Health Feedback attempts to discredit me

I think it was an epic fail. Tell me what you think.

Executive summary

I recently saw a comment on Twitter saying my Medicare analysis was found to be flawed.

News to me so I looked.

Nope. They just said they couldn’t verify it because the Medicare data isn’t public.

Questions a critical thinker would ask:

1. If the vaccine is so safe, why is the government hiding the Medicare record level data on people who died? Why don’t they just publish it?

2. Why didn’t Health Feedback ask Medicare for the records and show us the RIGHT analysis?

The tweet

The fact check article

Here’s the attack article for you to read written by Flora Teoh:

The article being attacked

GAME OVER: Medicare data shows the COVID vaccines increase your risk of dying where I include a link to the actual Medicare data across many states.

I point out in the article, “if the vaccine is so safe, why isn’t the CDC releasing the entire Medicare dataset just like I did (for a subset)?”

The answer is obvious: the American public would be livid they were given a vaccine that killed the elderly.

My rebuttal to their hit piece

They never contacted me to allow me to rebut any of their points. I would have been glad to have done that (I would have recorded the conversation). I can’t figure out why they didn’t talk to me.

They basically said they couldn’t validate the data was legit but even if it was legit, it was insufficient to show an effect because there could have been other causes.

Here is my rebuttal to the statements in their summary:

1. Kirsch’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines increase a person’s risk of death is based on an unreliable data analysis. I plotted the days till death and showed the slope went up. If the vaccine prevented death, the slope should go down because the background deaths were dropping. If the people who were vaccinated were dying less, the downward slope should be more pronounced. It wasn’t. It went the other way.

2. The data used is of questionable provenance and carries significant limitations, such as uncertainty over how the dataset was selected and incomplete information on vaccination status. When you have a whistleblower working at HHS, you don’t get to demand what you want. You take what you are given. If HHS wants to allow me to work with one of their employees above board, I can get the whole dataset. If the vaccine was safe, they would be tripping over themselves to give me access or to release the data to the public. They didn’t do either one.
   
   Notice how Healthfeedback never asked HHS to verify any of the records. What kind of fact checker would not do that? Answer: one who is corrupt.

3. The analysis also doesn’t contain sufficient information to determine and compare mortality rates, as population sizes are unknown. That’s correct. That’s why I stuck to “the slope goes the wrong way.” Because I didn’t have that data. The slope going the wrong way is a HUGE problem.

4. The rise in deaths recorded in Kirsch’s graphs can be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect (HVE), seasonality, and COVID-19. That’s just a bullshit hand-waving argument with no evidentiary support. The HVE is non-existent here. Everyone knows that the priority in Jan 2021 was vaccinating the people most at risk… the people most likely to die, NOT the people who were the healthiest and weren’t expected to die from COVID. Seasonality isn’t the reason either because mortality rates always drop after Jan 1 due to seasonality. COVID-19 can’t be it since all these people were vaccinated and should be dying LESS than the background death rates. The clincher is that I showed that background death rates for ALL the elderly in Medicare in CT were dropping (Fig 0 in the article). This is because I had the full data from CT from my source. I would have done all states if I had the data. That means that COVID vaccinated people must be dying at a lower rate, meaning the slope should be even more negative as the vaccine kicks in and provides more death protection over time. But the slope went the wrong way. The people who got the jabs were clearly more likely to die than those that did not. There is no way to spin this. This is why NOBODY wrote a substack attacking my article. Because they would lose all credibility.

5. Published studies using more reliable sources of data and methods didn’t find that COVID-19 vaccination increases mortality rate. None of the published articles used the Medicare data and there is NOTHING more reliable than Medicare data.

I offered to talk about my article with them

I filled out their “Contact us” form. I can’t wait to record this discussion!!

What do you think?

Summary

I have said it many times: Make the public health data public.

There is no excuse for the CDC not to do this. There is no privacy issue. I defy anyone to identify a privacy issue in any of the Medicare data I published.

And even if you could identify a person from the date of death, state, and age, all you would know is when the dead person got vaccinated. Is that a privacy violation? Will the person turn over in his grave if his vaccination dates were exposed?

Would society benefit from knowing that the vaccines are killing people? Or is it better to hide this data from the public?

If all the sudden deaths in America happened within 5 weeks of the vaccine, do you think we’d want to know that? Or keep it secret?

Note: the deaths from the COVID shots happen over a wide period after the vaccine. That was just a hypothetical.

Health outcomes are never optimized when mortality data is hidden from public view. Any honest fact checker should:

1. be trying to get the full Medicare data from the CDC and

2. scolding the US government for keeping this data secret.