364 Comments
author

I'm interested in comments on the template in step 3. Do you agree that this is what the analysis template should look like?

Expand full comment

In your spreadsheet I don't see the normally expected rate of deaths - the noise that you are investigating to find the signal. For each cohort you should have the expected death rate - which would need to be seasonally adjusted. You then subtract expected deaths from actual deaths to find your signal. Did I miss that in your spreadsheet?

Expand full comment

This is a wholly unnecessary human challenge study in Britain that was begun too late.

Variants occur in the normal course of a virus outbreak. Killingsley doesn't begin until delta is exploding and staying contained in India around October 2020. Delta didn't begin its world tour, in geographically distinct sub variants until March, and he doesn't publish his results, promoted as helping to speed up Operation Warp Speed, until March 2022 when we already have bivalent boosters. Do we have scientists suffering long covid, haste making waste or willful ignorance?

https://youtu.be/y3PicJ8IWsA

Expand full comment

I have degrees in mathematics, physics, and biochemistry, and the way you lay out the data is very clear and it's easy to see what will happen if real-world data were honestly presented in this manner. And that's why the perpetrators will do anything to prevent it from happening. Problem is, people with a deficient education cannot understand what you're trying to say with your spreadsheets and graphs because it's a language they don't understand. The dumbing down of education, which I have wached with sadness for 5 decades or so, has been deliberate. It set the stage for the success of things like the Covid hoax. Ignorant people are easier to control. Easier to get them to believe obvious lies. For example, so many really believe Dr. Dick Levine is a woman, and Congress just sits there and acts like there isn't a nut in their midst when he speaks to them.

Expand full comment
May 9, 2023·edited May 9, 2023

James Roguski is asking for your personal input, regardless of where you are on Earth, regarding - "Notice of public Listening Session; request for comments. - Office of Global Affairs (OGA): Stakeholder Listening Session on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)" - https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/silence-equals-consent?utm_source=substack&utm

There will be 2 SETS OF Listening Sessions in June for the OGA- For Listening Sessions regarding IHR Amendments - RSVP Deadline is JUNE 9 , 2023 for Virtual Meeting Attendance / JUNE 30, 2023 is the Deadline for Written Comments on the IHR Amendments

RSVP: Persons seeking to speak at the Listening Session must register by Wednesday, JUNE 14, 2023. Persons seeking to attend the Listening Session in a listen-only capacity must RSVP by Thursday, JUNE 13, 2023.

Listening Sessions on The Pandemic Treaty - RSVP Deadline is JUNE 23, 2023 for Virtual Meeting Attendance / JULY 7, 2023 is the Deadline for Written Comments

RSVP: Persons seeking to speak at the Listening Session must register by Friday, JUNE 23, 2023. Persons seeking to attend the listening session in a listen-only capacity must register by Monday, JUNE 26, 2023.

Expand full comment

Steve I am sorry that I do not follow you on some of your explanations and methods. Your IQ is probably twice mine and I trust you. I suppose if I sat down and got out a statistics book and refreshed my spreadsheet skills I could do more than just trust you. However, I understand this guy with my limited statistical information. I understand that correlation is not causation argument but Craig-Paarkekooper's work at his Bitchute I understand. You maybe could tear him to shreds (not personally of course). He published this video on Bitchute in January of 2022.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/AdIvdbx1CxDc/

data is here https://howbad.info/states.html

Expand full comment

I read and peruse data everywhere and, to your question, I agree your kind of breakdown is important, revealing, and necessary if we are to understand what these vax doses are doing in every age group. Great work...and it appears you are on track.

Expand full comment

This paper was just published but is not peer reviewed. It was submitted by thirty research scientists. The research is devastating news. It implies a spike disease progression track. The spike progressively destroys the brain and no doubt other organs. It's doubtful a society can survive with over half of the people diseased.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.04.535604v1.full

"... associated mainly with a range of neurological symptoms, including brain fog and brain tissue loss, raising concerns about the virus’s acute and potential chronic impact on the central nervous system."

"The injection of the spike protein alone caused cell death in the brain, highlighting a direct effect on brain tissue. Furthermore, we observed the presence of spike protein in the skull of deceased long after their COVID-19 infection, suggesting that the spike’s persistence may contribute to long-term neurological symptoms."

Expand full comment

The implications in the study are horrifying. Am I understanding this is stating this for people that received the injection and for people that simple had Covid19? If it’s for both groups I’d suspect the affected would be closer to 90+% of the population.

Expand full comment

We don't know at this time but I suspect it's the vaxed who are in danger but not all. I simply don't know. I do know there's a big difference between a corona virus and an mRNA vax with a synthetic spike protein programmed to replicate endlessly. Huge difference. The vax spike was designed to kill people. Since they tested the vax toxin on animals for near ten years prior to 2021, they know the disease progression and the mortality rate.

Expand full comment
author

Excellent. I will have confirmation of that when this article is viciously attacked :)

Expand full comment

See a pattern yet? Only one thing left to dwell Rockefellers chief planner of 1950's was JC-Deagle who is name of famous 'deagle-report' that calls for 90% reduction of human population in USA by 2025, and we are on target;

...

WHO is ROCKEFELLER

JD Rockefeller took over USA MEDICAL&PHARMA in 1913

HE created ACS american cancer society in 1913, funny the work was 'gain of function' of cancer using oil based medicine;

In 1949 Rockefeller created UN & WHO

what’s new? not a damn thing

...

See a pattern yet? Only one thing left to dwell Rockefellers chief planner of 1950's was JC-Deagle who is name of famous 'deagle-report' that calls for 90% reduction of human population in USA by 2025, and we are on target;

Expand full comment

Thank you for this info.

Expand full comment

Don't see how about 3000 unvaxxed deaths is 1.6 million person-years and about 16000 deaths is only 1.2 million person-years. I was trying to embrace the concept of a person-year, and then noticed the numbers don't appear to be a linear function. I'd like to see the equation for that one. MORE deaths gives you LESS person years. Hum. Kinda need some definitions here. What the h3ll is a person-year?

Expand full comment
author

the numbers in the spreadsheet are PRO FORMA.

Expand full comment

ChatGPT actually gives a very good explanation of this:

Person-years is a measurement used in epidemiology and demographic studies to estimate the number of people at risk for a certain event (like death or disease) over a specific period. It helps to account for both the number of people in a population and the length of time they are at risk.

To calculate deaths per 100,000 person-years, follow these steps:

1. Determine the study population: Identify the group of people you are studying, such as a specific age group or people with a particular health condition.

2. Calculate the total person-time at risk: This is the sum of the time that each person in the study population is at risk for the event of interest (in this case, death). Person-time at risk is usually measured in person-years.

To calculate person-time at risk, multiply the number of people in the population by the number of years they are observed. If individuals have different follow-up times, you would sum the individual follow-up times for each person in the population.

For example, suppose you are studying a group of 1,000 people over a 5-year period. The total person-time at risk would be:

1,000 people x 5 years = 5,000 person-years

3. Count the number of deaths: Determine the total number of deaths in the study population during the observation period.

4. Calculate the death rate: Divide the number of deaths by the total person-time at risk.

For example, suppose there were 50 deaths during the 5-year period. The death rate would be:

50 deaths / 5,000 person-years = 0.01

5. Calculate the death rate per 100,000 person-years: Multiply the death rate by 100,000.

0.01 x 100,000 = 1,000 deaths per 100,000 person-years

So, in this example, the death rate would be 1,000 deaths per 100,000 person-years.

Expand full comment

4. Calculate the death rate: Divide the number of deaths by the total person-time at risk.

So, does that mean an unvaxxed person would be at zero risk since they didn't take the vax? Which leads to division by zero, which makes an infinite number of unvaxxed deaths. Oy Vey. Please tell AI that I don't get it. 🤖

Expand full comment

Say there are 1000 unvaxxed people and we are counting deaths over a time interval of 1 year. Say 50 of them die during that year.

The person-time at risk = 1000 people times 1 year = 1000 person-years

The number of deaths is 50

So the death rate is 50 per 1000 person-years or 0.5 per 100000 person-years

That one's on me - if I got that wrong we both have to go back to AI school!

Expand full comment

That did NOT help me. 🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment

You did good here! Thanks.

Expand full comment

Good AI use.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I think they use person-years so that they can vary the time interval when calculating mortality rate. Steve's spreadsheet looks at monthly mortality rate. Others might want to calculate a daily, weekly, quarterly or annual rate etc.

Expand full comment

Average (expected) remaining years of life= person years

Expand full comment

So kinda like car mileage in a junk yard? So if you called the unvaxxed Toyotas, the vaxxed Fords (Fix Or Repair Daily), The Toyotas are lasting until 300,000 miles, while the Fords are dying at 150,000 miles. 1,600,000years/3000people=533years/person. 1,200,000/16000=75years/person. I don't get it. But somehow with their magic and strange, obscure definitions, they have made it look like more unvaxxed people per 100,000 died than the groups that had more deaths. "Age-standardized mortality rate/100,000 person years". Looks to me like a way to obscure and invert the numbers of deaths, not make it more clear. If it were cars, it would be years/car. So what the h3ll would 533years/person or 75years/person even mean?

Expand full comment

I like the way you think, I've been a mechanic for 50 years we need more Ralph Naders , if the seat belts don't work there are recalls , if the brakes don't work there are recalls, if electric cars start fires there's a recall , if you're steering doesn't work there are recalls, the FDA CDC WHO need to be recalled and fined and jailed.

Expand full comment

Naw...permanent depopulation of these medical terrorist agencies is the ticket.

Expand full comment

The easiest way to determine deaths related to the vaccine is to look at the uniformed military, 94% of whom have been vaccinated, because we have accountability formations every day, and have complete control on medical records. So, in November, I did a FOIA to DoD, they refused to respond and when I filed an action in federal court they stopped counting on the DoD Dashboard. Too easy.

Expand full comment

I was in the US Army. If you believe the numbers that they reported, where ever/ anywhere, they are fake. Plain and simple, fake,fake, fake, fake.

Expand full comment

I remember when I was in the Army and a bozo sergeant shorted me by miscounting my pushups. I was in charge of the computers so I just updated the battalion record later with the correct number.

Expand full comment

LOL

Expand full comment

I did some research a while back on "Covid deaths" in the military. At the time I made my inquiries, it was 25 active duty personnel (at least according to the military's records and the sources I found). It was like pulling teeth to get real data. Par for the course.

I remember no active duty Air Force or Marines had died.

Expand full comment

You may want to check out this video:

Military Medical Officer was forced to suppress excess Covid-19 vaccine deaths

https://www.bitchute.com/video/EGkQunerURdA/

Expand full comment

DoD has been tight lipped on COVID-19 fatalities, keeping things obscure. As of December 8, we had 96 total, with no breakdown regarding active duty , reserve and national guard, just a grand total. Last month, some information was released, claiming the total national guard and reserve fatalities were higher than the active duty, but some of the numbers were a little sketchy and didn't add up, but the main point in the release was that if you lined active duty against either national guard or reserve, active duty fatalities were higher.

There is a misconception that they relied upon that active duty personnel are living in a bubble, and most active duty soldiers live lives like everyone else, and don't even live in military housing.

For vaccine fatalities we are trying to obtain information on excess deaths, because not even DoD is going to label the deaths as because of the vaccine.

Expand full comment

It's been about a year since I did my research (I never published a story, but probably should). I seem to remember 25 total deaths - active and reserves, with most deaths in the reserve forces. And I'm sure the "Covid death" number is inflated.

I'm so tired of our tax-payer funded agencies NOT disclosing basic and important information to the tax-payers who fund their salaries and agencies. There is virtually zero "transparency" in the "land of the free."

Expand full comment

Here's one on the importance of the Substack authors like Steve. The real unsung heroes of our cause are the people who are supporting these authors with paid subscriptions. I've dubbed these people the "silent MINORITY."

Thank you to them all!

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/our-rulers-fear-the-the-silent-minority

Expand full comment
May 8, 2023Liked by Steve Kirsch

I'd call that strong circumstantial evidence that the vaccines are a lot more dangerous than the government cares to admit.

Expand full comment

They were developed with no knowledge of infectious dose, which you need to determine correlates of protection, which Joe Lapalca at NPR even reported was a buried slide in Fauci's brief on the day the Pfizer product was approved by the FDA. That's why the Emergency Use Authorization had described them as COVID-19 countermeasures. LaPalca suddenly decided to retire from NPR after reporting on the FDA approval of the Pfizer product.

Expand full comment

Police Remove Doctor by Force From Hospital After He Endorsed Ivermectin - #COVID

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4OhzBM5edb91/

Expand full comment

No one needs vaccines. NO ONE. It's one big money-making scam by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry

Expand full comment

What you have to be very careful of is slippery terminology like “rare”. We also have to be wary of even this unmeasurable term being superseded so that now the health influencers sometimes just talk of the benefit outweighing the risk: but net benefit (which also cannot be measured) is not a sensible criterion for the en masse prevention of a disease you haven’t got (as opposed to a risky treatment for a deadly disease you have). It may be interesting to note that the GSK Men B vaccine (Bexsero) has a lot of measurable bad side effects including 1 in 1000 cases of Kawasaki disease per shot and the child version of the AZ Covid shot was to be trialed against Bexsero. The trial seems to have been abandoned shortly after I pointed out that Bexsero may have already led to as many as 7,000 additional cases of Kawasaki in the UK.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n385/rr-1

Expand full comment

Newborn babies in the UK are diagnosed with myocarditis (no mention if the mother's were vaccinated but I think we all know the answer to that one):

15 UK newborns diagnosed with myocarditis from June 2022 to March 2023

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12093195/15-babies-toddlers-sickened-deadly-heart-condition.html

Expand full comment

I hope this get picked up --

Data from Millions of people and Billions of Injections show that most of the variations in the All-Cause-Mortality-Rate are do to variations in the mRNA-Injection Rate. Plain and Simple.

https://timellison.substack.com/p/undeniable-confirmation-of-the-high

Expand full comment

Correct-RFKjr has said for years that no vaccine has ever been tested against a true, double blond placebo. They use a dangerous flu vaccine and compare, for example, side effects of flu vaccinated populations vs polio vaccinated populations. Why? Because against a true, double blind placebo, all vaccines are far more dangerous (than being unvaccinated). This is also the reason they never look at all cause mortality after vaccination- it rises. A Danish study out of Africa found a huge surge in all cause mortality after a vaccination campaign. Yet they keep doing it.

Expand full comment
May 14, 2023·edited May 14, 2023

Just one of 60 victims named in a new lawsuit against AstraZeneca (interesting how everyone avoids to sue Pfizer...). The hundreds of thousands of others with the same side-effects didn't get justice because neither their doctor nor the coroner were willing to do the proper investigation to find the Frankenshot was the cause. R

emember all those thomography images with clots appearing all over the body? Well, this guy had a verified three in different locations:

-----------

Neil Miller, 50

The 50-year-old father of two, from Leicester, suffered from cold-like symptoms, including headaches, in weeks following the initial dose.

Neil, who wrote IT manuals, took himself to bed on April 6 as his condition worsened.

The next day, he was rushed to A&E, complaining of what he felt like was a heart attack. There, medics found he had a blood clot near his heart and, after a couple of nights in hospital, sent him home, armed with medication.

Two days later, on April 13, he collapsed and was rushed back to hospital, where doctors found that there was also blood clots in his legs.

This was when medics realised AstraZeneca's vaccine could be to blame.

By April 19, Neil was struggling to speak, read and walk as blood clots had gone to his brain.

He was discharged from hospital on April 26. 

But just a few days later, Neil collapsed again. His family called 999 and started CPR.

When paramedics arrived, they spent 45 minutes trying to resuscitate him.

But Neil was declared dead at the scene.

Despite Neil being diagnosed with vaccine-induced thrombosis, one of the major complications of AstraZeneca's jab, prior to his death, his autopsy ruled that he died of NATURAL CAUSES...

His wife, Kam Miller, 57, FOUGHT FOR A YEAR to change the cause of death on the certificate, which now explicitly states the jab was to blame.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12015521/Im-not-anti-vaxxer-just-lost-husband-AstraZenecas-Covid-jab.html

Expand full comment

Pfizer had some vital safety data that answer your question early 2020. They with FDA chose to hide and change data in order to get to market. At. Brutal. Costs. the data prove.

If $20 Large - XXXXXL!! can't buy some some honest numbers after 2+ years, what are you expecting? At minimum I would reevaluate my values priorities and expenditures just sayin'

Expand full comment

Speaking of "is it safe", a friend of mine is urging me to get the Shingrix vaccine, saying "you...do...NOT...want to get shingles". I've lost a lot of faith in the medical establishment over the last couple of years and am very hesitant. What are your thoughts on this vaccine?

Expand full comment

Exposed: The cruel flaws of British Government-funded financial support scheme for people injured by AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine (and don't even bother trying to claim the one-off payment of £120k if you're "only" 59% disabled)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12016247/Damaged-AstraZenecas-Covid-jab-Universal-Credit-Sorry-youre-not-getting-120-000.html

Expand full comment

We're still waiting for that $500,000 challenge. What happened to it? Did he bolt?

Expand full comment

The £1billion battle for Covid jab justice: How 90 British families left bereaved or disabled after getting AstraZeneca's vaccine

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12059245/Inside-1billion-AstraZeneca-compensation-battle.html

Expand full comment

UK's MHRA's definition of safe and effective:

https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/mhras-official-definition-of-safe

Feel free to pass this on to whatever contacts you have in MSM, journalists, lawyers working on the court cases, medical people fighting mandates and so on.

But if they ask where it came from to fact check then pass on my contacts and I will supply them the original for their due diligence.

MHRA answered me this morning . Strange for them to send out e-mails on a Sunday, normally it’s a Friday afternoon, answering these 2 questions:

Can you please supply: - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “safe” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?

- the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “effective” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?

What an answer - they have no definitive standard to measure either safety nor effectiveness of any medicine or vaccine.

So how do they know something is “safe” or “effective”?

It is because they, or the manufacturer, say it is!!!

Here is their actual answer:

There is no ‘metric or standard’ used by the MHRA to quantify ‘safe’ in terms of a COVID-19 vaccine, or any other medicinal product. . No medicine is completely risk-free. For a medicine to be considered acceptably safe, its expected benefits should be greater than any associated risks of harmful reactions (my highlighting). This can be determined based on the data submitted with an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product such as a COVID-19 vaccine. But the balance of benefits and risks for any product can change at any time during its marketed life, for example if a serious new side effect is established.

For this reason the MHRA continually monitors the safety of all medicinal products authorised in the UK, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The process is termed pharmacovigilance and this involves:

monitoring the use of medicines in everyday practice to identify previously unrecognised adverse effects or changes in the patterns of adverse effects

assessing the risks and benefits of medicines in order to determine what action, if any, is necessary to improve their safe use

providing information to healthcare professionals and patients to optimise safe and effective use of medicines

monitoring the impact of any action taken

You can read more about the MHRA’s safety assessments for COVID-19 vaccines here Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines adverse reactions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

As stated above, all medicinal products are authorised based on an assessment of the benefit/risk - that is the benefit to the patient being greater than the known risks associated with taking that product. To understand the assessment of the benefit/risk for each of the Covid-19 vaccines authorised, please refer to the Public Assessment Reports (PARs) for each of the vaccines that we have provided links to in our previous responses to you.

Vaccine efficacy is usually measured in randomised controlled clinical trials. It is calculated by comparing the proportion of trial subjects that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine arm with the proportion that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the placebo arm. The calculation is made after a certain number of COVID-19 cases have occurred in the trial as a whole. This number is decided at the start of the trial. This means that a time period is not chosen.

More details on the measurement of vaccine efficacy are provided in the PARs that you have already received.

We hope this information is helpful.

But the PARs they mention do NOT prove the vaccines are safe nor effective when you read them.

I have read them many times and cannot find out what in them proves safety and/or effectiveness.

Here they are, read them for yourselves:

https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/the-4-official-ema-public-assessment?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

If the vaccines are safe, why does the HHS keep extending liability protections (now extended till 12/31/2024) by amending the “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19” - even though the public health emergency is officially over...?

This amendment:

- adds “seasonal influenza” to the disease category

- adds liability protection for seasonal influenza vaccines; and

- states that “Covid-19 presents a credible risk of future public health emergency”

This will be published in the Federal Register on 5/12/23

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-10216.pdf

Expand full comment

So what it comes down to is, any data that proves you wrong is automatically dismissed as fake.

Also, the mRNA vaccines you're decrying so much have less than 1 death per BILLION doses, yet you still insist they're unsafe.

Expand full comment