challenged. Not a single one. I even offered members of the CDC and FDA outside committees to sit down with me for a few hours to answer some questions. I offered $1M to compensate them for their time. No takers. I still don’t know why. So even the reason for refusing debate is a secret!

76. If the vaccines are so safe and effective, why doesn’t Pfizer challenge us to a debate? They are leaving money on the table by not debating us. More and more are coming over to our side because Pfizer isn’t stepping up to discredit us using facts and evidence. I wonder why? Doesn’t this suggest that Pfizer wants to have disinformation out there if they are doing nothing to convince us we are wrong?

77. Dr. Paul Marik. He’s arguably the most published intensivist in the world. He relied on trust in authority when he decided to take the vaccine. After he heard about all the vaccine injured, he looked at the data and his trust in authority was shattered. I asked him, is it possible that he might switch back? He said no, the data is the truth and the data is overwhelming that the vaccines are not safe. How do you explain his story if the vaccines are so safe?

78. Dr. Aseem Malhotra. He was promoting vaccines on TV. Then his Dad died. This prompted him to look at the data and he was apalled at the willful blindness. He’s put his career on hold and spending most of his time speaking out against the vaccines. Why would he do that? It isn’t money because he’s making a fraction of his earlier income. It isn’t notoriety because he already had that. If it wasn’t the data that convinced him, what did?

79. Can we talk about this document? When the panel headed by Jeff Sachs determined the virus was man made, why didn’t anyone want to pursue it further. If the virus comes from nature, how do you explain this document? It appears to be genuine, but if you have proof it is not, please produce it because no one else has.

    

80. CDC lying about Pfizer trials. Why do the fact checkers never go against the narrative even when the narrative is proven false?

    

81. Are the vaccines safe and/or effective? Do they kill more people than they save? The Pfizer trial showed a not statistically significant COVID death benefit of 1 in 22,000 people. But the death data in VAERS shows more than 1 death per 1,000 people vaccinated. If this isn’t right, then what are the real numbers and how do you know? If the vaccines are effective, then why haven’t data scientists such as Joel Smalley been able to find a signal? If the vaccines are effective, then how come the “line goes the wrong way” as Chris Martenson noted at 6:53 in this video (referencing the Harvard study by Subramanian showing that the more you vaccinate, the higher the cases). Martenson showed clearly the line goes the wrong way, yet Subramanian claims that his paper shows vaccination is beneficial. You can’t have it both ways. The line slopes the wrong way; how is that consistent with the vaccine making a positive difference?

82. Why are we so afraid of a virus which when treated early with the proper protocol causes no hospitalization or death? Do you think this is how medicine should be done? Is this about what is best for the patient?

    

83. Why are the VAERS reporting rates off-the-charts for just the COVID vaccine and no other vaccine? It isn’t gaming or over-reporting since there is no evidence of either, so isn’t the only thing left that it is unsafe? If not, what’s the cause

84. Can we really trust our public health officials to make decisions to keep us safe? Why doesn’t ACIP chair Grace Lee want to see the Israeli safety data which proves that the vaccines are not safe? Is calling the Palo Alto Police Department the correct answer to “Do you want to see the safety data from Israel, yes or no?” Shouldn’t the top vaccine safety official always be interested in safety signals from a top world government authority? Shouldn’t behavior such as this be grounds for termination or at a minimum a performance review? Or should she be recognized with an award for looking the other way when given an opportunity to review credible safety data on the vaccine?

85. Spike protein: When does our body stop making spike protein after vaccination? Shouldn’t we have known the answer to that question before the vaccines were approved? Does anyone in the mainstream medical community want to know? Why haven’t they spoken up?

86. Papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing the vaccine is not safe. How can such a safe vaccine generate more than 1,200 papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature documenting harm?

87. Is it Turtles All the Way Down? The book, Turtles all the way down: Vaccine science and myth, paints a troubling portrait of vaccines as gaming the approval process to avoid being tested head to head against a placebo. Despite a $1,000 reward for errors, nobody has found an error in the book (whereas for the Fauci book, many errors were found). Is there an error in the book and where is it? If there are no errors, then why shouldn’t we believe the conclusions, that the vaccines have not been properly tested for safety.

88. Surveys: Why is it that every time I do a survey, including surveys done by third party polling firms using their own lists, the results are so devastating for the vaccine? How can that be? Shouldn’t I be getting the opposite result that people who took the vaccine are reporting fewer side effects than people who didn’t? I must be unlucky. How do you explain our survey results in ten different surveys done by independent polling firms? They show the vaccines are not safe. One of the surveys showed that the COVID vaccines killed more than twice as many people as COVID has (unbiased audience). How come NOBODY is running the same survey questions to prove I’m wrong? Are they afraid of the truth?

89. Why are heart attacks so deadly nowadays? Pre-vaccine old people would have heart attacks, sometimes many heart attacks, and survive. Today, it’s one and done, even for young people. Any thoughts on why the big change and only among the vaccinated? Why is this happening if it isn’t the vaccine?

90. Why is the FDA ignoring the vaccine injured? The FDA meets regularly with the vaccine injured. But nothing ever happens. An FDA insider told me that many people inside the FDA believe that all these symptoms are simply stress related. But they aren’t telling the vaccine injured this. Why aren’t they interested in going to Dr. Cole’s lab: the cells don’t lie and stress cannot cause the injuries being observed. The pathologists have never seen anything like it. For example, from the Schwab paper: “During the last 20 years of autopsy service at Heidelberg University Hospital we did not observe comparable myocardial inflammatory infiltration.” In plain English, “Whoa! We’ve never seen anything this bad in our careers. The exact same damage pattern we are seeing at the injection site (“a phenotypically identical T-cell infiltrate”) is showing up in the heart muscle.” That’s a little hard to explain, isn’t it?

91. The Kirsch Challenge: Why are there so few winners of The Kirsch Challenge? All they had to do was show a reliable dataset showing that the unvaccinated were experiencing known vaccine injury symptoms at the same rate or higher per capita rates compared to the vaccinated. This should be easy to do if the vaccines are safe and effective.

92. Hiding the statistics from public view. Isn’t it funny how once the statistics start looking bad for the vaccine that the governments stop publishing them (like they did in the UK). Even more perplexing is why no state wants to allow their data to be independently analyzed as John Beaudoin has proposed (and it doesn’t have to be by John). If the vaccines really were safe, states would be RUSHING to do this. But you cannot get any state to do it. What does THAT tell you?

93. No quality control. There is no quality control on the product delivered to the pharmacies. Nobody is taking samples of the vaccine just before it would be normally injected into someone and having it analyzed. This was revealed at the Johnson hearing by an FDA whistleblower. We basically do NOT want to know what is in the shots or the integrity of the mRNA at the point of delivery. That’s bad enough, but the fact that nobody in the mainstream medical community is speaking out about this is appalling. Here’s proof there is a serious quality problem that nobody can deny and that the health officials knew it and choose to ignore it. It seems it isn’t about protecting the public, but protecting the manufacturer, doesn’t it?

94. Where are the variants coming from? The variants are not from the virus evolving as argued in this article. So where are they coming from? Isn’t it more likely that the variants are being generated by new drugs such as the non-sterilizing COVID vaccines and Molnupiravir.

95. Vaccine side effects are being caused by what again? There are now over 2,000 papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature documenting vaccine side effects, yet the NIH still claims there is no association between the vaccine and these injuries. Why are so many people injured and disabled and dead after being vaccinated? Why are we so blind that the vaccine injured have to make their own videos to be heard? In particular, former top ICU nurse Marsha Gee at UCSD, developed 78 unusual symptoms common to other vaccine victims including bleeding behind her eyes. OK, so if the vaccine didn’t cause all these symptoms, then what did? You can’t really expect us to believe she got unlucky and simply developed 78 symptoms all of a sudden for no reason. How do you explain how all these people developed so many symptoms common to the vaccine injured shortly after getting the vaccine? Were they all unlucky? My reach for this survey was very small and that the number of severely vaccine injured is 100,000 or more. The data from V-safe showed that nearly 8% of people had to seek medical care post-vaccination which translates into 20M people adversely affected. Many people never realize they’ve been injured by the vaccine because their doctors tell them it wasn’t related to the vaccine. Watch this 4 minute clip describing how people ignore vaccine injuries. This is exactly how the vaccine injured feel.

96. The Silence video. Watch this video. If the vaccine didn’t cause these injuries, what did? For more vaccine injury stories, see this page.

97. Mayors under 60 are dropping dead unexpectedly. Why? 16 German and Austrian Mayors Under 60 Are 'Suddenly and Unexpectedly' Dropping Dead. If it isn’t the vaccine, what is causing this? More importantly, why aren’t the government officials who are still alive interested at all in finding out why their peers are dying? That makes no sense! The article notes the following: Are the numbers of the Mayor’s unexpectedly dying the same as in the past? Perhaps it could be? But shouldn’t the authorities compare previous statistics and share them with the public? Looking the other way or downplaying the number of unexpected deaths of younger and seemingly healthy Mayors only adds to people’s fears. Furthermore, it is creating even more rumors and “conspiracies.” If there is, in fact, a problem, it should be of concern to the government. After all, it’s government officials who are dropping dead in numbers.

98. Vaccine injury compensation: Does the vaccine cause injury? If not, then how do we explain all the same side effects that occur post-vaccine as documented in this database? If it does cause injury, then why has the US government never awarded a dime in injury compensation despite over 6,000 applications to the CICP program? “Of the 8,010 COVID-19 countermeasure claims, 5,033 allege injuries/deaths from COVID-19 vaccines.” Isn’t this more than any vaccine in history combined? The CICP program isn’t being advertised at all. So why are there so many applications for this vaccine?

99. Mix/match vaccines increases side effects: Why aren’t people warned not to mix/match vaccines? Instead we do the opposite and advise people to mix/match vaccines. Yet there is strong evidence that can’t be ignored that doing so increases risk as was noted at the Johnson hearing.

100. Childhood vaccine schedule: Why was the vaccine added to the children’s vaccination schedule when the risk of a COVID death is on the order of 1 in a million but we don’t have the safety data to prove benefits outweigh the risk? This provides lifetime immunity to the vaccine makers so the government can drop the “emergency” and the vaccine makers are still protected.

101. Why aren’t we providing liability protection for other products? Since the liability protection for manufacturers has done such a superb job at protecting the public from injury, why stop there? Shouldn’t we give all manufacturers liability protection? Why limit it to just vaccines? Why not extend it to every drug and every product?

102. Why is only one state doing COVID vaccine safety studies? Florida found the government was lying about the safety of the vaccines. Shouldn’t other states’ health officials do their own studies? Florida Surgeon General was asked by Fox News why Florida was the only state to find that the COVID vaccine was more dangerous than what the CDC has claimed. He replied, “Because we were the only ones who looked.” Why aren’t any other state public health officials doing their own checks?

103. States can easily resolve the ambiguity about whether the vaccines are safe. See my Substack article, “How any state can learn the truth about COVID vaccine safety in under a week.” Then answer the obvious question, “Why do none of the states want to know the truth?”

104. What is the mRNA integrity of the vaccines at the time of injection and how do we know? The regulatory agencies all found it could be very low (below 50%). What are the current minimum and maximum numbers? Who is measuring this and why is this not being reported to the public? In general, what end-to-end quality control is being done to ensure product integrity?

105. Is there a difference if the injection is aspirated or not? How do we know for sure there is no difference? Where was the science that was done on that? Is it possible that we can reduce side effects by aspirating as noted in this article by Marc Girardot?

106. Is the public safer by making it illegal for anyone to analyze what is in the vials including measuring the mRNA integrity? Has any study ever been done anywhere on this? By who and when?

107. The Thailand study on heart damage in young adults showed the vaccines should be stopped for young adults. Why aren’t easy to execute before/after safety studies being done? Watch the first 5 minutes of this excellent video by Dr. Moran on the Thailand study. One of the top comments to the video says, “As nurse of 30 years, I have never known anyone personally to have myocarditis. Since the roll out, I now personally know 7 young people between the ages of 20 and 35! Coincidence? I think not. Sick.” Why can Thailand do a study of cardiac biomarkers before/after the vaccine and find that nearly 30% of kids showed measurable cardiac damage and 3.5% of the teenage boys developed myocarditis or pericarditis after the shot, yet other countries cannot? Why is nobody in the world following up on this research to replicate it in larger numbers so we can see what the rate in females is. The drug companies, the FDA, CDC, and NIH are all ignoring this highly acclaimed study. Shouldn’t the mainstream press be letting parents know about the true rate of cardiac injury? Why aren’t they? Why isn’t a study like this allowed to be done in the US? Is it unethical to ask if the government is telling the truth? Why didn’t the FDA require before/after tests to confirm or deny the Thailand result? Also, is 30% of kids sustaining cardiac damage and 3.5% of boys developing myocarditis considered “rare” by the CDC? Why isn’t the CDC commenting on this study or repeating it? More importantly, why are they not notifying parents of the 3.5% risk of myocarditis (which we now know can be fatal as shown in the Schwab paper) and the nearly 30% risk of cardiac injury? Is the public better served by not knowing the risks? From the study: “Myopericarditis was confirmed in one patient after vaccination. Two patients had suspected pericarditis and four patients had suspected subclinical myocarditis.” So 1 in 301 patients had confirmed myocarditis. In the military, the doctors are seeing rates of myocarditis of 3% or more. So the Thailand study wasn’t just bad luck.

108. Vaccinated Thailand princess dies suddenly at age 44. The key question is why no autopsy that tests for a possible vaccine link? Why wouldn’t they want to know what killed her? They had a paramedic right there who started CPR and she couldn’t be revived.

109. The six foot rule: This is mandated in my county. Why is that? Where is the science behind this? Why was this recently discovered? What is the reduction in R0 when the rule is adhered to? Where are the studies on that? When did the laws of physics change that this works?? How does it work since the virus stays in the air for days… it does not “drop to the ground.” How does hand washing reduce the spread of a respirator virus? What is the mechanism of action on that and where are the studies for SARS-CoV-2 or similar respiratory virus? Did you know how they got to 6 feet? They were in a meeting and thought 1 foot isn’t enough and 60 feet was too much.

110. Is having a Disinformation Dozen list encouraging censorship and deplatforming of certain people beneficial and lead to better outcomes? Where is the research showing government coordinated censorship of free speech is a good thing? If censorship is good, then why not go the next step and criminalize speech which is not consistent with government narratives, even though it is true.

111. Should we reward censorship of people who tell the truth? Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Medium, Wikipedia, and other tech firms censor and deplatform people who challenge mainstream thinking. Should we reward this behavior or punish it? If the people being censored are found in a court of law to be telling the truth, shouldn’t there be a monetary right of action to penalize companies for doing this? Does censorship lead to better medical outcomes? Where is the published study on this?

112. Self-censoring of scientists. I’ve heard story upon story of scientists who refuse to publish research that goes against the narrative because they don’t want to jeopardize future funding of their research. This is in multiple countries including the US and UK. So work that would have exposed the vaccine as unsafe is not published. Furthermore, even when people opt to get published, they explain their results so as not to disrupt the narrative, e.g., if the data shows negative vaccine efficacy, they will talk about why this is just an artifact of some confounder.

113. Is Paul Offit misinformed about the vaccines? Paul Offit says the new bivalent booster provides no protection. The FDA panel says it does. They can’t both be right. Can you explain precisely how Offit’s argument (that there is no data that additional boosters significantly lower the risk of hospitalization and death) is wrong. Where is the efficacy data and why doesn’t Offit know about it? If he is not competent, then why is he on the committee?

114. Where there is risk, shouldn’t there be choice? Are mandates ethical where you are required to risk your life or health to save someone else’s? When is this needed? What proof is required?

115. Early treatment: Do early treatment protocols work? Why were they deliberately suppressed despite multiple peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta analyses? Why haven’t world health agencies ever tried the proven COVID protocols used by Fareed and Tyson. Isn’t 15,000 patients with a perfect track record sufficient evidence? Why not?

116. Masks: Do masks work to stop COVID spread? Where is the definitive study that shows this? Why was this not known until just recently? Why was the flawed Bangladesh mask study never retracted by the journal (Nature) despite requests from Professor Norman Fenton to do so? Why was he ignored?  What study did Paul Offit use in his determination that “masks are such an important tool?” He makes this statement at 2:00 in the trailer for “A shot in the arm.” The data says he’s wrong. Will anyone defend him?

117. Assessing truth: How can we establish a more reliable source of truth? Will people who are still wearing masks ever stop believing they work?

118. Fear of challenge: Why won’t any health authority allow themselves to be publicly challenged? Are they more interested in public health and the truth? Or protecting their reputations?

119. Lockdowns: Were lockdowns ever needed? What was the evidence they relied on that showed that the benefits outweigh the risks? What is the decision criteria for starting and stopping lockdowns and why is it needed for that criteria to be kept secret from the public?

120. Fear and intimidation tactics: Why did the nurses and staff tell Michael Granata that he had to deliver the message before he died from the vaccine that they are being silenced and that the truth of deaths from the vaccine was being hidden within the medical profession? Is it necessary to create an environment of fear and intimidation like this? Why is nobody speaking out about this?

121. Died suddenly. How did the facebook group have 30,000 people a day joining it if the vaccine is safe and effective?

122. Kids with myocarditis, heart attacks, strokes. It’s the new normal. Do you agree this is caused by the vaccine? If not, what causes it?

123. Young people dying in their sleep in record numbers, right after getting the vaccine (or bleeding in their brain). It’s the new normal. Do you agree this is caused by the vaccine? If not, what causes it?

124. Strange clots reported by embalmers show up in as many as 90% of vaccinated people who die: Why aren’t any medical professionals interested in seeing the evidence of vaccine injury firsthand? In a survey of 126 embalmers, 27% of embalmers report seeing these telltale blood clots in 40% or more of their cases! Nobody is willing to take Dr. Ryan Cole up on his invitation to examine the strange clots reported by the embalmers in the movie Died Suddenly. This can’t be “misinformation” because there is a Dr. Drew episode on YouTube discussing these clots (entitled "Foot-Long Blood Clots" From mRNA, Says Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole w/ Dr Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew) and it has been live for 8 days now and not censored and it has over 471,000 views. Was there any misinformation in that video that you’d like to debate with Dr. Cole or Dr. Victory? There was also a video (Could These Mysterious Clots be the Cause of Death?) where Dr. Chris Martenson explains how it is physically impossible for these clots to be formed post-mortem. Or watch this Epoch Times interview of Dr. Cole where he explains again that “the cells don’t lie.” Or read this excellent piece by AMD regarding the clots and the people who try to discredit this evidence and it has an entire section devoted to debunking Dr. Burnett who I have also written about previously. What could have caused these clots? We know the parameters of the possible causes: it’s only found in vaccinated patients (or patients with a blood transfusion), it's in 40% or more of people, and they take it out intact. So it must be something injected in you, lots of people were injected, it must be novel, and it can kill you. What are the options we can consider that meet those requirements other than the vaccine?

125. Why are laws such as California’s AB 2098 which prohibit doctors from deviating from medical consensus a good idea? Haven’t we proved over and over that medical consensus is not reliable? Why are so few doctors speaking out about this?

126. Why are doctors in Canada dropping dead in record numbers shortly after being vaccinated? Why is the CMA not investigating this?

127. Blood supply: How do we know for sure that the blood supply is safe?

128. Why won’t anyone who supports the narrative agree to a debate? There is so much to talk about, but no one on the pro-narrative side wants to talk about it. Why is this a superior approach to using conversation to resolve our differences?

129. Lack of autopsies and tests: Why aren’t we doing autopsies in any of the deaths post-vaccine. Do you know how many bodies have actually been tested properly to determine if the death was caused by a COVID vaccine? The answer is less than 5 and the vaccine was implicated in 100% of the cases where the tests were done. Could that have any bearing on why nobody wants to look?

130. Vaccination status: Why do we have to reveal our vaccination status to our employer, but when we die, we keep the vaccination status of the person who died a secret?

131. Why are so many kids being tested for tachycardia today? It happened to coincide with the rollout of the vaccines and nearly all the kids being tested are vaccinated. So if it isn’t the vaccine, what’s causing the tachycardia?

132. Gwen Casten’s death. Gwen Casten, age 17, had no known cardiac issues and died of a sudden cardiac arrhythmia in her sleep. How come this case didn’t generate alarm bells? Why didn’t they check her tissues for the vaccine being the cause of death? Why didn’t they want to know?

133. Stress-induced heart attacks?!? A young, famous TikTok star, Megha Thakur, died at age 21, just 4 months after a stress-induced heart attack. My cardiologists haven’t heard of this before. Is this new and only happening to people who are vaccinated with the COVID vaccine? Why isn’t this happening to unvaccinated young people?

134. Vaccine mandates: Why is Yale University mandating students must take the bivalent booster, but it is optional for faculty? This is requiring kids to risk their lives and their health for what benefit? This article notes that German scientists found that no healthy child 5-17 years of age died of COVID in Germany. Zero deaths. How can universities require vaccination (with a vaccine which has shown by the VAERS data to have killed hundreds of thousands of people) for kids who have no risk of dying from COVID?

135. Why are so many people dying suddenly? We’ve never seen so many people dying suddenly before. Mark Crispin Miller’s Substack is full of these stories. If it isn’t the vaccine, what is the more likely cause of these deaths and why isn’t there an investigation by the CDC? More importantly, aren’t nearly all of these people vaccinated? Why does nobody want to know the autopsy results when testing for whether the vaccine was involved in the death?

136. Pfizer Phase 3 clinical trial fraud. Why doesn’t anyone want to talk about the accusations of clinical trial fraud in the Pfizer Phase 3 study including why Maddie de Garay’s paralysis was misreported as abdominal pain and why 5X as many people were excluded in the treatment arm than the placebo arm when the trial was supposed to be blinded? And will Pfizer ever reveal how they determined that none of the deaths in the vaccine arm were related to the vaccine? Did they do the proper stains? Also, what do you think of Pfizer’s legal argument that there was no fraud because the government was “in on it”?

137. Young people dying in their sleep. This used to be extremely rare. Now it is happening all the time. If it isn’t the vaccine, then what is it? Why aren’t we testing any of these deaths to see if they were caused by the vaccine?

138. Unknown deaths: Why is “unknown” the new top category of death in Alberta, Canada? Why isn’t anyone trying to find a common factor? And weren’t all these deaths in vaccinated people? Could that be an important clue?

139. Why does the media never reveal the vaccination status of the deceased? They used to tell us this all the time when vaccinations just started to roll out. Now, the families demand privacy. Why the switch?

140. Why are death records so secret? Shouldn’t we make these public records? And shouldn’t we require the death certificate to disclose any vaccinations done in the last 12 months before death?

141. Why are there so few critical thinkers in medicine? Why is UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad nearly the only mainstream doctor willing to criticize the CDC? Is he wrong or is the entire mainstream medical community corrupted? You can’t have it both ways.

142. Why are masks required to visit a doctor in California but nowhere else where there is close contact? Also, since the authorities claim nobody can get hospitalized or die after vaccination, why the requirement? Will we have this requirement for all time? When will it end? What’s the criteria? What science is this based on?

143. My Pennsylvania Senate testimony. See this video starting at 30:20. Do you disagree with anything I said? Why would all of these people refuse a million dollars to talk to me for four hours?

144. My original TrialSiteNews Should you get vaccinated article. I wrote this article back in May 25, 2021. A week later, the entire scientific advisory board of the CETF resigned in protest. I asked them if there was an error in the article. They refused to answer my question. Can you find an error? See this article for more about my Should you get vaccinated? article. I just couldn’t figure out why we would deploy a dangerous vaccine when early treatment protocols were safe, effective, cheap, and available. They were (and still are) superior to the COVID vaccines on every single metric (effectiveness, cost, safety, availability).

145. How did this woman die? This case was documented in the peer-reviewed medical literature of a 32 year-old female who took 12 horrific and painful months to die after vaccination. Details. This is just representative of one of the more horrific vaccine injuries. If it wasn’t the vaccine, what was the more likely cause of death and how do you know?

146. Meta-collections of issues. Can we talk about all of the issues listed in these documents:

     1. Evidence of Harm

     2. Incriminating evidence

     3. 100 Questions they don’t want to answer

     4. Think we got it wrong?

     5. Questions I’d love to ask Congresswoman Anna Eshoo… that she’ll never answer

     6. Senator Ron Johnson’s Dec 7 hearing

     7. Any issue raised in any of the thousands of Substack articles written by me and my friends

147. Perverse death incentives: Why are we giving hospitals massive incentives for killing people who have COVID instead of rewarding them for saving people’s lives?

148. False claims actions: Why is Ron DeSantis the only governor planning on taking action against the drug companies for making false claims that there are only minor side effects? Do all the other governors believe that the safety claims are true? Why don’t any of them want to see the Israeli safety data that proves that the vaccine companies are making false claims. Someone isn’t telling the truth here.

149. Range of side effects is enormous. A local friend was told by her dental hygienist that the hygienist has seen 24 cases of Internal Root Resorption over the past 18 months. According to the hygienist, all 24 cases were vaxxed. Furthermore, the dental office has x-rays for each of these patients from 2019, and none of them had this issue at that time. By contrast, the hygienist said she’d only seen a total of 6 such cases in the 15 years prior. How do you explain this? See Internal root resorption: a review - PubMed (nih.gov)

150. No shows at debates: Why didn’t the Canadian health authorities show up for a civil debate when challenged by three prominent Canadian physicians? I could certainly understand a refusal if there were dozens of debates already, but I haven’t seen a single debate anywhere in the world. Will we ever have a discussion about any of these issues?

151. Canadian bank accounts. If you disagree with the government narrative, you can have your bank account frozen in Canada. Is this really the best approach to resolve differences of opinion?

     

152. They won’t even provide a written response. Why don’t David Gorski, Debunk the Funk, Jonathan Jarry, or some other “fact checker” simply publish a document answering all of these questions with compelling evidence? If you don’t want a debate and want to settle the issue with dueling documents, then this is your chance. Simply respond to all these points.

Will we have a debate?

I predict that no one in the world will accept our offer to have a discussion/debate on the key issues.

Their lack of interest in a fair public discussion is very hard to justify. For them, this is the easiest way to show the world that the “misinformation spreaders” are wrong which will reduce vaccine hesitancy and, according to them, save lives. They always tell us they want to reduce vaccine hesitancy: this is their golden opportunity. Why wouldn’t they seize it?

So the ad campaign is important to help people realize that they have been misled.

If we do have a discussion, ideally we will have an objective third-party moderator and have it live-streamed to the public so they benefit from the real-time interactions of the participants.

Correction (12/27/22)

Liza Dunn is a vaccine advocate and agreed to have a civil discussion with me about the VAERS data. You can listen to the 45 minute discussion here and make up your mind as to what the truth is. To save you time, she wasn’t able to explain the 15,000 excess deaths in VAERS. Nobody can.

The inevitable outcome

One way or another, this will ultimately lead to a massive loss of trust in:

1. Congress (and other federal legislative bodies all over the world)

2. State and local lawmakers

3. The medical community worldwide, both in academia and in medical practice

4. Medical organizations (AMA, IDSA, CMA, etc)

5. Government agencies including the FDA, CDC, NIH

6. Medical regulators including state licensing boards and certification boards

7. The mainstream media

8. Local public health officials

Apparently, that’s the way they want it to end. So be it. They shall have it.

Dr. Byram Bridle’s reaction to my invitation

Read Dr. Byram Bridle’s reaction to this post. I couldn’t agree more.

Summary

I’m not content sitting around doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. It’s time for new, aggressive, in your face tactics that will force the pro-narrative side either to debate us or face public ridicule for refusing to be held accountable for their decisions.

Some people will choose to be on the right side of history early. Others will wait until it is “safe” to switch sides. Sooner or later there will be a “tipping point.”

My goal is to make that happen sooner rather than later.

This is going to be a very expensive campaign. If you want to help enable us to pull this off, please consider becoming a paying subscriber (only $5 a month or $50/yr). Thanks!

Share

How it works

I really don’t want to spread misinformation, but it’s hard to read books like The Real Anthony Fauci and Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth and not be persuaded by them.

Are they true? Or are they misinformation?

Let’s put a bounty on errors. If there are no takers, we’ll raise the bounties over time.

At a minimum, we’ll incentivize a lot of people who think we are misinformation spreaders to read these books and show the world that we are wrong.

To qualify

An error means you found something that is a material error of fact in what was presented. So if the book says “they never tested vaccine XX against a placebo” and you find a document proving it was tested against a placebo, you win the current reward for that book. It’s that easy.

So the book must state a material fact and that fact must be shown to be untrue to claim the reward.

Only the first person to discover the error will be paid.

The Turtles team wants to focus ONLY on Chapter 1, so only errata in Chapter 1 are eligible. Chapter 1 is a quick read. For RFK’s The Real Anthony Fauci, all 250,000 words are eligible.

The offer ends on June 27, 2023.

Existing errors (winners table)

See this spreadsheet of winning entries.

To enter your submission

1. Send 1 Solana (SOL) token to this address: 9BBhGEfAMSHg8Mxyb4x67VKMhyomJ3MAPa9mqXtaP8xZ

2. Make your submission to the Contact me page explaining what you found. Include the following:

   1. The SOL transaction ID from Step #1

   2. A description of the bug

   3. Whether I can publish your identity to give you credit for success

   4. The SOL address to send the reward if you win

   5. There are no anonymous submissions so that everyone can verify this is legit.

The Solana fee is a de minimis entry fee (it’s about $30) and does four important things:

1. It establishes that you are serious about your submission. We simply cannot afford the time to look at entries which are not serious.

2. It makes a public record of your entry

3. It creates a timestamp of your entry in the event of disputes

4. It insulates me from having to pay PayPal a $2,500 per payment penalty which they wanted to assess on anyone who in their sole opinion violates their terms of service.

Note:

1. Pretty much anyone who does crypto can help you make the transfer if you are not crypto literate. If you are using Ledger Live to send the Solana, you can populate a “memo” field with your name, book, and page # which then creates a public record of your entry, e.g., “Steve Kirsch, Fauci, 234.”

2. You can see the entries on the blockchain here. Here was the first entry from a teacher in Sydney, Australia:

   

3. Someone could front run your entry fee by looking for blockchain transactions and then front running you on the Contact me form. This is unlikely since there will be a “double claim” in my database and it will be easy to assess who sent the funds. So this means there is no incentive to game the system.

The entry fee is non-refundable and covers our costs of reviewing your submission.

Modifications

If the system is abused, I reserve the right to increase the entry fee at any time.

Similarly, I reserve the right to change these terms at any time. So the timestamp of your entry as proven on the blockchain is public proof of the terms in existence at the time of the submission.

Judging your submission

1. I will send your submission to 2 or more experts of my choosing to evaluate.

2. If the experts believe you are correct, you win the reward amount which will be sent to you at a crypto address of your choosing. Otherwise, you forfeit the fee.

3. I will have 30 days to evaluate your submission. If you don’t hear back from me in 30 days, it should be considered a “I disagree” response.

Disputes

1. You can dispute my decision by requesting JAMS arbitration.

2. Both sides are allowed to dismiss up to 2 judges from an ordered list presented by JAMS (or other mutually agreeable ADR service). So the first mutually agreeable judge will judge the case.

3. The parties split the arbitration fee.

4. The loser agrees to reimburse the winner for the arbitration expenses.

5. The arbitrator could decide it is a draw in which case both sides split the cost.

This creates an incentive to settle and ensures that only serious cases would go to arbitration. It provides a neutral way to settle disputes that favors the person with the stronger case.

Duplicate submissions

If someone has already submitted the same erratum ahead of you, I’ll fully refund your entry fee. You can avoid this by checking the current submissions list at the end of this article.

Modifications to these terms

1. I tried to keep this as simple as possible, but I’m open to negotiating these terms.

Reward amounts

As of Nov 7, 1:48 PM PST:

The Real Anthony Fauci: $200 per erratum anywhere in the book.

Turtles All the Way Down: $1,000 per erratum. Only the first chapter is eligible.

Current submissions

The first submission came in just hours after I posted the reward.

Here is a list of paid entries (Book, page number):

Fauci book winning submissions

Page 194
On page 194, RFK Jr states incorrectly that "Belgian health officials acknowledged that the current vaccines cannot stop COVID, nor protect Belgium’s citizens." I followed the citation and what it actually said there was "As RTBF acknowledges, in the face of the Delta variant, current vaccination is far from sufficient to protect the population." So I can see how this could have been misunderstood by RFK Jr's team. I then followed the citation there to verify my hunch, and indeed, the original source is quoting RBTF as saying that the current vaccination *rate* is too low to protect the population but that the vaccine is highly effective at preventing deaths. So basically RFK's take is completely wrong here. The original article can be read behind the paywall here.

Page 525
340% should be 240% (the RR was 3.36). It took us about 5 minutes to review. Proof of payment

If a healthy person suddenly dies, and there’s no antecedent disease, it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.”

Introduction

Fact checkers aren’t checking facts in these unexplained cardiac deaths. Their job is to promote the “safe and effective” false narrative.

Fact checkers (such as Ciara O’Rourke of PolitiFact) who claim that the vaccine didn’t cause the death of a person (in this case, Ray Liotta) can only make that claim if either:

1. The autopsy actually did the proper stains to look for vaccine involvement and found nothing. But only one pathologist in the US is doing these stains and in 100% of the cases he’s looked at so far, the vaccine was implicated in the death.

2. The family says that the deceased was never vaccinated with the COVID vaccine

Have you ever seen a sudden cardiac death since 2021 where either of the two conditions above were satisfied? I haven’t.

O’Rourke basically relies on the statement of Jennifer Allen, Ray Liotta’s publicist to determine the cause of his untimely death:

"The family has not released the cause of death yet, but I do know the cause, and (it) has nothing to do with COVID or the vaccine," she told us in an email. 

O’Rourke never describes Allen’s medical credentials. Why not?

Based on Allen’s statement, PolitiFact rates the claim that the vaccine caused Ray Liotta’s death as “Pants on fire” which is the worst possible PolitiFact rating.

That’s right. A publicist with no medical training is rated as the definitive source of truth of a cause of death and top cardiologists are deemed not credible at all. I’m serious. You can’t make this stuff up.

I’d love to interview Jennifer Allen about her statement.

PolitiFact won’t talk to me after I released a video showing how corrupt their fact checkers are

I’d also love to interview O’Rourke about her “fact check,” but all the fact checkers I know are camera shy, especially those from PolitiFact.

The “fact checkers” from PolitiFact all refuse to talk to me after I released this video showing how corrupt their fact checkers are. That video has over 150,000 views and is one of the most popular videos I’ve ever done. If you haven’t seen it already, check it out. It’s just 30 minutes long and has over 1,000 Rumbles.

You can also view the email correspondence with the head honcho at PolitiFact here. It’s a riot.

There are hundreds of thousands of unexplained deaths since the vaccines rolled out

The Died Suddenly group on Facebook reached over 300,000 members and was growing at over 20,000 members a day with no advertising until Facebook shut down the group.

Facebook as a company wants to make sure that those who are injured or died from the vaccine will not be able to communicate with each other as this would enable people to figure out that the US government has killed over 500,000 Americans with these vaccines.

Have you ever asked yourself why, if the vaccines are so safe, were so many people joining the Died Suddenly Facebook group after the vaccines rolled out? This has never happened before in the entire history of Facebook. Why now?

Why isn’t the mainstream press asking Facebook to explain that?

I’d love to know how Facebook would explain that and why the mainstream press isn’t asking that question.

See also this article which contains a list of more unexplained deaths (see the references included in the article as only a few unexplained deaths are highlighted in the article itself).

The tragic death of a hero. He died from the vaccine, but they made sure nobody will ever find out.

This vaccine-related death of Mick Crawford, an 18-year-old hero, is particularly tragic. No autopsy was performed because of his organ donor status.

Two top cardiologists are saying the exact same thing. Unexplained cardiac arrest in a vaccinated person? We should assume it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.

The article on Mick Crawford’s death quotes Peter McCullough from this video (please watch at 4:20 for just 60 seconds):

If a healthy person suddenly dies, and there’s no antecedent disease, it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.”

Does what Dr. McCullough said sound similar to what Dr. Malhotra concluded?

Dr. Malhotra said in his video:

It is my duty and responsibility as a consultant cardiologist and public health campaigner to urgently inform doctors, patients and members of the public that the COVID mRNA vaccine has likely played a significant role of being a primary cause in all unexpected cardiac arrests, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure since 2021, until proven otherwise.

It’s basically identical. Two of the world’s top cardiologists independently came to the exact same conclusion.

There shall be no debates because all the “experts” who support the “safe and effective” narrative are camera shy

Does anyone want to debate them? Of course not! Nobody in the world will debate either of them because they would lose very badly.

Not even the famous vaccine-debunker Dr. David Gorski will debate these experts. Gorski runs for cover whenever we’ve tried to get him to appear on camera and be challenged, kind of like cockroaches do when you turn on the lights.

That is why the mainstream media (including social media) are censoring these experts instead of allowing their voices to be heard.

See Vinay Prasad’s op-ed for why this is not what science is about.

Summary

If a healthy person suddenly dies, and there’s no antecedent disease, it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.

A new report prepared by a group of highly qualified experts analyzed the government data in Ontario and concluded that the vaccines don’t reduce hospitalization and death in those under 60.

In other words, we’ve been lied to. Are you surprised?

Also, don’t assume the report endorses vaccination for those over 60. It doesn’t.

Here’s the full report (26-page PDF file).

It concludes:

Given the statistical evidence provided in this report, the public health policy tools such as mass vaccination campaigns, mandates, passports and travel restrictions need to be reevaluated for relevance in this phase of SARS-CoV-2. The abundance of evidence documented by Public Health Ontario (PHO), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and top-tier scientific journals demonstrates that the vaccines do not prevent infection or hospitalization. The Ontario data show that vaccination currently makes little difference in terms of hospitalization and death rates for those below age 60. Additionally, since there are known risks of adverse events and unknown long term effects, these must be considered in developing vaccine policies.

The empirical evidence investigated in this report from PHO and PHAC does not support continuing mass vaccination programs, mandates, passports and travel bans for all age groups. Rather, it may be prudent to utilize a more targeted and cost-effective approach focused on vaccinating the high-risk group, while factoring in an individual’s potential risk of vaccine-related adverse events.

That’s what you get when the people writing the report remain anonymous and are free to speak the truth without fear of retribution. Interesting, isn’t it?

Executive summary

I was able to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the chair of the ACIP committee, who is arguably the most important person in the world who should want to see the Israeli safety data that was hidden since March of 2022 by the Israeli government, does not want to see the data.

She should be fired. You simply cannot have a chair of a critical safety committee relied upon by the entire world who is not interested in seeing critical safety data that shows the vaccines are not safe.

Yet nobody is speaking out about this. Did the rules of science change? Is it now OK to ignore any data that goes against your belief system?

Addendum

When you read this article, keep in mind the following:

1. It is critical that Dr. Lee see this safety information. It is an urgent matter of public health. Millions of people are being injured or killed by these vaccines, often permanently such as in this case.

2. All my previous attempts to get her to pay attention to this data failed.

3. After failing all reasonable methods, I tried a final method which is used by process servers for serving legal documents. Dr. Lee doesn’t work in her office at Stanford so they only place to serve her is at her house which is effectively “her office.”

4. That finally ended up working and I saw receipt of the message.

5. Nothing I did went above and beyond what a legal process server would have done.

6. I simply ensured that the right person was notified of key data and systematically escalated the methods used until the goal was achieved.

Introduction

Ever since writing my article on the Israeli safety data on Sept 2, 2022, I have been trying to ask the head of the ACIP committee, Stanford Professor Grace Lee, if she wanted to see the data.

Surely, she would want to see this data. How could she not want to see the data? She is arguably the top vae safety person in the world outside of the CDC.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff wanted to see the Israeli data and he has similar credentials (Harvard Professor, formerly on FDA and CDC committees, highly respected in the vaccine community). But he has no active role in vaccine safety. It’s not his job. Yet he wanted to see the data since he’s in the vaccine field.

Unlike Dr. Kulldorff, it’s Dr. Lee’s job to be aware of the safety data for the vaccine. It’s her most important responsibility. If there is a single person in the world who would be most interested in seeing the vaccine safety data, it should be Dr. Lee.

Just to double-check my logic, I asked Martin why would anyone in an official position of responsibility on vaccine safety NOT want to see the Israeli data? He said, “I don’t know.”

So the default assumption is that Dr. Lee would want to see the data as well, just like Dr. Kulldorff.

Oddly, Dr. Lee didn’t respond to my respectful emails asking if she wanted to see the data. If she had responded either yes or no, that would have been the end of it. But I heard nothing.

I don’t give up so easily. So I texted her cell phone.

And that didn’t work either! Again, no response. She could have simply responded “no” and that would have been the end of it. Baffling!

Perhaps her text messages weren’t working? This happened to my AT&T phone recently where text messages didn’t work until AT&T reset my messaging.

I knew how important this data was to the world and surely she would want to see it but clearly my messages must simply be buried in all the emails and text messages she gets or something else was getting in the way. My question deserves an answer because lives are at stake!

It would not be right for me to give up at this point without trying every option at my disposal to get her attention on this matter.

Since she conveniently lives just 10 minutes from my house, I went to her front door and rang the doorbell. I waited and waited for her to answer the door, but nobody came to the door. So I left.

I’ve tried this multiple times. I guess I keep missing her. Darn.

Today I tried again. This time I waited because there was a light on inside the house. I waited about 20 minutes for her to answer the door. After all, she could be on zoom call, taking a shower, or doing something important like feeding the dog.

I just wanted an answer… “why don’t you want to see the data?” That’s it.

After around 20 minutes of waiting at her door, I gave up, went back to my car, and wrote a nice note asking if she wanted to see the data, and attached it to the hook on her front door.

The note said:

Dr. Lee,

Do you want to see the Israeli safety data? Please let me know yes or no. Lives are at stake. Steve Kirsch 650-xxx-xxxx.

Here’s the image of the note (the hole was where it was attached to the door hook):

As I was leaving, I was greeted by two Palo Alto police officers.

So I started my video camera to record the only proof of delivery I was ever going to get.

Clearly, she was at home and didn’t want to answer the door and have a friendly conversation about the scientific data that could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

She has a Ring doorbell. She could have said “Hello, who is there?”

But no. She chose to remain completely silent and call the police.

I guess that’s the way science works today: you are never supposed to actually speak with anyone with opposing views, even if they have lifesaving information not available elsewhere.

I handed the note I had put on her door to the officer and I saw him share it with her as I walked to my car. So the message was delivered for sure… by the Palo Alto Police!

So if she didn’t know already, she knows now why I was there and there is now a public record of the delivery to the officer.

And there was no call on my cell phone after that. This means that she was notified and declined to see the data, jeopardizing lives.

The bottom line is this: I went the extra mile to eliminate any possible plausible deniability excuse. Even if I had Fedex'ed the offer to see the data, she could say she never saw my FedEx. Now she cannot claim she never saw it.

Here’s the video of the incident:

So now I finally have closure. The answer is, “I received your message and no, I don’t want to see the safety data showing scientific proof that the vaccines are not safe and I’m not going to tell you why I don’t want to see the data either.”

Wow.

Thanks to the Palo Alto Police for handling this incident properly.

The officers handled it well. I have no complaints.

Why do doctors close their eyes to medical injuries?

Many people in the medical field will intentionally close their eyes to the possibility a medical injury occurred or data showing that a drug they endorsed is toxic. Here’s why:

Summary

I was proud that I did everything I possibly could do to draw Dr. Lee’s urgent attention to this very important safety issue. I wonder if she is equally proud of ducking my question, refusing to answer her door, and calling the cops on me for trying to bring this issue to her attention?

Finally, it’s not just me they are ignoring. The BBC is taking the credit for having a group of over 300,000 vaccine injured removed from Facebook:

Once the BBC alerted Facebook's parent company, Meta, the groups were removed.

So the world’s top vaccine outside regulator doesn’t want to see the safety data from the Israeli Ministry of Health, and the BBC is engaging in deplatforming the vaccine injured so they don’t have a voice either.

Nobody in charge wants to know about what the data really shows, and the mainstream press wants to make sure you only hear their side of the narrative.

We should all be very concerned about both of these developments and demand answers.

See also

New Israeli MoH study shows COVID vax increases your risk of death over time which describes further data showing the vaccines are dangerous.

Video confirmed by Reuters to be legitimate:

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

The Israeli Ministry of Health confirmed to Reuters that the leaked vax safety video is legit

See Exclusive: Proof that Israel found serious safety problems with the COVID vaccines then deliberately covered it up if you aren’t familiar with this important story. Now there is updated news: the video has been confirmed to be legitimate. The Epoch Times discovered that the MoH admitted the video was legit to a Reuters fact checker…

Read more

4 years ago · 653 likes · 230 comments · Steve Kirsch

Here’s the background from my Sep 2 article (video wasn’t released yet):

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

Exclusive: Proof that Israel found serious safety problems with the COVID vaccines then deliberately covered it up

Read more

4 years ago · 1479 likes · 1496 comments · Steve Kirsch

Here’s the Epoch Times article on the video (sept 26)

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

The Epoch Times article on the Israeli safety data

Here’s the Epoch Times article on the Israeli safety data. It’s an important story. Some highlights From Israeli Investigators Find COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Side Effects: Leaked Video: Rechallenge changes a causal link “from possible to definitive,” Dr. Mati Berkovitch, head of the research team and a pediatric specialist, said at the meeting…

Read more

4 years ago · 659 likes · 383 comments · Steve Kirsch

Here’s more data from MOH showing the vaccines are not safe: mortality curves ARE STUNNING

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

New Israeli MoH study shows COVID vax increases your risk of death over time

Executive summary In an earlier post, I analyzed the Medicare data that the CDC refuses to disclose. I found that the COVID vaccines increase your risk of death over time. Now, the Israeli Ministry of Health has covertly released a new study showing the same thing…

Read more

3 years ago · 626 likes · 241 comments · Steve Kirsch

THE VIDEOS

The first teaser

This is the full tape with subtitles

This is the public release event going through the video with commentary

All the videos related to the leak can be found here.

THE DEATHS AFTER DOSE 2 DATA

Extremely damaging data on deaths after dose 2 newly released on Mar 7, 2023. Excuse given is HVE but that is bullshit. HVE, if it exists, is <20% in effect and is gone after 20 days. It is a bullshit cover up.

English version of the study they released with the deaths on days after Dose 2.

This is the most IMPORTANT article I’ve written to date

This is the most important article on my Substack (which has over 700 articles). This one article has enough information regarding both harms and corruption that it should bring down the house of cards if there is just one honest person in a position of authority in the world.

The single most important point is this:

We now have proof of:

1. Serious side-effects of unknown duration, perhaps irreparable

2. Causality: these were not just “coincidences”

3. Government corruption to hide these harms

4. Correlation between vaccine doses and deaths from multiple independent studies on multiple independent datasets

5. No interest in seeing the expert report or the video from any mainstream news media, any member of the mainstream medical community, any lawmaker, any public health official anywhere in the world.

The precautionary principle of medicine now demands an immediate halt to the COVID vaccination program.

The key facts in a nutshell:

1. The Israeli health authority knew the vaccines were harming people: the side effects of the vaccine are neither mild nor short term. In fact, in 65% of the neurological cases that mentioned duration, the symptoms are all on-going.

2. They also established causality: the side effects were caused by the vaccine. This is something no one else had been able to establish before.

3. They don’t know how serious the harm is because they only looked at the data for the top five categories. Cardiovascular was #6. So they have only looked at a fraction of the data.

4. The researchers do not know the prevalence of these serious side effects because they were just provided with the numerator, not the denominator (similar to VAERS).

5. The Israeli authorities deliberately covered up the safety issues and hid it from the world, issuing a false report essentially saying “there is nothing new to see here folks, move along.”

6. The only good news in all of this is that Israel protected Palestinians from getting this very unsafe vaccine. That was very humane of the Israelis.

7. The Israeli people aren’t stupid. They have figured out the vaccines are “unsafe and ineffective” (my new tagline for the vaccines… what do you think? catchy isn’t it?) and are no longer complying with government directives to be vaccinated. Just 2.4% of the Israeli population is “in compliance” as of Sept 2, 2022:

   

8. As of September 4, 2022 no one is being held accountable and everyone is ignoring this bombshell story:

   1. There is a press blackout on coverage in Israel of this. The Israel media refuses to even look at the evidence.

   2. Nobody in Israel is being held accountable for this corruption. There isn’t even an investigation.

   3. Nobody in the worldwide medical community is speaking out about the corruption either despite the fact that it affects people everywhere in the world.

   4. There is no coverage of this in any worldwide mainstream media.

   5. No public official, public health official, or mainstream media anywhere in the world is even calling for an investigation, nobody wants to see the original expert report, and nobody wants to see the safety data they gathered.

   6. Someone translated an earlier version of this article into Hebrew and posted it on mainstream media in Israel. It was removed in less than 1 hour. This shows how important censorship is. If this story leaks, it’s all over.

   7. We have the full video and we have the slides that were presented; use the Contact Me link if you are a health authority and want to see it before it is released to the public.

   8. Just to be sure the CDC knows about this, I just emailed hundreds of people at the CDC who are involved in the COVID vaccines (including Rochelle Walensky) to let them know that the report and video are available. All they have to do is hit reply. I bet not a single person at the CDC wants to see it. We are about to find out just how deep the corruption runs at the CDC.

   9. This isn’t surprising that they ignore this. All negative data on the vaccine is ignored. For example, when I discovered that young Canadian doctors were dying at a more than 12X normal after the second booster, the Canadian Medical Association, whose job it is to to be an advocate for the health of doctors, refused to comment. I sent five requests and they ignored all requests. They should change their website to say that they are an advocate for the drug companies, not the health of doctors.

Specifically:

1. The Israel Ministry of Health (MoH) took 18 months from the launch date of the vaccine before they looked at the COVID vaccine safety data to see what it said.

2. They only started collecting safety data in December 2021, one year after rolling out the vaccines to the public. Few people knew this.

3. In December 2021, they tasked an outside expert panel led by Prof. Mati Berkowitz, a leading Israeli expert on pharmacology and toxicology from Asaf Harofe hospital, to examine the safety data they collected over the next 6 months (from early December to the end of May, 2022).

4. The panel presented their findings to MoH personnel on or about Jun 6, 2022 in a Zoom call that was secretly recorded. They found that the COVID vaccines were much more dangerous to people than the world authorities admitted. They found serious adverse events that were never disclosed by Pfizer or any world government. These adverse events were also not found to be short term as the public was told.

5. They also determined causality, something no other world health authority has ever been willing to do (because other governments never looked at the data either). Causality was both obvious and easy to prove using the re-challenge data that was collected (you can’t do this using the US VAERS data, for example).

6. In short, the panel determined that the government was misleading the people of Israel.

7. We still don’t know the whole extent of how dangerous the vaccines are because the outside team only looked at the top 5 most frequently cited events.

8. Both the Israeli authorities and scientists analyzing the Ministry of Health (MoH) data acted to cover up the harms by releasing a fabricated report to the public to make the vaccine look perfectly safe and claim that there was nothing wrong..

9. It is only thanks to the efforts of one courageous individual who released the recording of the full Zoom meeting between the MoH and their expert panel that we now know what was said at that meeting and what the data actually showed. Otherwise the world would still be in the dark.

10. Leaders of our “trusted institutions” all over the world said absolutely nothing after the news broke on August 20, 2022. This suggests that there is widespread corruption in the medical community, government agencies, among public health officials, the mainstream media, and social media companies worldwide: they will not acknowledge any event that goes against the mainstream narrative.

11. This is a level of corruption that is unprecedented. The atrocities here are clear cut. Everyone should be speaking out and calling for a full investigation and fully evaluating the safety data collected by the Israel government.

What you should do

The three most important things you can do to put a stop to these dangerous vaccines are:

1. Read this article including the recommended links in the References section.

2. Share this article with as many people as you know (e.g., share on all your social media accounts now)

   Share

3. Please subscribe to my Substack so I can keep you informed of developments. The greater the collective reach of people who are challenging the false narrative, the faster the truth will come out. It’s absolutely free to subscribe. The bigger my subscriber footprint, the more impact I can make. So if you agree with what I wrote, please subscribe.

   Subscribe now

Executive Summary

The Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) was informed by their own hand-selected outside expert group headed by Prof. Mati Berkowitz that the COVID vaccines are not as safe as the MoH had been claiming to the Israeli people. It was just the opposite: instead of mild, short term events, the events were serious and long-lasting. For neurological side effects, in 65% of the cases, these did not go away at all (start watching this video at 2:30; the 65% is at 3:09) and the researchers admitted they had no clue if they would ever go away.

Instead of admitting their mistake, the MoH covered it up by issuing a report that distorted the expert report.

In addition, the experts also effectively covered it up by saying nothing when this happened. They sat by idly while the MoH misrepresented the data. It appears that everyone involved was so intimidated that they felt that they had to bury the truth, even when it can cost lives.

The news finally broke to the public on August 20 that the government hadn’t been monitoring adverse reactions for a year and then, after they finally gathered the adverse safety data, that they deliberately manipulated the data to make the vaccine look safe when it wasn’t. You’d think there would be major outrage at the violation of the public trust. But there was nothing. No reaction. Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, the Health Ministry's head of public services and a top COVID adviser to the Israeli government, issued no public statement. That’s stunning.

This suggests that she and the others in her organization who knew about this were in on the cover-up. The Israeli people should demand that they be fired and criminally prosecuted.

In addition, the current Minister of Health, Nitzan Horowitz, is doing nothing. Why isn’t he calling for an investigation? He should be fired as well. Or is corruption of science OK with the Israeli government?

Finally, how deep does the corruption go? Will any Israeli mainstream media cover this story? Why not? Will any member of the Israeli parliament call for an investigation? Will any member of the executive branch call for an investigation?

It appears to me that they are all bought off by the drug companies. Am I wrong?

This is a story of corruption, pure and simple.

There is no way to put a positive spin on this. Anyone in power who is not calling for an investigation and heads to roll is just as corrupt as the people who engaged in the original cover-up of the safety report.

This story is the “smoking gun” we’ve been waiting for: an official government agency was caught on tape as having received a damaging report from scientists and then deliberately lied to the public about it.

The response to this story has been crickets so far

At the time I am writing this (September 2 and 3), the Israeli press (which is heavily state controlled; note that government censorship is legal in Israel) refused to go near the story; they wouldn’t even reply when contacted about the story. They do not want to see any of the evidence. Only one news outlet, GB News in the UK, covered the original story.

It is up to us to force our medical, health, and political leaders worldwide to take a stand on what happened. Will they condemn it or will they ignore it?

Every mainstream medical leader should be saying that what the MoH did is wrong and calling for an immediate investigation into the safety of the vaccines. We should be able to see the full presentation of the expert panel and their report. And the safety data should be released to the public like the VAERS data is.

But look at what happened: they aren’t condemning what happened and they aren’t asking for the report or the data. They are staying silent… as if it didn’t happen.

They are all basically saying, “It is OK for a government to not monitor vaccine safety for 12 months, and then, after 6 months of safety monitoring and clear evidence of harm, deliberately misrepresenting the safety data to the public.”

Introduction

It turns out the Israeli government never had a vaccine safety monitoring system in place when they launched the COVID vaccines in December, 2020.

Finally, in December of 2021, more than a year into the vaccination program, they decided to fix that defect. They started collecting safety data from that point until the end of May 2022. They then tasked an outside research group headed by a top Israeli scientist to analyze the data.

The report came back that the side effects were not mild and short lasting as was represented to the Israeli people. The data was clear that the side-effects were serious and long-lasting (sometimes with no end in sight).

In short, the data showed that the government, which wasn’t monitoring for safety like they claimed, lied to the people of Israel. Also, it’s now clear that Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis lied to the outside committee of the FDA about the Israeli safety monitoring.

The Ministry of Health (MoH) concealed the safety report for 2 months, then issued a deceptive public report to make the vaccine look safe. This Sunday, Sept 4, they will "ask" the vaccine safety committee to recommend the 5th dose (the combo vax) for 60+. This is corrupt. They are hiding the safety data from the public and they know it.

It took 2 months for the MoH to distort the findings and present it to the public to make it look like the COVID vaccines were safe.

Nobody knew that someone was secretly recording the meeting between the outside researchers and the MoH

Nobody knew that the June meeting between the researchers and the MoH was being secretly recorded.

Apparently, there was an honest person at the meeting and so when the MoH didn’t act in a way that protected the public, the recording was leaked to the press.

In the 80 minute recording, one of the researchers said, “We’ll have to think medical-legal – how to present our findings to avoid lawsuits.”

After bits of the recording were leaked to the press, none of the Israeli media would cover the story. In fact, only one news outlet in the world, GB News in the UK, was willing to cover it. Watch this video of the GB News interview by Neil Oliver which happened on August 20, 2022.

Fox News was notified but declined to cover it (apparently because their advertising contracts with Pfizer prohibits them from covering any negative news about the vaccines).

The whole scam was fully exposed to the public on Sept 1, 2022 in this Tweet (10 messages long) from Yaffa Shir-Raz who is an honest journalist living in Israel.

I found out about it when Retsef Levi forwarded Yaffa’s tweet to my WhatsApp (since I’m permanently banned from Twitter for speaking out about how unsafe the vaccines are). My reaction was swift… I started drafting this article within minutes after reading that tweet.

Yaffa’s tweet discusses the techniques that were used to distort the researchers’ findings:

If twitter takes down her tweet, I have a copy of the video and the full tweet which I will publish if needed.

Causality of new adverse events was proven by the outside team

In addition, new significant adverse events were identified and causality was established through re-challenging the same person; if the symptom re-appears or gets worse, that’s a sure sign of causality.

Causality was even established in areas where the researchers were not previously aware of any safety issues. For example, for neurological problems where there wasn’t even a survey question asking about these specifically (because it wasn’t an officially established side effect), the signal was detected by reading the free-form fields.

Additional points

The outside team was hired by the Ministry of Health.

The meeting with the MoH was early June in front of a senior leader in the MoH who is in charge of adverse event monitoring.

The MoH officials did not share the findings with the MoH advisory committee when several weeks later it met to discuss the approval of the vaccine to babies and 5th booster to adults.

Dr. Alroy-Preis is #2 in the MOH. She is heading the formal collaboration between Israel and Pfizer. She meets with Pfizer regularly and writes papers with them. She is also responsible for all the COVID 19 policies in Israel.

The things they hid include:

1. The fact that, in most cases, these effects did not resolve quickly (in some cases lasting over a year)

2. The proof that the vaccine caused the events

3. The actual rates; they manipulated the rates by dividing the number of reports by all the doses, hiding the fact that they had the system for 6 months and only one HMO (15 percent of population reported). This makes the denominator huge and the numerator small which masks the significance.

How could this corruption happen?

My person hypothesis is pretty simple:

1. It was initially caused by blind trust in authority figures like Fauci, the CDC, the FDA, and Pfizer. Fauci conned everyone into the false belief that the vaccine was the only way out.

2. Since everyone wanted to end the pandemic, they looked the other way when safety issues popped up.

3. When authorities are caught red handed as they were in this video, they cover it up so that nobody looks bad (themselves, the government, the media, and the mainstream medical community).

4. All these mitigation strategies were completely unnecessary. We have proven early treatment protocols resulting in close to zero hospitalization and death. But because Fauci controls the NIH, they ignore all this.

5. Fauci created the virus (by funding the gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology) and single-handedly is also responsible for the response which killed even more people than the virus did.

There are other perspectives:

1. See “How did the MoH become Pfizer’s agent?” for how the corruption happens, but briefly it is because government officials are misled into thinking the vaccine is the only way out so they sign an agreement that makes pushing the vaccines a high priority and safety issues a low priority.

2. Article about the Israel-Pfizer contract.

References / further reading

Here are the key sources:

1. Israeli Investigators Find COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Side Effects: Leaked Video

2. Hebrew translation of this article (25 pages)

3. Josh Guetzkow’s excellent summary article

4. The definitive article on the corruption by Yaffa Shir-Raz

5. “Safe and Effective” by Etana Hecht. If Etana can figure this out, why can’t any Israeli authority?

6. The Yaffa tweet (10 tweet long thread) by Yaffa Shir-Raz. Retsef Levi forwarded me just this tweet and you can see my reaction was instant and immediate when I read the thread:

   

7. The GB News segment on August 20, 2022 where Neil Oliver interviewsYaffa and Retsef. The Rumble post was published on Aug 28, but as you can see from this tweet that the news came out on August 20. What is also stunning is how little the reaction was (only 427 retweets and 912 likes after 2 weeks).

   

8. This 4 minute video exposing the MoH report which shows what the scientists actually said at the secret meeting. The scientists proved Pfizer lied to the FDA about the side effects. This video is only 4 minutes long and everyone should watch this. It has the statements showing that in 65% of the neurological cases (see 3:10 in the video), the problems didn’t resolve.

9. This one minute clip from the Zoom call shows the researchers requesting that Sharon be informed. There is assurance from the MoH attendees that they will make this happen.

10. This two minute clip shows Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis assuring the public the vaccines are safe for women juxtaposed with the video of the researchers saying the vaccines are causing damage to women’s reproductive organs that in some cases doesn’t end. They are also pointing out that re-challenge results in the same problem coming back which is evidence of causality, especially when it happens in many patients. Remember, the researchers didn’t know they were being recorded. They would have never said this if they knew they were on camera.

11. The public MoH report (in Hebrew) that essentially said “nothing to see here folks, move along.” Here is the machine-translated version of the public report in English.

12. The full video of the meeting between the scientists and the MoH officials has not been released publicly... yet. This provides an opportunity for the MoH officials to come forward on their own and admit what happened. Yaffa’s tweet (above) has the info that was sent to the media. We also have a copy of the slides that were presented at the meeting. Use the Contact Me link if you are a health authority (doctor, academic, press, public health official) and want to see it before we release it to the public.

These references are only on this particular story of course. There are now over a thousand of articles in the peer-reviewed published scientific journals showing the vaccines are not as safe as claimed. See this article for a summary of the evidence.

We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg right now

Keep in mind that the researchers ONLY analyzed the 5 most commonly reported serious adverse events and they found new things Pfizer didn’t know about.

They excluded the most severe cases and gave them to another committee to examine.

Cardiovascular events were #6 most prevalent so we don’t have any data on those since they weren’t analyzed.

And the study didn't even include cases of hospitalization - which is the role of another committee to examine.

So the current analysis is just the tip of the iceberg.

VAERS shows thousands of symptoms that are elevated by these vaccines compared to normal.

There is a lot more that has not yet been surfaced to the public. There is honest research going on in Israel that is being ignored.

Two Israeli researchers found that the vaccines kill 40 times more old people than they save

For example, did you know that according to an analysis of data from the MoH, the COVID vaccine kills 40 times more old people than it saves?

Dr. Herve Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality.

Using Israel MoH data, Haim Yative and Dr. Seligmann, Israeli researchers, found that the COVID-19 vaccine killed 40 times (40x) the amount of elderly people than the disease would have and 260 times more younger people than would have died from the virus in a 3 week period shortly after the shots.

See:

1. Israeli Health Ministry data: Pfizer Vaccine Killed ‘About 40 Times More Elderly than the Disease Itself would have Killed’

2. Vaccination in Israel: Challenging mortality figures?

3. The uncovering of the vaccination data in Israel reveals a frightening picture

Note that the last article has the research and also talks about the attack pieces on the research and it makes a compelling case as to why those attack pieces are wrong. I’d be willing to bet that the attackers are camera shy and will not appear in an “on camera” discussion of the work.

Live debate challenges are a very reliable way to determine who is telling the truth, and who is lying when dealing with complex topics. It’s why nobody who claims that the “virus doesn’t exist” will appear on camera with me… not even for 5 minutes, and not even to win $1M. They simply won’t do it.

Other things of note

1. The Israeli press is heavily controlled. Yaffa was fired from the biggest newspaper in Israel a year ago, after working there for 20 years. Her crime? She wrote some articles the MoH did not like. So it’s not surprising that the press in Israel avoided covering this story. It is only going to make a difference if everyone who reads this article shares it on social media.

2. The expert group found side-effects not listed by Pfizer (new signals), including neurological AEs, back pain, and GI problems, especially in kids. Since the group only looked at the top 5 most prevalent side effects, it’s really troubling that they found anything new. This really isn’t much of a surprise as the VAERS data, which is independent of the Israeli data, shows the same thing.

3. Causality: they found many cases of re-challenge - recurrence or worsening of a side effect following repeated doses within the same individual - which the head researcher stresses, increases the chances of causality "from possible to definite." So it is interesting that these researchers were easily able to determine causality when nobody else in the “mainstream medical world” was able to. Of course, the “misinformation spreaders” realized that the VAERS data was saying this back in early 2021 due to dose dependency of the symptoms.

4. The only person who finally tweeted something was the husband of Sharon AlroyPreis. He basically smeared Yaffa. This actually makes sense because when you are unable to attack the merits of an argument, the proper approach is either to censor the attacker or engage in ad hominem attacks.

This is a serious problem for people who live in Israel

The government considers them “unvaccinated” unless they have every dose of COVID vaccine available. Check this out… only 2.4% of the people of Israel are complying with the vaccination policies of the government. Somebody broke the code (note: the date is Sept 2, 2022).

A comment from one of my readers in Israel

Consider this comment:

I'm Israeli and I've been saying what you wrote (to myself and on a few Israeli facebook accounts) for quite a long time now. I'm disgusted with the heads of our ministry of health that are in charge of dealing with the Corona crisis. I'm disgusted with people like Sharon Alroy-Preis who testified in front of the FDA experts committee like a groupie or cheerleader of Pfizer. Like a little puppy, eager to please her master Pfizer. So ambitious and so eager to get ahead and look important by appearing in front of that committee and so lacking any serious responsibility towards the millions of Israelis whose health she neglected. And she not only betrayed the trust of the Israeli public, but by her distorted testimony she influenced the FDA committee, thus exposing billions of people around the world to the dangers of this vaccine, because an FDA approval goes a long way around the world. She not only should be fired. She should go to jail!

So now all the people in the US have at least one scapegoat to blame for everything. I’ve been told that the US relied on the Israeli’s for safety monitoring due to the sad state of safety monitoring in the US. They may not have realized that Israel was even worse than the US in safety monitoring; much worse.

Reaction from the press to my article

As of Sept 5, there are two articles that have been published about my article and both are very damaging to the Ministry of Health:

HEAD OF VACCINE SAFETY RESEARCH: ISRAEL DELIBERATELY LIED ABOUT COVID VACCINE HEALTH RISKS
This was published in Israel 365 News and is written in English. Good for them for carrying the story. Even better, they featured the story on their homepage which you can see from this screenshot (look at the URL):

Israel knew about the risks of the corona vaccines and kept it “quiet”
This article, which appears in ice.co.il, is written in Hebrew but Google translate works great if you want to read it in English. All the comments are all supportive of my article. They posted this, took it down an hour later, but now it is back up for all to see. Check out these two comments (Google translated):

18 USC 1001 violation by Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis

It is a criminal violation of US law for anyone to make a material misrepresentation in any official proceeding (18 USC 1001). Violators are subject to 5 years in prison.

Consider the following statements made at this FDA VRBPAC meeting on September 17, 2021:

“Reckless Levy” is actually “Retsef Levi.” But this statement was made at a time where there was no safety monitoring being done by the Israeli government.

She is relating to Retsef's claim that the reporting system in Israel was dysfunctional (which it was) and that there was no follow up or monitoring on AEs. Retsef didn’t lie. She did. She said she was “surprised.”

So this appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation made by Dr. Alroy-Preis which could subject her to criminal prosecution by the DOJ. However, such things are unlikely even though her testimony led the committee to approve the vaccines which have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

On the other hand, maybe she was surprised that anyone outside the MoH knew what was really going on (so she wasn’t lying).

How do “they” explain this away? They can’t!

The Twitter trolls initially claimed the videos were taken out of context. But that didn’t last long. Now they are silent. The strategy seems to be let’s ignore it so it will go away.

A comment from Bill Rice Jr.

Bill wrote this in the comments. It’s an excellent summary.

This can’t happen in the US because the CDC avoids gathering accurate safety data on vaccines

The US has a lame system for tracking adverse events after vaccination. They looked at upgrading it over 10 years ago, but the new system, ESP:VAERS, was too accurate and showed all the US vaccines were dangerous. So the CDC canned the system. This is documented near the beginning of RFK Jr’s book The Real Anthony Fauci.

The CDC would never commission a study to accurately study adverse events so the problem just doesn’t happen in the US because they avoid collecting the data in the first place.

This is very corrupt but nobody minds including the mainstream medical community. They have all been brainwashed into believing the FDA is legit and all vaccines are safe. But apparently they know this isn’t true because none of them will debate RFK Jr on vaccine safety (he’s been trying for 20 years to find an expert to debate (Alan Dershowitz doesn’t count).

Of course, the US Pfizer vaccines are just as dangerous as the Pfizer vaccine in Israel, but the governments and the mainstream press ensure nobody finds out, just like how you will only see this information on Substack and in other places, but never in the mainstream press.

Even when an FAA whistleblower comes forward with serious accusations that are irrefutable, the US press avoids covering the event:

Today, nobody will challenge the FDA. They now do EUA approvals without any proof of a clinical benefit and without approval by their own captured outside committee. This is outrageous, yet doctors are silent.

The FDA just approved the combined booster after testing on 8 mice showed that the Omicron protection was sporadic and that it did not prevent infection in a single mouse that was challenged with the virus. No word on data showing there is a hospitalization or death benefit.

What I don’t understand is why they didn’t do the Omicron challenge study on 200 mice: 100 who got the full vax series vs. 100 completely unvaxed mice looking for all-cause mortality and morbidity. That would have been real data, far better than 8 mice who got the vaccine looking for antibodies. But they didn’t do this because they knew it would be bad.

Instead, the medical community and the FDA are content with a single arm study with 8 mice which showed no clinical benefit from the vaccine to approve a vaccine that they will try to get everyone to take.

This is truly stunning. It shows you clearly how broken the medical community is. There should be op-eds in every medical journal on the absurdity of approving a booster with no clinical benefit in humans or mice. Doctors should be outraged at this. But they say nothing.

All the mice used in the study are now dead (they were killed as part of the study which was convenient since that way they can’t track their mortality).

Was Sharon Alroy-Preis in on it?

It is highly unlikely that Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, the Health Ministry's head of public services and a top COVID adviser to the Israeli government, didn’t know about all of this before the press leak.

How could she not know? There was no safety monitoring in place before December 2021. If she didn’t know that, she should be immediately fired for incompetence. So she must have known about the data that was being gathered and that it was being analyzed. She should have been on pins and needles waiting for the result of the meeting if she truly cared about public health. And how could she not be at that meeting with the scientists? What could possibly be more important to the health and safety of the Israeli people? Where was she?

Even though she obviously didn’t make the Zoom meeting because she had more important things to do, she would have been notified immediately after the meeting by her staff. That’s the 99.99% most likely scenario.

But once it was announced in the press, it removed all doubt.

If she was truly not informed before the GB News story on August 20, she would have immediately issued a press release that she was never told about the report and that there would be an investigation. Instead, we heard nothing. The only possible way that could happen is she was in on the cover up.

My email to the CDC offering to share the information

I wanted to create a public record that the information was offered to hundreds of people who work at the CDC in vaccine safety. I predict that not a single person wants to see the data. I would be amazed if I am wrong.

Here is the email I sent on September 4, 2022 to hundreds of people at the CDC:

I haven’t heard back from a single person at the CDC.

My email to the NIH offering to share the information

Dr. Nath has been studying whether the COVID vaccines cause injury. To date, he’s been unable to establish a connection. He should welcome this data with open arms. It’s the data he’s been looking for for over a year. No reply from Dr. Nath. What does that tell you?

To Dr. Nath’s credit, in a past email, when I copied an aide to Senator Johnson, I received this response from the PR people at NIH:

They must think I’m naive. The NIH press people were lying when they wrote that. They are trying to re-write history, just like the MoH.

Please read this article which talks about Nath’s research. You cannot unring the bell (articles in both The Epoch Times and Science) no matter how hard you try (and Nath is definitely trying). They are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

How medical experts in the US are reacting

I have the mobile phone number for Dr. Grace Lee, head of the ACIP committee which is the outside committee of the CDC. So I texted her this article and asked for comments.

If she says anything, I’ll report it here. Don’t hold your breath.

She should be outraged. But she won’t be. She’ll say nothing. She’ll just go along with what she is told to do, which is to ignore it. That’s how science works. If you want evidence of corruption, this is it.

Similarly, no member of the mainstream medical community will say a word. None of them will say anything.

Will Professor Vinay Prasad say anything? He knows about this article and I’ve asked for his comments as well.

This is a defining moment for the world mainstream medical community and medical journals. Will they speak out or do as they are told and remain silent? Who will be the first to speak out?

I’m guessing they will all remain silent and not comment about this. This shows you the level of control and corruption.

Here is a partial list of people I’ve ask for comment from:

1. Marc Tessier-Lavigne, President of Stanford

2. Stanford Dean of Medicine Lloyd Minor

3. Stanford Professor David Relman

4. Stanford Professor Grace Lee (who is also head of the ACIP committee)

5. Stanford Professor Bonnie Maldonado

6. UCSF Dean of Medicine Bob Wachter

7. UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad

8. Emory Dean of Medicine Vikas Sukhatme

9. Emory Professor Carlos del Rio

10. John Hopkins Professor Bert Vogelstein (the most cited scientist in history)

11. CNN Medical Expert Dr. Sanjay Gupta

I know all of these people. I am hoping that at least one of them will want to be on the right side of history here in calling out the corruption at the MoH.

But no.

The only person who responded was Bert Vogelstein who basically said he’s working on something big and didn’t want to get defocused. That’s fair. He’s a class act. This is peripheral for him and I knew that when I reached out.

Let me make my position crystal clear:

Scientific corruption like this should never be tolerated and those that refuse to speak out publicly about it should be ashamed of themselves.

I would have asked other people but many top scientists in the infectious disease area requested I never contact them again after I first revealed the COVID vaccines were unsafe back in May, 2021. They believed I was a menace to society at the time (and probably still do).

I sent this email after not hearing from anyone at the CDC

I sent this email on Sep 9, 2022 at 10am:

I’ll let you know if any of them responds. Don’t hold your breath. I predict that none of them are going to want to see the safety data of the COVID vaccines even though they are responsible for vaccine safety.

The general principle they follow is “if the data looks bad, simply refuse to look at it.” That’s how science works now. Just ask Tony Fauci.

Press coverage

As of Sept 9, 2022, the only news media interested in seeing the data are:

• The Epoch Times

• CDMedia

• The Spectator Australia

• Achgut.com (Thomas Maul)

• The Intercept

• The Jonathan Kogan Show

• Australian Broadcasting Corporation (one TV News editor who still has to sell the story)

Here’s one of the many interviews I did. This is on the Stew Peters show and is only 11 minutes long:

And one more thing…we now have confirmation of the delayed killing effect of the vaccine AND that the deaths are CAUSED by the vaccine

There is a dose-dependent relationship between the number of COVID vaccines administered and the number of non-COVID excess deaths. It is statistically significant (p<.001). See my new updated article on the 5 month delay and pay attention to the excellent work by John Dee cited in that article. He used UK data only.

So now we have the US data (the Social Security Death Master File data that the CDC doesn’t want us to know about), the European data, and the UK data all saying the same thing: the vaccines are causing massive numbers of deaths.

There is yet another signal that there is a 5 month “time bomb” fuse after vaccination which is the “blood clots” (which are not blood). Read this article about these clots. I’ve written many articles about the clots which are found in up to 93% of the cases. Jessica Rose wrote an excellent article explaining how these clots form.

These clots take months to form before they kill you. The embalmers didn’t see any of these clots until mid-2021. This suggests there is a double spike of death, just as Tim Ellison found. There is a quick death: these are the ones reported in VAERS. And there is the slower death from the clots that take, on average, about 5 months to kill you. This explains why none of the embalmers noticed any of these cases until mid-2021.

The evidence all fits together. Like a glove.

Summary and recommendations

In writing this article, I have spoken privately to both MIT Professor Retsef Levy and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz to make sure I got everything right.

The bottom line is this:

1. There is clear corruption at the Israeli Ministry of Health and nobody in authority is calling for an investigation.

2. More importantly, it’s now crystal clear from the preliminary examination of the safety data that the vaccines are far more dangerous than we were told, yet no world government is interested in even requesting the Israel safety data.

3. Nobody is calling out what happened in Israel as being wrong. That’s stunning. Nobody prominent is speaking out!

4. Nobody (other than alt-media and a individuals who are not in a position of authority to make any changes) has asked to see the expert panel report or the underlying data. That’s really stunning.

5. The report is only the tip of the iceberg here since only five adverse event types were analyzed.

6. This evidence, combined with the new 5-month delay data showing a very high correlation coefficient (34%) and a p-value < .001, paints a picture of a deadly vaccine that should be immediately stopped. We don’t even need to reference the work of others, such as Yative and Seligmann. There is no other way to explain this data. If there is a way to explain the data, then the authorities should explain it and not refuse to answer any questions from scientists and statisticians with opposing views.

7. Bottom line: Based upon the government corruption, the safety data, and the correlation of the vaccine and deaths, the precautionary principle of medicine demands an immediate halt to the COVID vaccination program.

The Israeli people should be demanding that the vaccines be stopped and that Sharon Alroy-Preis resign now as well as all the members of her team who participated in the cover-up. They should be prosecuting all these people as criminals because that’s what they did: they conspired to bury the safety information which could have saved lives.

It is important that honesty and integrity be restored at the MoH as soon as possible, yet nothing is happening.

So the corruption will continue worldwide.

Please share this widely. It is important for this information to get out. Now.

Share