The data analysis shows the vaccine is, at best, neither safe nor effective. The comments confirm that we have a vaccine which needs to be stopped immediately.
You say "We now have nearly 2,000 responses to my all-cause mortality survey".
I am on your side, and I believe COVID vax is very dangerous. However, when you exaggerate (you actually have <1500 responses, not nearly 2000), you diminish your position. That hurts the team. Please be less "salesman" and more "credible scientist"
I did give an "data analysis analysis" of Joel Smalley's video on his substack.
To me the evidence is clear. Unfortunately, those who took the vaccine do not want to see this due to the implications it has for their health and their pride. The ones pushing it despite the evidence are just pure evil. One way or another, we will all pay a price. Very sad.
Survey question -- answer depends on what is meant by 'working' brain. If it means fully-functioning, fully-informed, able to ingest many sources, able to assess sources for reliability, and immune from the influences of propaganda and groupthink, then yes, of course, there is more than sufficient evidence. But there remain many very smart people with high-functioning brain who are disabled by [something].
Could turn the survey questions into a pub game among friends or even a Christmas gathering game.
"Anyone know someone who died this year or last? How old were they? Do you know if they were vaxxed?" Make sure everyone has a chance to answer. After kicking the answers around for a while, remind participants to ask their friends. Wrap-up by asking "Why isn't this being talked about?"
1. Joel's first key assumption is wrong - at least according to mainstream medical literature. There is a well documented (in the literature) effect of some vaccines offering increased protection against fatality from all causes. Therefore he cannot shift the curves in the way he is doing on the basis that this is not the case without addressing that possibility.
I am skeptical of this effect myself but it is generally accepted by scientists in this field, so you cannot simply ignore it. I think I pointed you at some papers in a comment on a previous article (not sure of the date, but some time ago).
2. Your audience is a confounding factor. I suspect that people who know people who died as a result of the vaccine are more likely to end up as readers of your substack than people who don't.
3. Sadly, even if you address my concerns above, I don't think this will have the effect you hope. The UK does collect and publish the numbers you would like to see, and there have been excellent analyses of what they show available for some time now. Professor Norman Fenton has done great work in this area (and apparently been the subject of so much personal animosity in his workplace that he has now decided to retire). You can see his interview with Thinkingslow (who has also done great work) here: https://rumble.com/v1aladz-all-cause-mortality-analysis-vaccinated-v-non-vaccinated-with-prof-fenton.html.
They are in touch with Fenton for sure. The UK data has a lot of problems as Fenton has shown. That's part of why people would try to do their own polls.
So many confounders working with real world covid data. No problem doing some analyses, but Steve slam-dunks everything as proof, when it's not. Hypothesis-generating is fine. "Fact-check me if you dare". This turns off even his own readership, let alone people on the fence. There are reasons 30% of his readers are skeptical of this last poll, even though I'd guess at lease 90% of his readers are against covid vaccines.
I agree the UK data has problems. BUT it's good enough to show that for sure the vaccines are ineffective, and offer no safety benefit, whil it is also true that better data might well offer proof of negative efficacy and serious safety problems.
PS I also agree that Steve is too certain of his own arguments. He too often ignores, or dismisses without addressing, good counter-arguments or just fails to acknowledge uncertainty. And this definitely makes him less effective in his mission, which is a pity.
The Vaccine control group is a group of people who have not taken the Covid vaccine and are acting as a voluntary self monitoring control group for the Covid vaccines - since the original control group is not being monitored by pharma. Go to https://vaxcontrolgroup.com/
I wonder how their outcomes compare to the vaccinated ?
Steve, US government still mandating covid vaccines to those who are visiting the country. Considering the facts that these vaccines are not safe nor effective that's utterly unethical!
We have 100% effective statistical methods to figure out the increased mortality because of covid vaccination. The entire population has to be divided in 5 age groups in order to exclude impact of Simpson effect: 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61.80, above 80. You have to calculate mortality rate of each group following this equation for each month of the years 2021 and 2022: vaccinated/alive = dead vaccinated/total deaths. You have to compare the number of "Dead vaccinated" with statistical number of "dead vaccinated". In case statistical number is bigger than calculated one, vaccines increase death rate. See all details here: https://zenodo.org/record/7255640
No medical journal is ready to publish my article.
Thanks for sharing that. Quick read looks like some good work, but I will try to spend more time this weekend reading it. Yes, even the medical journals are compromised now. To be honest, I'm more concerned right now with trying to inspire technology changes to create alternate platforms that cannot easily be shutdown than trying to convince people about the truths of Covid-19. I'm worried that when pandemic V2 comes, the attacks will be even worse on freedom of speech. I fully expect platforms like this to get shutdown. We need to start thinking about private data centers using a mesh air-gapped network (via Starlink?), and new mobile device platform that isn't compromised and uses satellite communications and bypasses the normal Internet. Along with that return to more traditional ways of sharing information directly and personally. Otherwise, we will not even have a way to communicate among ourselves safely.
Thank you very much for sharing this link! I look forward to reviewing with interest.
In the meantime, I am curious: in running your numbers, how did you account for the fact that the vaxxed in some countries (like the US) were tracked as "unvaccinated" for the first 2 weeks following their vaccination date?
I'm a data scientist. Death and vax date is objective, impossible for bias, but the bias might come from memory flaws or lying. Yet, the survey has weight because of the amount of answers: it's impossible for all to be biased. It is most probable they are not. The results show a huge red light.
It's the medical authorities job to track each peak answer and analyze cause of death and causality.
One thing missing in all these debates is natural immunity: if the person had COVID and when. But considering PCR scam, it's impossible to be really sure. Authorities are saying vaccines are effective, when in fact it was natural herd immunity.
The evidence is more than conclusive: all vaccines have been weaponized. Never trust authorities.
Got to be honest that I don't buy any of these surveys. The selection and response biases are too much to be confident they mean anything. Vaccinated people on his blog could be people who are aware of harm, which is why they are there. And unvaccinated people are health-conscious enough to be on his blog.
If your leading survey question is something like "have you been vaccinated?", and results are only based on people who finished the first question, there is going to be bias there. People who "have something to say" about vaccines will be more likely to respond. If you want to do a survey right, the leading question must be totally neutral like "do you have a favorite color?". Then the following questions about vaccine harm should hit them out of nowhere. It's an easy fix. Kirsch should be fielding critique of the design of his polls BEFORE he runs them. As should everyone before they collect expensive data for any reason.
Your suggestion is interesting. Recently I watched a video that equated symbolism to simple concepts assuming this is justified then one should choose the first question wisely not to chase away respondents who subconsciously fear that question.
Sure one could and probably should redo the survey with 'better' questions. It is unlikely to generate a different result and unlikely to convince the blind. What we need instead if to find a way to make the result known to a wider audience in spite of the mainstream media censorship.
Having one state or country perform the survey (or use reliable population data) in an official capacity would prevent complete suppression of the results.
People are not reporting for themselves. I worked with Smalley on the design. Are you a data scientist? Which way is it biased? My readers are reporting comparable numbers for vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Steve, impact of covid vaccination on death rate can be calculated in details. We have 100% effective statistical methods to figure out the increased mortality because of covid vaccination. The entire population has to be divided in 5 age groups in order to exclude impact of Simpson effect: 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61.80, above 80. You have to calculate mortality rate of each group following this equation for each month of the years 2021 and 2022: vaccinated/alive = dead vaccinated/total deaths. You have to compare the number of "Dead vaccinated" with statistical number of "dead vaccinated". In case statistical number is bigger than calculated one, vaccines increase death rate. See all details here: https://zenodo.org/record/7255640
No medical journal is ready to publish my article.
- I have a masters in IEOR from Cal. I’ve been a medical nerd for 15 years. I have unpublished original research linking vaccines to autism and have drafts of multiple vaccine-critical articles I hope to get published. Trust me, I’m on your team.
- As far as death goes, this is a vaccine-critical blog. People are likely here because they have attitudes about vaccinations that are not representative. If a person knows someone vaccinated who died, that could be a reason they are on this blog. If a person knows someone unvaccinated who died, they could be less likely to bother filling out the survey. Of course you should expect a poll done on your readers to be biased against vaccines.
- If you use a polling company, the poll is presumably being offered to a representative sample. As long as your first question is not loaded (which they unfortunately have been…), and assuming completion of the first question is what defines a “responder”, then that’s all good. You can fix this issue by just having question #1 be “Do you have a favorite color?”.
- But such a poll being representative assumes you are talking about the people who responded. But once you start asking questions about people they know, it’s not going to be representative anymore. Also, more biases get introduced because we make assumptions about the size and traits of peoples’ social circles. The survey size isn’t really the 5000 people you pay for. It is the number of people those 5000 people know (and know well enough to know about their deaths and vaccination history).
- I don’t think we plebs have a decent way to easily solve the above issues with the tools at our disposal. But a start would be proposing a poll design and posting it on your blog and inviting feedback about any way it could go wrong. If there is a solution, it would likely involve having to collect a lot of data such as age of responder, vax status of responder, the number of living first-degree relatives they had at the start of December 2020 (before vaccines), dates of death that occurred by a specific end date (such as Dec 31, 2022), and vax statuses of not just the deceased, but the rest of the first-degree relatives as well. You would have to construct a cohort comprised of all first-degree relatives of responders. You would need enough responses to not only collect sufficient data on death and vaccines, but to also stratify analysis by age, as doing age-standardization wrecks all covid data. Even if you could do all this, there is going to be more response bias due to the fact that you can only analyze people who know the vax history of all their first-degree relatives. And then another layer of selection bias because risk in the family may be altered by the fact the responders are themselves known to still be alive.
- John Dee is a good guy to get input from. I think he’ll likely tell you what I am saying, which is this is potentially impossible to do credibly with the tools we have.
- You’re not going to get enough data to do useful time series analysis. At best you can only look at one endpoint, unless you shell out massive bucks, and even then there is no gaurantee.
- In one sense, you are essentially trying to recreate observational studies that already exist. They use real patient-level data. At best, you’d be using a constructed approximation of that. Even if it all worked out perfectly, and you had enough data to do a number of adjustments, you would get the same results they do, which is that vaccinated people appear to die less from EVERYTHING, because vaccinated people are healthier than unvaccinated people, and there is no way to control for that outside of an RCT.
Not to say that people can't come up with some ingenious approaches to detecting vaccine harm with observational data. It's just that polling is not a promising method.
I agree with David as somebody who has worked with data in all different capacities for nearly 40 years in IT in predictive analytics, data science, machine learning with a PhD in the area of decision problem solving automation. Even though you may have justified confidence in your reader survey, and it may be close to the truth, it will be used as a strong argument against the conclusions. A true random survey is needed that is not just the readers.
And I agree that there is already adequate data (much of which you and others have already published on Substack) that can be aggregated into a format that is very compelling. I think a step should be taken back on the approach to a more holistic process for pulling all of the datasets together into a meta-analysis, much like is done on the https://c19early.com site that shows the effectiveness of particular therapeutics. A framework can be put together to store all of the datasets and link them together to clearly show the correlations across the significant events such as vaccine rollout, excess death increases, etc. And don't neglect the worldwide data as that can provide control group baselines since many countries with very low vaccination rates also have significantly lower excess deaths.
I think some design work is needed on the overall architecture. I know you want this done soon. Unfortunately, I'm very busy with my day job through the week but have more time on the weekend to try to work in a group to help with this.
I agree with your assessment of Steve's audience being a confounding factor. However it doesn't matter. The UK collects this data on all deaths so the survey is unnecessary.
I presume you've factored in that (in the UK anyway) those who died within 14 days of getting their vaccine, were counted as unvaccinated. Since most who experienced death or an adverse effect, did so by day one or day two.......!
Many thanks for all you do. However, I do wish you wouldn't use "misinformation spreaders" as a term. It should be truth spreaders if anything. Just tell it as it is, make no excuses for it or chose the oppositions words. If you are uncertain about a particular matter then fine, but just say that.
Anyway, the opposition are the misinformation spreaders and we should put the boot on the other foot and put then boot in where they deserve it.
The opposition talk a lot of balls and balls are for kicking.
Have you tried reaching out to DeSantis or Dr. Lapado? They seem to have gotten the message finally. Maybe this was written prior to him announcing an investigation. The problem is with this much death and destruction we don't have time. Hundreds are dying daily. Daily! Yet, they are concerned with the rise in Covid cases. Mind-blowing.
You say "We now have nearly 2,000 responses to my all-cause mortality survey".
I am on your side, and I believe COVID vax is very dangerous. However, when you exaggerate (you actually have <1500 responses, not nearly 2000), you diminish your position. That hurts the team. Please be less "salesman" and more "credible scientist"
I did give an "data analysis analysis" of Joel Smalley's video on his substack.
Also I should like to put out that I flatly refuse to call a gender fluid person "they" because it is plural.
Ergo I shall use the term "IT" which I deem more appropriate as IT refers in the singular.
To me the evidence is clear. Unfortunately, those who took the vaccine do not want to see this due to the implications it has for their health and their pride. The ones pushing it despite the evidence are just pure evil. One way or another, we will all pay a price. Very sad.
The population as is solid - all deaths. N needs to be higher than 2000, if you want to control bias
Survey question -- answer depends on what is meant by 'working' brain. If it means fully-functioning, fully-informed, able to ingest many sources, able to assess sources for reliability, and immune from the influences of propaganda and groupthink, then yes, of course, there is more than sufficient evidence. But there remain many very smart people with high-functioning brain who are disabled by [something].
https://dailyclout.io/vermonts-cardiac-catastrophe-part-1-cardiogenic-shock/
This article mentions you, Steve.
Could turn the survey questions into a pub game among friends or even a Christmas gathering game.
"Anyone know someone who died this year or last? How old were they? Do you know if they were vaxxed?" Make sure everyone has a chance to answer. After kicking the answers around for a while, remind participants to ask their friends. Wrap-up by asking "Why isn't this being talked about?"
There are some data integrity issues. For example there are at least 50 records which have date of vaccination after date of death.
Various thoughts.
1. Joel's first key assumption is wrong - at least according to mainstream medical literature. There is a well documented (in the literature) effect of some vaccines offering increased protection against fatality from all causes. Therefore he cannot shift the curves in the way he is doing on the basis that this is not the case without addressing that possibility.
I am skeptical of this effect myself but it is generally accepted by scientists in this field, so you cannot simply ignore it. I think I pointed you at some papers in a comment on a previous article (not sure of the date, but some time ago).
2. Your audience is a confounding factor. I suspect that people who know people who died as a result of the vaccine are more likely to end up as readers of your substack than people who don't.
3. Sadly, even if you address my concerns above, I don't think this will have the effect you hope. The UK does collect and publish the numbers you would like to see, and there have been excellent analyses of what they show available for some time now. Professor Norman Fenton has done great work in this area (and apparently been the subject of so much personal animosity in his workplace that he has now decided to retire). You can see his interview with Thinkingslow (who has also done great work) here: https://rumble.com/v1aladz-all-cause-mortality-analysis-vaccinated-v-non-vaccinated-with-prof-fenton.html.
They are in touch with Fenton for sure. The UK data has a lot of problems as Fenton has shown. That's part of why people would try to do their own polls.
So many confounders working with real world covid data. No problem doing some analyses, but Steve slam-dunks everything as proof, when it's not. Hypothesis-generating is fine. "Fact-check me if you dare". This turns off even his own readership, let alone people on the fence. There are reasons 30% of his readers are skeptical of this last poll, even though I'd guess at lease 90% of his readers are against covid vaccines.
I agree the UK data has problems. BUT it's good enough to show that for sure the vaccines are ineffective, and offer no safety benefit, whil it is also true that better data might well offer proof of negative efficacy and serious safety problems.
PS I also agree that Steve is too certain of his own arguments. He too often ignores, or dismisses without addressing, good counter-arguments or just fails to acknowledge uncertainty. And this definitely makes him less effective in his mission, which is a pity.
The Vaccine control group is a group of people who have not taken the Covid vaccine and are acting as a voluntary self monitoring control group for the Covid vaccines - since the original control group is not being monitored by pharma. Go to https://vaxcontrolgroup.com/
I wonder how their outcomes compare to the vaccinated ?
Steve, US government still mandating covid vaccines to those who are visiting the country. Considering the facts that these vaccines are not safe nor effective that's utterly unethical!
We have 100% effective statistical methods to figure out the increased mortality because of covid vaccination. The entire population has to be divided in 5 age groups in order to exclude impact of Simpson effect: 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61.80, above 80. You have to calculate mortality rate of each group following this equation for each month of the years 2021 and 2022: vaccinated/alive = dead vaccinated/total deaths. You have to compare the number of "Dead vaccinated" with statistical number of "dead vaccinated". In case statistical number is bigger than calculated one, vaccines increase death rate. See all details here: https://zenodo.org/record/7255640
No medical journal is ready to publish my article.
Thanks for sharing that. Quick read looks like some good work, but I will try to spend more time this weekend reading it. Yes, even the medical journals are compromised now. To be honest, I'm more concerned right now with trying to inspire technology changes to create alternate platforms that cannot easily be shutdown than trying to convince people about the truths of Covid-19. I'm worried that when pandemic V2 comes, the attacks will be even worse on freedom of speech. I fully expect platforms like this to get shutdown. We need to start thinking about private data centers using a mesh air-gapped network (via Starlink?), and new mobile device platform that isn't compromised and uses satellite communications and bypasses the normal Internet. Along with that return to more traditional ways of sharing information directly and personally. Otherwise, we will not even have a way to communicate among ourselves safely.
Thank you very much for sharing this link! I look forward to reviewing with interest.
In the meantime, I am curious: in running your numbers, how did you account for the fact that the vaxxed in some countries (like the US) were tracked as "unvaccinated" for the first 2 weeks following their vaccination date?
I'm a data scientist. Death and vax date is objective, impossible for bias, but the bias might come from memory flaws or lying. Yet, the survey has weight because of the amount of answers: it's impossible for all to be biased. It is most probable they are not. The results show a huge red light.
It's the medical authorities job to track each peak answer and analyze cause of death and causality.
One thing missing in all these debates is natural immunity: if the person had COVID and when. But considering PCR scam, it's impossible to be really sure. Authorities are saying vaccines are effective, when in fact it was natural herd immunity.
The evidence is more than conclusive: all vaccines have been weaponized. Never trust authorities.
Presented by Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA tech (rwmalonemd.substack.com):
https://youtu.be/SOIs42o5AI8?t=30585
Based on 2000 papers: https://bit.ly/research2000
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
Got to be honest that I don't buy any of these surveys. The selection and response biases are too much to be confident they mean anything. Vaccinated people on his blog could be people who are aware of harm, which is why they are there. And unvaccinated people are health-conscious enough to be on his blog.
If your leading survey question is something like "have you been vaccinated?", and results are only based on people who finished the first question, there is going to be bias there. People who "have something to say" about vaccines will be more likely to respond. If you want to do a survey right, the leading question must be totally neutral like "do you have a favorite color?". Then the following questions about vaccine harm should hit them out of nowhere. It's an easy fix. Kirsch should be fielding critique of the design of his polls BEFORE he runs them. As should everyone before they collect expensive data for any reason.
Your suggestion is interesting. Recently I watched a video that equated symbolism to simple concepts assuming this is justified then one should choose the first question wisely not to chase away respondents who subconsciously fear that question.
Sure one could and probably should redo the survey with 'better' questions. It is unlikely to generate a different result and unlikely to convince the blind. What we need instead if to find a way to make the result known to a wider audience in spite of the mainstream media censorship.
Having one state or country perform the survey (or use reliable population data) in an official capacity would prevent complete suppression of the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtYt0nx-4U
The UK does collect this data already. An excellent discussion of the analysis is available in this video interview of Professor Norman Fenton here: https://rumble.com/v1aladz-all-cause-mortality-analysis-vaccinated-v-non-vaccinated-with-prof-fenton.html
People are not reporting for themselves. I worked with Smalley on the design. Are you a data scientist? Which way is it biased? My readers are reporting comparable numbers for vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Steve, impact of covid vaccination on death rate can be calculated in details. We have 100% effective statistical methods to figure out the increased mortality because of covid vaccination. The entire population has to be divided in 5 age groups in order to exclude impact of Simpson effect: 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61.80, above 80. You have to calculate mortality rate of each group following this equation for each month of the years 2021 and 2022: vaccinated/alive = dead vaccinated/total deaths. You have to compare the number of "Dead vaccinated" with statistical number of "dead vaccinated". In case statistical number is bigger than calculated one, vaccines increase death rate. See all details here: https://zenodo.org/record/7255640
No medical journal is ready to publish my article.
Steve:
- I have a masters in IEOR from Cal. I’ve been a medical nerd for 15 years. I have unpublished original research linking vaccines to autism and have drafts of multiple vaccine-critical articles I hope to get published. Trust me, I’m on your team.
- As far as death goes, this is a vaccine-critical blog. People are likely here because they have attitudes about vaccinations that are not representative. If a person knows someone vaccinated who died, that could be a reason they are on this blog. If a person knows someone unvaccinated who died, they could be less likely to bother filling out the survey. Of course you should expect a poll done on your readers to be biased against vaccines.
- If you use a polling company, the poll is presumably being offered to a representative sample. As long as your first question is not loaded (which they unfortunately have been…), and assuming completion of the first question is what defines a “responder”, then that’s all good. You can fix this issue by just having question #1 be “Do you have a favorite color?”.
- But such a poll being representative assumes you are talking about the people who responded. But once you start asking questions about people they know, it’s not going to be representative anymore. Also, more biases get introduced because we make assumptions about the size and traits of peoples’ social circles. The survey size isn’t really the 5000 people you pay for. It is the number of people those 5000 people know (and know well enough to know about their deaths and vaccination history).
- I don’t think we plebs have a decent way to easily solve the above issues with the tools at our disposal. But a start would be proposing a poll design and posting it on your blog and inviting feedback about any way it could go wrong. If there is a solution, it would likely involve having to collect a lot of data such as age of responder, vax status of responder, the number of living first-degree relatives they had at the start of December 2020 (before vaccines), dates of death that occurred by a specific end date (such as Dec 31, 2022), and vax statuses of not just the deceased, but the rest of the first-degree relatives as well. You would have to construct a cohort comprised of all first-degree relatives of responders. You would need enough responses to not only collect sufficient data on death and vaccines, but to also stratify analysis by age, as doing age-standardization wrecks all covid data. Even if you could do all this, there is going to be more response bias due to the fact that you can only analyze people who know the vax history of all their first-degree relatives. And then another layer of selection bias because risk in the family may be altered by the fact the responders are themselves known to still be alive.
- John Dee is a good guy to get input from. I think he’ll likely tell you what I am saying, which is this is potentially impossible to do credibly with the tools we have.
- You’re not going to get enough data to do useful time series analysis. At best you can only look at one endpoint, unless you shell out massive bucks, and even then there is no gaurantee.
- In one sense, you are essentially trying to recreate observational studies that already exist. They use real patient-level data. At best, you’d be using a constructed approximation of that. Even if it all worked out perfectly, and you had enough data to do a number of adjustments, you would get the same results they do, which is that vaccinated people appear to die less from EVERYTHING, because vaccinated people are healthier than unvaccinated people, and there is no way to control for that outside of an RCT.
Not to say that people can't come up with some ingenious approaches to detecting vaccine harm with observational data. It's just that polling is not a promising method.
I agree with David as somebody who has worked with data in all different capacities for nearly 40 years in IT in predictive analytics, data science, machine learning with a PhD in the area of decision problem solving automation. Even though you may have justified confidence in your reader survey, and it may be close to the truth, it will be used as a strong argument against the conclusions. A true random survey is needed that is not just the readers.
And I agree that there is already adequate data (much of which you and others have already published on Substack) that can be aggregated into a format that is very compelling. I think a step should be taken back on the approach to a more holistic process for pulling all of the datasets together into a meta-analysis, much like is done on the https://c19early.com site that shows the effectiveness of particular therapeutics. A framework can be put together to store all of the datasets and link them together to clearly show the correlations across the significant events such as vaccine rollout, excess death increases, etc. And don't neglect the worldwide data as that can provide control group baselines since many countries with very low vaccination rates also have significantly lower excess deaths.
I think some design work is needed on the overall architecture. I know you want this done soon. Unfortunately, I'm very busy with my day job through the week but have more time on the weekend to try to work in a group to help with this.
I agree with your assessment of Steve's audience being a confounding factor. However it doesn't matter. The UK collects this data on all deaths so the survey is unnecessary.
Analysis here: https://rumble.com/v1aladz-all-cause-mortality-analysis-vaccinated-v-non-vaccinated-with-prof-fenton.html
This is the third time I've posted this link already - so I won't post it any more on this thread.
Death is a bias. The vaxed dead are heavily biased against the vax. Let’s eliminate them in a control group.
The vax wins. 🫠😱🥶
Your criticism works with subjective polls, yet death and vax date is objective, impossible for bias.
About Autism, have you seen Dr. Theresa Deisher's papers? soundchoice.org?
Could you please send me your unpublished work or reply with a link here (many are interested)? f.nazar at gmail
Thank you!
Prof. Fred Nazar
I presume you've factored in that (in the UK anyway) those who died within 14 days of getting their vaccine, were counted as unvaccinated. Since most who experienced death or an adverse effect, did so by day one or day two.......!
Dear Steve
Many thanks for all you do. However, I do wish you wouldn't use "misinformation spreaders" as a term. It should be truth spreaders if anything. Just tell it as it is, make no excuses for it or chose the oppositions words. If you are uncertain about a particular matter then fine, but just say that.
Anyway, the opposition are the misinformation spreaders and we should put the boot on the other foot and put then boot in where they deserve it.
The opposition talk a lot of balls and balls are for kicking.
Have you tried reaching out to DeSantis or Dr. Lapado? They seem to have gotten the message finally. Maybe this was written prior to him announcing an investigation. The problem is with this much death and destruction we don't have time. Hundreds are dying daily. Daily! Yet, they are concerned with the rise in Covid cases. Mind-blowing.
yup. sent to joe right after i wrote it.