Steve, the key factual errors in your post include misusing incomplete vaccine datasets, claiming that raw VAERS reports demonstrate causality, and ignoring well-established confounding factors such as age and baseline mortality rates. Multiple independent studies from agencies like CDC, WHO, Medsafe NZ, and the Global Vaccine Data Network show that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and do not cause excess mortality. Can you please once again cite peer-reviewed sources with full population controls that contradict their findings?
Promoting medical misinformation can carry legal risks if it causes public harm, leads to fraudulent activities, misleads with intent (or are you offering only your unqualified opinion), or involves unauthorized data (see recent cases tied to privacy breaches and fraud statutes). For your followers: Everyone deserves honest, transparent analysis. Scientific debate is essential, but it should never rely on cherry-picked numbers or fear-based rhetoric; real health decisions depend on facts and compassion.
Please publicly clarify that VAERS reports alone (as you are fully aware but ignore it) do not establish vaccine harm and that excess mortality in NZ was not caused by vaccination? A short correction could prevent real-world misunderstandings and foster informed decisions.
Can you please once again cite peer-reviewed sources with double blind placebo controlled study that run for at least two years and that are not full of fraud that can clearly show a net benefit for the mRna injections? You can't? A pity. Because Phafia has to prove it! We do not have to prove it wrong!
And if everything is so clear, why are they still hiding data everywhere in the world. We had the highest excess mortality in December 2022 in Germany. After a vaccination rate of a about 80%. And the excess mortality can not be explained with "Covid-Death" allthough each and every dead body was tested on it.
Guess when they declared the end of the Pandemic in Germany? Yes, December 2022. They are all full of shit, liars and corrupt. Release the data of our mediacal insurances with all ICD codes and vaccination status. Or burn in hell!
Rob, I don't think everyone's going to shut up about VAERS just because you order them to, but good try. Since you don't believe VAERS reports, I assume you think it's great that RFK JR will soon roll out a very thorough vaccine injury report system. 🙄
Reports Of Autopsies In VAERS And Associated Adverse Events Linked To Cause Of Death
I have analysed the Czech data 1950-1954 and found that over the period there is a dangerous time either 7-35 days after the last vaccination when there is a large death rate. Also a dangerous time is at around 180 days after the final vaccination another peak in deaths occurs. Conversely, in the long period of~3.3% die who have not had the vaccination, while 0.14% die who have not had the vaccination. I would like to converse with you with a set of graphs, they are quite confusing.
The mortality for 3 week after a shot is artificially low because you dont vaccinate people that are about to die. The closer you are to someone death, the more certain you are that person will die. This is why you see the mortality that climbs quickly for 21 days after the day of the shot for a population, this is a mirage. This is one form of the healthy vaccinee effect. Then from that baseline at 21 days, the mortality ramps up for about 120 days. This is called a time serie and it shows that vaccine is unsafe, as it is flat for a safe vaccine.
It is unfortunate I cannot show you the graph. I am seeing very high mortality in the 7-35 day period after the vaccination. The effect that you are exposing only lasts for 7 days.
I would LOVE to cite you Paul I can't wait to cite you. Give me your Github with the correct analysis. I need your URL of your repo. I will cite you. I promise.
Are you willing to debate me publicly on defending your work? Or must it remain "unchallenged"?
Steve, this data still has serious issues, and you're about to look foolish because you clearly have no clue what you're doing. You rush in and hack away without doing the work!
You have nothing to say about when my work is shared. Your behavior is absolutely despicable. I’ll ensure every researcher I know is warned about this. You’re completely untrustworthy. What's wrong with you!!!
not normalized. these are the raw death counts of the two cohorts. you are welcome to scale these curves if you think that makes the comparison easier.
I, for one, welcome our new genocidal body chipping overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Cum B was injected Would this not be a great tool for a lot of medical treatments besides vaccines.Say cancer treatments comparing chemo and radiation stuff like that. You will have a tough time selling it as doctors would not like a tool that may show what works what does not.That is because that is how they make there money. Why do you not get Denis Rancourt to review it. You might gain an ally.
I re-ran correlation numbers and certainty levels for injecting into a population of 350 million and getting outcome reports of about 30k deaths. The correlation certainty level comes in at 99.997% (as in: cross this minefield and you have a certainty level of 99.997% that you will get maimed).
It appears that doctors and vax denialists have zero comprehension of basic statistics. Zero.
Is there more than this? Playing the devil's advocate here, because if I don't ask somebody else sure will. Why this specific age group? What do the rest of the age group comparisons look like?
Because I've seen the data and the age cohort did not matter. The Vaxx increases death regardless of age, although for some age groups a bit more than others, thus a robust result.
Steve, the key factual errors in your post include misusing incomplete vaccine datasets, claiming that raw VAERS reports demonstrate causality, and ignoring well-established confounding factors such as age and baseline mortality rates. Multiple independent studies from agencies like CDC, WHO, Medsafe NZ, and the Global Vaccine Data Network show that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and do not cause excess mortality. Can you please once again cite peer-reviewed sources with full population controls that contradict their findings?
Promoting medical misinformation can carry legal risks if it causes public harm, leads to fraudulent activities, misleads with intent (or are you offering only your unqualified opinion), or involves unauthorized data (see recent cases tied to privacy breaches and fraud statutes). For your followers: Everyone deserves honest, transparent analysis. Scientific debate is essential, but it should never rely on cherry-picked numbers or fear-based rhetoric; real health decisions depend on facts and compassion.
Please publicly clarify that VAERS reports alone (as you are fully aware but ignore it) do not establish vaccine harm and that excess mortality in NZ was not caused by vaccination? A short correction could prevent real-world misunderstandings and foster informed decisions.
see my official statement here: https://x.com/stkirsch/status/1968058417995747336
Can you please once again cite peer-reviewed sources with double blind placebo controlled study that run for at least two years and that are not full of fraud that can clearly show a net benefit for the mRna injections? You can't? A pity. Because Phafia has to prove it! We do not have to prove it wrong!
And if everything is so clear, why are they still hiding data everywhere in the world. We had the highest excess mortality in December 2022 in Germany. After a vaccination rate of a about 80%. And the excess mortality can not be explained with "Covid-Death" allthough each and every dead body was tested on it.
Guess when they declared the end of the Pandemic in Germany? Yes, December 2022. They are all full of shit, liars and corrupt. Release the data of our mediacal insurances with all ICD codes and vaccination status. Or burn in hell!
In the basement.
Rob, I don't think everyone's going to shut up about VAERS just because you order them to, but good try. Since you don't believe VAERS reports, I assume you think it's great that RFK JR will soon roll out a very thorough vaccine injury report system. 🙄
Reports Of Autopsies In VAERS And Associated Adverse Events Linked To Cause Of Death
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/reports-of-autopsies-in-vaers-and
Report 48: VAERS – 76% of Vaccine-Related Miscarriages from the Past 30 Years Occurred Once Pregnant Women Started Receiving COVID-19 Vaccines
https://behindthefdacurtain.substack.com/p/report-48-vaers-76-percent-of-vaccine-related
"New" VAERS Update Breakdown & Recap. It's anything but new...
Hidden dead kids, throttling, and more collusion between CDC/FDA & manufacturers.
https://welcometheeagle.substack.com/p/new-vaers-update-breakdown-and-recap
I have analysed the Czech data 1950-1954 and found that over the period there is a dangerous time either 7-35 days after the last vaccination when there is a large death rate. Also a dangerous time is at around 180 days after the final vaccination another peak in deaths occurs. Conversely, in the long period of~3.3% die who have not had the vaccination, while 0.14% die who have not had the vaccination. I would like to converse with you with a set of graphs, they are quite confusing.
The mortality for 3 week after a shot is artificially low because you dont vaccinate people that are about to die. The closer you are to someone death, the more certain you are that person will die. This is why you see the mortality that climbs quickly for 21 days after the day of the shot for a population, this is a mirage. This is one form of the healthy vaccinee effect. Then from that baseline at 21 days, the mortality ramps up for about 120 days. This is called a time serie and it shows that vaccine is unsafe, as it is flat for a safe vaccine.
It is unfortunate I cannot show you the graph. I am seeing very high mortality in the 7-35 day period after the vaccination. The effect that you are exposing only lasts for 7 days.
There is time series available somewhere in the substack
I'm sick and tired of graphs, data, statistics, research papers, etc. These things can be MANIPULATED to convey a bias!
I won't be jabbed. Pure and simple...
I can dig that scene.
Yes.
The chart also graphically depicts a brain zapped into stasis by decades of heavy meds.
You couldn’t even bother to cite me, Steve. What a low move—definitely not winning any 'nice guy' awards.
I would LOVE to cite you Paul I can't wait to cite you. Give me your Github with the correct analysis. I need your URL of your repo. I will cite you. I promise.
Are you willing to debate me publicly on defending your work? Or must it remain "unchallenged"?
i'll debate you about my work ANYTIME.
You're a disgrace, Steve. I laid out my work, told you exactly how I did it, and you swipe it. What, you pals with Gates or something?
Please post your github link with the correct analysis of the Czech data. I will be happy to promote it.
Steve, this data still has serious issues, and you're about to look foolish because you clearly have no clue what you're doing. You rush in and hack away without doing the work!
You have nothing to say about when my work is shared. Your behavior is absolutely despicable. I’ll ensure every researcher I know is warned about this. You’re completely untrustworthy. What's wrong with you!!!
Normalized for the 2 different population sizes?
not normalized. these are the raw death counts of the two cohorts. you are welcome to scale these curves if you think that makes the comparison easier.
I, for one, welcome our new genocidal body chipping overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Ummmm. The red line?
Cum B was injected Would this not be a great tool for a lot of medical treatments besides vaccines.Say cancer treatments comparing chemo and radiation stuff like that. You will have a tough time selling it as doctors would not like a tool that may show what works what does not.That is because that is how they make there money. Why do you not get Denis Rancourt to review it. You might gain an ally.
They told us it would work.
They took it.
Then they told us WE must take it.
Why are they so obsessed about our health?
Or—is the saying true…
It's like certain religions that have a mandate to proselytize and try to convert others.
Why the silence about the event this past week-end? Are you going to make us wait for the reveal on Thursday's podcast?
What event for us laymen who don't pay much attention to vaccine politics these days?
waiting for them to release the footage. should be on vsrf on thurs
They mentioned they will have clips if possible.
I re-ran correlation numbers and certainty levels for injecting into a population of 350 million and getting outcome reports of about 30k deaths. The correlation certainty level comes in at 99.997% (as in: cross this minefield and you have a certainty level of 99.997% that you will get maimed).
It appears that doctors and vax denialists have zero comprehension of basic statistics. Zero.
Is there more than this? Playing the devil's advocate here, because if I don't ask somebody else sure will. Why this specific age group? What do the rest of the age group comparisons look like?
Age group does not matter.
Because?
Because I've seen the data and the age cohort did not matter. The Vaxx increases death regardless of age, although for some age groups a bit more than others, thus a robust result.
Based on this chart there is a 47% + chase of dying with the Covid 19 gene therapy injectable
Perplexity says the blue line was vaxxed and saved lives
Opposite!