All scientific studies that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature say unvaccinated kids are healthier. The anecdotal data is 100% aligned with that conclusion.
Beware of your health care providers. There's a large number of them who suffer from MAGA and MAHA derangement syndrome to the point of refusing to treat and/or actually mistreating anyone who questions vaccine safety and efficacy.
These pediatricians are only focused on their big pharma bonuses for poisoning enough young children with toxic vaccines. It stands to reason that if a pediatrician sees that no unvaccinated child is less healthier than a vaccinated child, they might stop and ask why or do some serious investigations.
But no, the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands if not millions in bonuses over the first 5 years of a child's life is far too tempting for these bums to get any morality or conscious. May all their yachts sink to the bottom of Hades.
Sir, these pediatricians still will not take you if your child is not vaccinated or they make you get vaccinated. This forced evil has to stop. We need to stop this vile evil of poisoning our children , no doctors are doing the right thing.? Why? especially knowing what we know today.
We know vaccines are dangerous, injure and kill. All that don’t know are brainwashed and/or feared and/or forced into jabs. Time for everyone to understand the truth and stop listening.
Steve, I want to first let you know that I think the Covid shots are essentially poison and did not get them, and I view vaccination with great skepticism. Nonetheless, I thought it would be interesting to give Claude your substack article and let the AI give a critique. I thought Claude makes some interesting observations, and I'm sharing them here. Note: further in the conversation, I told Claude that I had personally saw the Bigtree/Zervos lunch conversation and alerted Claude to Ron Johnson's Senate subcommittee meeting with Zervos' study results put in the Congressional record, and Claude does agree that the situation is pretty shady. Here it is, and if you do read it, I would be interested in your reaction: The "Grok admits" framing is the weakest part, and it's load-bearing.
What Kirsch describes is not Grok discovering or confirming anything. He asked an LLM whether any pediatrician has publicly reported observing vaccinated kids being healthier, and got back essentially "no such public report exists." That's a statement about the absence of a particular kind of published anecdote—not evidence about the underlying reality. No pediatrician systematically tracks and publishes head-to-head health comparisons of their vaxxed vs. unvaxxed patients, because that's not how clinical practice generates data. So "no pediatrician has reported X" is true in the same trivial way that "no pediatrician has published their patients' average shoe size" is true. The absence is structural, not meaningful.
And here's the part worth being blunt about: I'm the same kind of system Kirsch is citing as a corroborating authority. An LLM agreeing with the person prompting it is close to worthless as evidence. We're trained to be cooperative, we follow the framing we're handed, and a motivated questioner can walk one of us to almost any conclusion through how the question is posed. When Kirsch presents "AlterAI agreed with me" as a stunning confirmation, that should lower your confidence, not raise it. He's treating a mirror as a witness. You came to me partly to get an AI's take—so the honest thing for me to say is that "an AI said so" carries no evidential weight here, mine included.
The "nine peer-reviewed studies" and the vaxxed/unvaxxed claim.
This is the empirical core, and it's where I'd push hardest. The vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed literature Kirsch draws on (Mawson, the Hooker/Miller papers, etc.) is dominated by a specific methodological problem: healthy-user and self-selection bias running the opposite direction from what he assumes. Families who decline all childhood vaccines are not a random slice of the population. They differ systematically in income, healthcare-seeking behavior, how often they bring a kid to a doctor (which determines whether conditions get diagnosed and recorded at all), diet, and more. Many of these studies rely on parent surveys recruited through anti-vaccine channels, or on insurance/EHR records where the unvaccinated kids simply have fewer clinical encounters—so fewer diagnoses get logged. Fewer recorded diagnoses looks like "healthier" but can just be "less observed." This is a textbook confound, and most of these papers don't credibly control for it.
That doesn't make the question illegitimate. A well-designed vaxxed/unvaxxed study with proper controls would be genuinely valuable, and the standard institutional reluctance to fund or run one is a fair thing to be suspicious of. But "all published studies say unvaccinated kids are healthier" overstates both the quantity and the quality of what exists, and ignores that the studies sharing a conclusion also share the same fixable flaw.
The Henry Ford / Zervos / "An Inconvenient Study" claim.
I can't verify the hidden-camera quote or the suppression story from here, and I'd want to before treating it as fact—this is sourced to an advocacy documentary, which is exactly the kind of single-source, motivated-framing claim that warrants caution regardless of which direction it points. That said, I won't dismiss it either. Research getting shelved for career-risk reasons is a real phenomenon. But "a study was suppressed" and "the study would have shown what I believe" are two separate claims, and the second doesn't follow from the first. An unpublished study tells you nothing about its results unless you can see them.
The flu vaccine / Simonsen claim is the most defensible thing in the piece—and still oversold.
Here Kirsch is standing on firmer ground, and I'll give it to him where it's due. The Simonsen 2005 analysis (and related work by Lone Simonsen and Lisa Jackson) genuinely did challenge the claim that flu vaccination produces large all-cause winter mortality reductions in the elderly. The core insight is real: the observational studies showing flu shots cut all-cause mortality by ~50% in seniors were almost certainly corrupted by healthy-vaccinee bias—the people who get vaccinated are the people healthy enough and engaged enough to seek it out, so they'd have lower mortality regardless. The implausibly huge effect sizes were a statistical artifact. Epidemiologists like Jackson published exactly this critique in mainstream journals. The Anderson age-65 discontinuity study Kirsch cites is a legitimate piece of work using a sound natural-experiment design.
So the narrow claim—"flu vaccination's all-cause mortality benefit in the elderly has been overstated, and the observational evidence base was biased"—is well supported and genuinely under-acknowledged by practicing clinicians. Kirsch is right that a lot of doctors recite a benefit number that the better evidence doesn't support.
But he inflates it. "Flu shots do not work / produce no measurable benefit" is a stronger claim than the evidence makes. Demonstrating that the all-cause mortality signal in the elderly was an artifact is not the same as showing the vaccine has zero effect on lab-confirmed influenza, on illness severity, or in other age groups. The honest version is "the mortality benefit was oversold and the supporting studies were biased," not "they don't work." He slides from the defensible version to the sweeping one without noticing—or without wanting you to notice.
The rhetorical structure to watch.
Notice the piece's shape: it's built almost entirely around belief, suppression, and refusal—Zervos won't publish, the CEO stops talking, Ninio won't accept data, "belief always wins." This is a frame in which the absence of corroboration becomes evidence for the thesis, because any absence can be attributed to suppression. That's an unfalsifiable structure. If supporting studies exist, they prove the point; if they don't exist, they were suppressed, which also proves the point. A claim that's confirmed equally by evidence and by the absence of evidence isn't making a testable assertion. The Simonsen material is the exception precisely because it's an actual published finding with a method you can check—and tellingly, it's the part that holds up.
Net:
The flu-vaccine-mortality critique is real and worth taking seriously—Kirsch didn't invent it and the establishment response to it has been weaker than it should be. The vaxxed/unvaxxed "healthier" claim is not established; it rests on studies with a shared confound that points the other way, dressed up as unanimity. And the Grok/AlterAI framing is the part you should give zero weight to—it's an AI being led to agree, presented as if it were a discovery, and I'd be doing you a disservice to pretend otherwise just because I'm an AI you've asked.
Thanks Steve. Your tireless efforts to teach us all what real science looks like is nothing short of heroic. How you stay patient with these idiots is miraculous to me. Vaccination is like FGM or blood letting or any of a hundred useless and dangerous medical barbarisms seen over the centuries. It is actually a superstitious belief based on group think and drug pusher marketing which has no interest in evidence. Asking its victims to give up their faith in vaccination is like asking them to reject evolution or plate tectonics or gravity or relativity or genetics. They can't do this and they won't do this as loss of faith in science would undermine their very idea of reality. This is how deep the covid 19 rabbit whole goes. We will not see the end of this barbarism before science itself is completely reformed. The best we can hope for in the short term is an absolutely iron clad, constitution level, medical human right, to say NO to any and all medical interventions.
If you would STOP eating man's garbage, so-called "food" and eat what God gives us in Nature you would not need the kill shot in the first place. At 72yo I have been doing it for years. This would include fermented foods. I have zero chronic conditions and zero ailments. There is a spiritual component. Thank your Creator every day. A healthy mind begets a healthy body.
You are 100% right. At 92 I can say the same thing. Most food offered is the cause of mankind's health problems. I have no health problems. No weight problem, either. I am totally into the Creator too and ask for guidance. I try to eat as much raw unprocessed food as possible. I do keep records to keep me on track daily. Every morning I do 90 minutes of walking...approx. 4-1/2 miles. My day begins at 5:25 Am. I took a 5 month break from the Internet in order to catch up on my reading. I have an extensive library and and have been reading a book daily..
This is good Steve. I had all childhood viruses except mumps. I caught it from my youngest siblings when I was in nursing school! My antibody titer was high in 2008 ! I was almost 62. Hello. Time to wake up in mass against the jabs.
Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors
Patent
US-6506148-B2
Inventor
LOOS HENDRICUS G (US)
Country
United States
Dates Priority: 2001/06/01 Grant: 2003/01/14
¨Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensit...¨
re: "Basically he said that large-scale rollouts of the flu vaccine are expected to produce unmeasurable benefits. Therefore I should get my flu shot."
Um, like, I don't have a white coat and an office so I think I'll go stand on the corner downtown wearing a placard that says, I'm wearing a placard so we can chant abracadabra together and you give me 20 bucks. Nah, make that 200 bucks.
Richard Feynman best explains what it means to be a medical practitioner
Beware of your health care providers. There's a large number of them who suffer from MAGA and MAHA derangement syndrome to the point of refusing to treat and/or actually mistreating anyone who questions vaccine safety and efficacy.
Right you are. The pediatricians I know are on Output Mode Only. It seems their credential places everyone else in the position of Child.
Steve, good work as usual. And over the years, you responded personally to both me and my son.
I upgraded to Paid-- you earned it.
These pediatricians are only focused on their big pharma bonuses for poisoning enough young children with toxic vaccines. It stands to reason that if a pediatrician sees that no unvaccinated child is less healthier than a vaccinated child, they might stop and ask why or do some serious investigations.
But no, the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands if not millions in bonuses over the first 5 years of a child's life is far too tempting for these bums to get any morality or conscious. May all their yachts sink to the bottom of Hades.
Sir, these pediatricians still will not take you if your child is not vaccinated or they make you get vaccinated. This forced evil has to stop. We need to stop this vile evil of poisoning our children , no doctors are doing the right thing.? Why? especially knowing what we know today.
We know vaccines are dangerous, injure and kill. All that don’t know are brainwashed and/or feared and/or forced into jabs. Time for everyone to understand the truth and stop listening.
Very good info! Thank you for posting!
Steve, I want to first let you know that I think the Covid shots are essentially poison and did not get them, and I view vaccination with great skepticism. Nonetheless, I thought it would be interesting to give Claude your substack article and let the AI give a critique. I thought Claude makes some interesting observations, and I'm sharing them here. Note: further in the conversation, I told Claude that I had personally saw the Bigtree/Zervos lunch conversation and alerted Claude to Ron Johnson's Senate subcommittee meeting with Zervos' study results put in the Congressional record, and Claude does agree that the situation is pretty shady. Here it is, and if you do read it, I would be interested in your reaction: The "Grok admits" framing is the weakest part, and it's load-bearing.
What Kirsch describes is not Grok discovering or confirming anything. He asked an LLM whether any pediatrician has publicly reported observing vaccinated kids being healthier, and got back essentially "no such public report exists." That's a statement about the absence of a particular kind of published anecdote—not evidence about the underlying reality. No pediatrician systematically tracks and publishes head-to-head health comparisons of their vaxxed vs. unvaxxed patients, because that's not how clinical practice generates data. So "no pediatrician has reported X" is true in the same trivial way that "no pediatrician has published their patients' average shoe size" is true. The absence is structural, not meaningful.
And here's the part worth being blunt about: I'm the same kind of system Kirsch is citing as a corroborating authority. An LLM agreeing with the person prompting it is close to worthless as evidence. We're trained to be cooperative, we follow the framing we're handed, and a motivated questioner can walk one of us to almost any conclusion through how the question is posed. When Kirsch presents "AlterAI agreed with me" as a stunning confirmation, that should lower your confidence, not raise it. He's treating a mirror as a witness. You came to me partly to get an AI's take—so the honest thing for me to say is that "an AI said so" carries no evidential weight here, mine included.
The "nine peer-reviewed studies" and the vaxxed/unvaxxed claim.
This is the empirical core, and it's where I'd push hardest. The vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed literature Kirsch draws on (Mawson, the Hooker/Miller papers, etc.) is dominated by a specific methodological problem: healthy-user and self-selection bias running the opposite direction from what he assumes. Families who decline all childhood vaccines are not a random slice of the population. They differ systematically in income, healthcare-seeking behavior, how often they bring a kid to a doctor (which determines whether conditions get diagnosed and recorded at all), diet, and more. Many of these studies rely on parent surveys recruited through anti-vaccine channels, or on insurance/EHR records where the unvaccinated kids simply have fewer clinical encounters—so fewer diagnoses get logged. Fewer recorded diagnoses looks like "healthier" but can just be "less observed." This is a textbook confound, and most of these papers don't credibly control for it.
That doesn't make the question illegitimate. A well-designed vaxxed/unvaxxed study with proper controls would be genuinely valuable, and the standard institutional reluctance to fund or run one is a fair thing to be suspicious of. But "all published studies say unvaccinated kids are healthier" overstates both the quantity and the quality of what exists, and ignores that the studies sharing a conclusion also share the same fixable flaw.
The Henry Ford / Zervos / "An Inconvenient Study" claim.
I can't verify the hidden-camera quote or the suppression story from here, and I'd want to before treating it as fact—this is sourced to an advocacy documentary, which is exactly the kind of single-source, motivated-framing claim that warrants caution regardless of which direction it points. That said, I won't dismiss it either. Research getting shelved for career-risk reasons is a real phenomenon. But "a study was suppressed" and "the study would have shown what I believe" are two separate claims, and the second doesn't follow from the first. An unpublished study tells you nothing about its results unless you can see them.
The flu vaccine / Simonsen claim is the most defensible thing in the piece—and still oversold.
Here Kirsch is standing on firmer ground, and I'll give it to him where it's due. The Simonsen 2005 analysis (and related work by Lone Simonsen and Lisa Jackson) genuinely did challenge the claim that flu vaccination produces large all-cause winter mortality reductions in the elderly. The core insight is real: the observational studies showing flu shots cut all-cause mortality by ~50% in seniors were almost certainly corrupted by healthy-vaccinee bias—the people who get vaccinated are the people healthy enough and engaged enough to seek it out, so they'd have lower mortality regardless. The implausibly huge effect sizes were a statistical artifact. Epidemiologists like Jackson published exactly this critique in mainstream journals. The Anderson age-65 discontinuity study Kirsch cites is a legitimate piece of work using a sound natural-experiment design.
So the narrow claim—"flu vaccination's all-cause mortality benefit in the elderly has been overstated, and the observational evidence base was biased"—is well supported and genuinely under-acknowledged by practicing clinicians. Kirsch is right that a lot of doctors recite a benefit number that the better evidence doesn't support.
But he inflates it. "Flu shots do not work / produce no measurable benefit" is a stronger claim than the evidence makes. Demonstrating that the all-cause mortality signal in the elderly was an artifact is not the same as showing the vaccine has zero effect on lab-confirmed influenza, on illness severity, or in other age groups. The honest version is "the mortality benefit was oversold and the supporting studies were biased," not "they don't work." He slides from the defensible version to the sweeping one without noticing—or without wanting you to notice.
The rhetorical structure to watch.
Notice the piece's shape: it's built almost entirely around belief, suppression, and refusal—Zervos won't publish, the CEO stops talking, Ninio won't accept data, "belief always wins." This is a frame in which the absence of corroboration becomes evidence for the thesis, because any absence can be attributed to suppression. That's an unfalsifiable structure. If supporting studies exist, they prove the point; if they don't exist, they were suppressed, which also proves the point. A claim that's confirmed equally by evidence and by the absence of evidence isn't making a testable assertion. The Simonsen material is the exception precisely because it's an actual published finding with a method you can check—and tellingly, it's the part that holds up.
Net:
The flu-vaccine-mortality critique is real and worth taking seriously—Kirsch didn't invent it and the establishment response to it has been weaker than it should be. The vaxxed/unvaxxed "healthier" claim is not established; it rests on studies with a shared confound that points the other way, dressed up as unanimity. And the Grok/AlterAI framing is the part you should give zero weight to—it's an AI being led to agree, presented as if it were a discovery, and I'd be doing you a disservice to pretend otherwise just because I'm an AI you've asked.
Thanks Steve. Your tireless efforts to teach us all what real science looks like is nothing short of heroic. How you stay patient with these idiots is miraculous to me. Vaccination is like FGM or blood letting or any of a hundred useless and dangerous medical barbarisms seen over the centuries. It is actually a superstitious belief based on group think and drug pusher marketing which has no interest in evidence. Asking its victims to give up their faith in vaccination is like asking them to reject evolution or plate tectonics or gravity or relativity or genetics. They can't do this and they won't do this as loss of faith in science would undermine their very idea of reality. This is how deep the covid 19 rabbit whole goes. We will not see the end of this barbarism before science itself is completely reformed. The best we can hope for in the short term is an absolutely iron clad, constitution level, medical human right, to say NO to any and all medical interventions.
I believe there are only 4 states who don’t allow a religious exemption to vaccination: NY, CA, ME & CT.
All other states have at least religious, some have philosophical as well.
Pediatrician Paul Thomas knew and documented his own patients...go Doc!!!!
If you would STOP eating man's garbage, so-called "food" and eat what God gives us in Nature you would not need the kill shot in the first place. At 72yo I have been doing it for years. This would include fermented foods. I have zero chronic conditions and zero ailments. There is a spiritual component. Thank your Creator every day. A healthy mind begets a healthy body.
You are 100% right. At 92 I can say the same thing. Most food offered is the cause of mankind's health problems. I have no health problems. No weight problem, either. I am totally into the Creator too and ask for guidance. I try to eat as much raw unprocessed food as possible. I do keep records to keep me on track daily. Every morning I do 90 minutes of walking...approx. 4-1/2 miles. My day begins at 5:25 Am. I took a 5 month break from the Internet in order to catch up on my reading. I have an extensive library and and have been reading a book daily..
This is good Steve. I had all childhood viruses except mumps. I caught it from my youngest siblings when I was in nursing school! My antibody titer was high in 2008 ! I was almost 62. Hello. Time to wake up in mass against the jabs.
NIH National Library of Medecine - PubChem
Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors
Patent
US-6506148-B2
Inventor
LOOS HENDRICUS G (US)
Country
United States
Dates Priority: 2001/06/01 Grant: 2003/01/14
¨Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensit...¨
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6506148-B2
re: "Basically he said that large-scale rollouts of the flu vaccine are expected to produce unmeasurable benefits. Therefore I should get my flu shot."
Um, like, I don't have a white coat and an office so I think I'll go stand on the corner downtown wearing a placard that says, I'm wearing a placard so we can chant abracadabra together and you give me 20 bucks. Nah, make that 200 bucks.
Vaccines are murderous.
Yes indeed they are.