No chance. Professor Jeffrey Morris, a biostats professor at UPenn, started writing critiques of my work claiming he was just interested in exposing the truth. Reasonable minds may differ on that one.
Another way of considering this is "half a treatment" (1 COVID shot) vs "full treatment" (1 flu shot). Are you looking just at shots, or are you looking at a treatment. I'd argue that you should be looking at the latter.
How about publishing the code used for the analyses they have done so that people can see for a fact what they have done? I appreciate seeing it :D Go on GitHub and dump the link to the data, the data themselves and the code.
Tommy, thank you for your insights. That helps me understand better. I used 200m. I think that is roughly the 2 jab amount. One thing about the 7 more in the vaccine group is I believe 2 of them were in the placebo group who got the vaccine at the completion of the trial. So they can't be counted it the 22k group. Right? You points about the vaccine group being cherry picked and the Modena having bigger impact is well taken and appreciated. I calms my sceptical part. I am definitely against the vaccine and will never take it. I just want good logical arguments to backup my instincts and intuition. I still think the 150k number is too high. And there are many other good reasons not to take it.
I understand but these "idiotic statements" are the ones being used to defend the vaccine that Steve is devoting his whole life to now. There is no more important work for him now in my opinion.
The argument that Morris wrote is so weak and pathetic, even an uneducated person with logic and critical thinking can see right through it. Definitely shouldn’t be wasting your time with him, just be flattered that he’s so consumed by you that he has to write about what you write so often.
Steve, your reason for not explaining your position against his sounds a little like what you call "hand waving". And I wonder if you can't explain it simply now how could you in a debate. Your logic doesn't make sense to me and I am rooting for you
I completely empathize with Steve. I am confronted by idiotic statements and comments often but rarely want to take the time out of my busy schedule to try to educate them or anyone listening to/reading them. It’s a wasted effort that takes my valuable time away from other more important things.
The reason it doesn't make sense on basic level is if you look at time of adverse events relative to injection. About 90% of adverse events occur within the first 48 hours, then 5% over the first 72 hours then another 1-2% over the next 72 hours. Basically, after a week, only 3-4% of adverse events are unaccounted for.
So far so good? Steve's detractor is saying 'HEY MANNNN, You're counting all the adverse effects in 14 days post vaccine 1 and 14 days post vaccine 2...where with the flu, you're only counting adverse reactions 14 days post flu vaccine. (Really, it's the same standard and 14 days is picked because about ~98% of all adverse reactions occur by then, typically with traditional vaccines at least. Maybe mRNA vaccines will change and there will be long-term issues like Heart attacks, stroke, AED, etc.)
What he would consider FAIR would be to take 28 days after the flu vaccine so you're comparing 28 days to 14+14 days. However, since 98% of the side effects occur within 14 days, what would increasing that limit from 14 days to 28 days effectively do?! Add 2%?
So what an intelligent, informed person hears the guy rant is "Kirsch is wrong b/c of the mismatched time frame, he's missing 2%" and then evaluates, if there is a 43.6 under reporting factor, what difference would 2% make? If the professor where to recalculate with the extra 2%, what would you get? 42.5% URF? WHAT A DIFFERENCE. The vaccine is so safe!!
What the undereducated person hears is "OMG, 14 is one half 28 days. Therefore he's wrong by a factor of 2 or off by 50% or overestimating by 100%!! WOW WHAT MORON DERP DERP DERP" and expects the new URF to be 21.8%.
However, it would be clear, what the new URF would be if the professor were to calculate it for flu-28 day period. (42.3 vs 43.6...or a negligible difference in meaning/content/significance on safety). Instead, he just....doesn't bother. Leaving it up to the reader's imagination. Hoping the reader's imagination will come to a 21.8% figure or even 5% or something massively in his favor.
And there are those who suggest long term studies are not that important because with vaccines most of the side effects occur soon after the injection.
What they rocket scientists fail to recognize is that the reason there are not a lot of long term side effects with other vaccines... is that they went through years of rigorous trials before being released onto the market....
Yes, quite amazing to me the mere act of calling these injections 'vaccines' confers on them the safety profile of all vaccines that are in use precisely because of their long track records of safety. It's, like, magic.
Also, Morris is wrong on a basic level. He didn't bother to find out the definition used in the computation. The computation was based on only the most recent vaccination, not both, so his 2:1 ratio is flat out incorrect.
Yeah apparently he is saying he shows things in tables without using them in the analysis. Would like to see his analysis in GitHub. His code should be publicly available.
Another way of considering this is "half a treatment" (1 COVID shot) vs "full treatment" (1 flu shot). Are you looking just at shots, or are you looking at a treatment. I'd argue that you should be looking at the latter.
he said in a blog that he could not comment on your blog unless he paid, I am commenting and I have not paid.
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/response-to-steve-kirsch-s-ad-hominem-attack-and-clarifying-the-key-sleight-of-hand-in-his-argument
Test
Why do we ["THEY"] call this phenomenon a [supposed] "pandemic" ??
Dig deeper Steve.
Look at his patents and the value of recently acquired assets.
Hint- few Penn professors qualify for mortgages that large on that salary alone. Who else is he beholden to?
this is a game that is unwinnable Steve. Best not to waste energy trying. Remember the old saying '"dont try teaching pigs to sing - it annoys the pigs and frustrates you" here is a much better strategy https://7501-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/john_jbwi_com_au/EerMZO-p0tJGoEAxpnGEtqQBaofxHHNDeIEdj-6v81J31w?e=0j5zuX
Jeff's career is neatly summed up in this little tract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
Actually, Jeff is probably just a liar. Big difference actually... Pay is the same.
Steve, don't waste another minute debunking people like Morris. There are tons of naysayers and tale-bearers! Stick to what you do best!
like being a businessman? :D
How about finding truth in the "facts" were given on a daily basis? I appreciate hearing it!
How about publishing the code used for the analyses they have done so that people can see for a fact what they have done? I appreciate seeing it :D Go on GitHub and dump the link to the data, the data themselves and the code.
Watching the film “Rhinoceros” by Ionesco right now. It’s relevant. I’ve seen it happen to so many...
Tommy, thank you for your insights. That helps me understand better. I used 200m. I think that is roughly the 2 jab amount. One thing about the 7 more in the vaccine group is I believe 2 of them were in the placebo group who got the vaccine at the completion of the trial. So they can't be counted it the 22k group. Right? You points about the vaccine group being cherry picked and the Modena having bigger impact is well taken and appreciated. I calms my sceptical part. I am definitely against the vaccine and will never take it. I just want good logical arguments to backup my instincts and intuition. I still think the 150k number is too high. And there are many other good reasons not to take it.
I understand but these "idiotic statements" are the ones being used to defend the vaccine that Steve is devoting his whole life to now. There is no more important work for him now in my opinion.
I think he would do a better job to stick to what he knows....doing business. He clearly knows no science.
Matthew Crawford is not a statistician. Jeff Morris is. I guess who is right between the two 😀
Which makes Jeff Morris' unprofessional arguments all the more embarrassing. A bio-statistician who:
1) Tries to discredit VAERS which is used by the CDC to do bio-statistical analysis on safety [strike one]
2) Tries to compare different dose counts as a way to justify defective shots - even though single dose data for SC2 is also available [strike two]
3) Refuses a debate on the topic [strike three]
4) Refuses to answer any of the supplied questions on the statistics [strike four]
5) Attacks URF methodology also used by the CDC, but doesn't offer his own [strike five]
If he is a bio-statistician, he's the least informed one I've ever seen and I'd opt never to hire the man.
You still believe in Iraqi WMD's, don't you? Bless your heart.....
Wanna bet this gets rejected (this is my draft billboard https://pdfhost.io/v/pZig3jgly_VAERS_Heart_Damage_V2)
Before I send rates and site cards over, I have sent it to Queenstown Airport to see if they would allow such advertising at the Airport.
All creatives need to be signed off by them.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct - Account Director
JCDecaux Australia & New Zealand
BizDojo, 107/150 Lichfield Street Christchurch
The argument that Morris wrote is so weak and pathetic, even an uneducated person with logic and critical thinking can see right through it. Definitely shouldn’t be wasting your time with him, just be flattered that he’s so consumed by you that he has to write about what you write so often.
Steve, your reason for not explaining your position against his sounds a little like what you call "hand waving". And I wonder if you can't explain it simply now how could you in a debate. Your logic doesn't make sense to me and I am rooting for you
I completely empathize with Steve. I am confronted by idiotic statements and comments often but rarely want to take the time out of my busy schedule to try to educate them or anyone listening to/reading them. It’s a wasted effort that takes my valuable time away from other more important things.
The reason it doesn't make sense on basic level is if you look at time of adverse events relative to injection. About 90% of adverse events occur within the first 48 hours, then 5% over the first 72 hours then another 1-2% over the next 72 hours. Basically, after a week, only 3-4% of adverse events are unaccounted for.
So far so good? Steve's detractor is saying 'HEY MANNNN, You're counting all the adverse effects in 14 days post vaccine 1 and 14 days post vaccine 2...where with the flu, you're only counting adverse reactions 14 days post flu vaccine. (Really, it's the same standard and 14 days is picked because about ~98% of all adverse reactions occur by then, typically with traditional vaccines at least. Maybe mRNA vaccines will change and there will be long-term issues like Heart attacks, stroke, AED, etc.)
What he would consider FAIR would be to take 28 days after the flu vaccine so you're comparing 28 days to 14+14 days. However, since 98% of the side effects occur within 14 days, what would increasing that limit from 14 days to 28 days effectively do?! Add 2%?
So what an intelligent, informed person hears the guy rant is "Kirsch is wrong b/c of the mismatched time frame, he's missing 2%" and then evaluates, if there is a 43.6 under reporting factor, what difference would 2% make? If the professor where to recalculate with the extra 2%, what would you get? 42.5% URF? WHAT A DIFFERENCE. The vaccine is so safe!!
What the undereducated person hears is "OMG, 14 is one half 28 days. Therefore he's wrong by a factor of 2 or off by 50% or overestimating by 100%!! WOW WHAT MORON DERP DERP DERP" and expects the new URF to be 21.8%.
However, it would be clear, what the new URF would be if the professor were to calculate it for flu-28 day period. (42.3 vs 43.6...or a negligible difference in meaning/content/significance on safety). Instead, he just....doesn't bother. Leaving it up to the reader's imagination. Hoping the reader's imagination will come to a 21.8% figure or even 5% or something massively in his favor.
And there are those who suggest long term studies are not that important because with vaccines most of the side effects occur soon after the injection.
What they rocket scientists fail to recognize is that the reason there are not a lot of long term side effects with other vaccines... is that they went through years of rigorous trials before being released onto the market....
Idiots
Yes, quite amazing to me the mere act of calling these injections 'vaccines' confers on them the safety profile of all vaccines that are in use precisely because of their long track records of safety. It's, like, magic.
Also, Morris is wrong on a basic level. He didn't bother to find out the definition used in the computation. The computation was based on only the most recent vaccination, not both, so his 2:1 ratio is flat out incorrect.
Can you prove it? Where are your analyses? Show them publicly on GitHub. What are your credentials in statistics? No, undergrad in Maths doesn’t count
so the two large deaths within 14 days tables aren't used in the summary table used to calculate the deaths per 100,000?
Yeah apparently he is saying he shows things in tables without using them in the analysis. Would like to see his analysis in GitHub. His code should be publicly available.
I deleted a response because I crossed some mental wires, lol -- need to think a bit more :-)