OK, let's debate the French COVID safety study. It's published in JAMA so that meets your criteria. If you can convince the judges the paper conclusions are legit, you win the $1M.
From independent researcher, Mark Stronge, in refuting a Facebook post on the study: “The paper you reference (a French national data cohort study claiming mRNA vaccination lowers all-cause mortality and shows no long-term increases in death over ~4 years) sounds impressive on the surface, but a careful methodological analysis reveals that its conclusions are statistically misleading and epidemiologically fragile. Let’s deconstruct this properly.
🧩 1. “All-cause mortality reduction” — a paradox too large to be real
A 25% reduction in overall mortality in a population already overwhelmingly at low risk from severe COVID is implausible on biological grounds. COVID-19 vaccination could only directly reduce deaths caused by COVID or its sequelae — not all-cause deaths across cancers, accidents, suicides, and chronic degenerative diseases.
If a vaccine truly caused a quarter fewer deaths from all causes for nearly four years, it would imply the mRNA shot magically prevents cardiovascular, metabolic, and oncologic deaths—all independent of infection risk. That’s pharmacologically absurd. The only plausible explanation: selection biases.
🎭 2. Hidden “healthy vaccinee” bias
Despite claims they “adjusted for comorbidities,” such adjustments cannot remove the behavioral and socioeconomic differences between those who got vaccinated versus those who didn’t. These differences include:
Health literacy and healthcare engagement. Vaccinated individuals tend to pursue regular screening, early disease detection, and adhere to medical advice—each lowering overall mortality.
Socioeconomic and occupational gradients. In France (as in all countries), lower-income populations, rural residents, and individuals distrustful of government tend both to have lower vaccination rates and higher baseline mortality due to poorer access to primary care.
Unmeasured lifestyle confounders. Smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, medication adherence, and mental health are not perfectly captured by “41 comorbidities.”
These biases are massive and extremely difficult to control, even with “propensity-matched” models. As Norman Fenton and Martin Neil demonstrated (see medRxiv, 2024, “The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies”), even sophisticated matching frameworks cannot correct for systematic misclassification and contamination biases in real-world datasets.
📉 3. The “miscategorisation bias” trap
Critically, many national health analyses use the “14-day post-dose rule”—defining participants as unvaccinated until two weeks after their injection. As Neil, Fenton, and McLachlan’s simulations show, this alone can artificially manufacture vaccine efficacy even if the product had zero or negative biological effect.
In that interval, deaths occurring soon after injections (e.g., myocarditis, arrhythmias, immunological shock) are conveniently coded under “unvaccinated”—inflating deaths in that group and artificially lowering apparent mortality among the “vaccinated.” This “cheap trick,” as Fenton termed it, has been present in nearly every national-level dataset analysis since 2021.
Unless the French study explicitly demonstrated it counted all deaths from Day 0 post-injection in the vaccinated group, its results are statistically invalid.
⏳ 4. Duration bias and data censoring
Median follow-up of 45 months for mRNA vaccine exposure is conceptually impossible. The vaccines were first administered in France in late 2020; four full years of data would mean observation through late 2024—meaning large censoring windows, incomplete verification of death causes, and potential deletion of outlier excess mortality among high-dose repeat vaccinees.
Longitudinal survivorship bias almost guarantees that the healthiest members of the vaccinated cohort dominate later data, while those who may have suffered vaccine-related rapid deteriorations (e.g., early myocarditis) are excluded through right-censoring.
🔍 5. Real independent reviews show opposite findings
Recent non-industry analyses contradict such sweeping “all-cause mortality reduction” claims:
Raphael Lataster’s 2025 metacritiques (Journal of Independent Medicine) exposed pervasive reliance on “inadequate counting windows” and “selective model assumptions” that exaggerate effectiveness while excluding post-vaccination adverse events and mortality signals.
Yaakov Ophir et al. 2025 (“A Step-by-Step Evaluation of the Claim That COVID-19 Vaccines Saved Millions of Lives”) showed that the underlying models that generated these “millions saved” narratives rely on circular estimations of infections avoided—mathematically predetermined to validate the benefit hypothesis.
Lerch (2022, Drug Safety) showed “masking effects” in adverse-event databases where simultaneous reporting of other vaccines can hide statistically significant safety signals—meaning national pharmacovigilance data likely underreport mRNA-related harms.
🧠 6. The contradiction inside the claim itself
Even this French study’s summary admits that the vaccinated cohort had more “cardiometabolic issues.” That admission undermines the internal logic: if they were truly more comorbid yet still lived longer, that outcome must be driven by non-biological confounding, not physiological benefit. Demographically healthier, better-educated citizens “behaving health-consciously” voted with their feet early in the pandemic—and they remain overrepresented in the vaccinated group.
In short, the vaccine didn’t make them healthier; being healthier made them more likely to vaccinate.
⚖️ 7. Conclusion: a PR triumph, not a scientific one
When massive national datasets are filtered through pre-built institutional assumptions, you get beautifully packaged but meaningless correlations. The same pattern was seen with smoking and “mask-wearing” studies: correlation → attribution → political talking point.
So no—the study does not prove “vaccines save lives.”
It proves that when you consistently misclassify early deaths, ignore unmeasured confounders, and assume uniform risk baselines, you can simulate success indefinitely.
True independent meta-analyses now recognize this: repeated boosting shows diminishing or even negative adjusted efficacy against infection, and uncertainty remains regarding long-term all-cause outcomes.
🧠 Bottom Line:
The conclusion “vaccinated people lived longer” is a product of statistical illusion — not biological protection.
If the mRNA shots truly caused no long-term harms, we would see consistent decreases in excess mortality post-2021.
But across Europe, excess non-COVID mortality has remained chronically elevated, particularly in heavily vaccinated nations.
Hence, until independent researchers with unrestricted access to raw data reanalyze these findings—without 14-day misclassification, without preselected covariates, and with equal healthcare utilization accounted for—claims of “25% longer life” must be recognized for what they are: narrative manufacturing masquerading as science.”
Excess mortality data sinks that French study. Eurostat’s data for Malta for example has the country at 29.9 percent above baseline as recent as June of this year.
Estimated Excess Deaths (Compared to Expected Baseline)
A key independent report (based on StatsCan data) estimates how many more deaths occurred than expected using historical baselines (typically pre-pandemic years):
Year Estimated Excess Deaths % of Expected Deaths Interpretation
2022 ~31,400 ~10.3% Significantly elevated excess deaths relative to expected trends; ~2× higher than previous years
Justice Centre
2023 ~13,950 ~4.5% Excess mortality appears to have declined from the 2022 peak but remains above baseline. Something is not right but no one seems to be looking for an answer.
Disturbing. Thank you for the data. When I go into excess mortality in the website Our World in Data, for Canada, Canada I note still has unacceptably high levels of mortality up until May 2025. Down here in Australia is the same. It became so obvious at one stage that our Australian Bureau of Statistics’ excess mortality data had magically altered themselves, with changes having been made to historical points of reference: https://open.substack.com/pub/lettersfromaustralia/p/hey-presto-the-2022-non-covid-excess?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios
AI is wrong. Offit will not refuse to debate you. Instead, he will just ignore your offer and not say anything (which is not the same thing as a refusal although you will probably try to cast his silence as such). To have any chance of Offit seriously considering your debate offer, he needs to trust that the debate judges will, in fact, be truly impartial. So, please provide the names of three people who you believe would make excellent, impartial judges and who would be willing to serve as a debate judge.
If someone offered me a million bucks to debate them on a subject where I was recognized as an acclaimed expert; I’d say ‘when and where.’ I find it curious that Peter Hotez found himself with the very same opportunity to ‘show the world that the anti-vaxxer RFK Jr, had no understanding surrounding the science of vaccines’; but he also declined Joe Rogan’s invitation. The issue comes down to one side having the knowledge and integrity to bring a proper argument, while the other fears their clothes falling off before the world. Paul Offit like Peter Hotez, have feet of clay. I’d pay to watch it - but it won’t happen.
Just tell him you want to have a discussion....nothing wrong with that, is there. Drop the "debate" from the offer. He seems to enjoy going on MSM and yammering a bit. Certainly an open discussion couldn't harm anything.
I can’t see a ‘discussion’ having significant effect on the overall narrative. Besides - people in Offit’s community already know they’ve been lying to the public over decades. Open dialogue between professionals only works when both parties have integrity. Offit is corrupt but isn’t stupid.
Dr OFFIT will have to disclose whether he is fully vaccinated. If he is fully vaccinated the debate will not be fair because he will be brain damaged therefore, as in golf, he needs to be offered a handicap.
I am reading Aaron Siri’s “Vaccines, Amen.” From what he reveals about Plotkin and Offal - I mean Offut, they would opt for waterboarding before tangling with Steve.
Thanks for your efforts but I think the million dollars would be better spent creating and promoting a quality platform for discussion and debate, which would poll the public as to who they would like to see engage with each other - under a fair format which doesn’t let people talk at the same time - and then publicly request the selected people to participate, offering them fair, but not exorbitant, compensation for their time (unless anyone wants to add to that, with everything transparent), reporting who refuses to engage and starting petitions of verified social media users beseeching them to reconsider. The platform could also interview people it thinks are important, as long as they agree to a follow-up discussion with someone the viewers would like to see them engage with. It could be a for-profit venture, with people paying to see the live discussions maybe a few days before the recording is released and with advertisers selling worthwhile products and services. You could even seek a co-founder who considers you to be a misinformation spreader, so it would be difficult to brand the platform as biased (with the partnership itself perhaps generating some publicity).
Thanks for responding. My impression was that building the site would cost less than $1M and not much advertising would be needed because, for example, if RFK Jr. and Peter Hotez agreed to engage, they would tell their social media followers about it in advance and the site would get a lot of traffic just from that. But you may be right, I was just guessing.
I don't believe Offit will be able to get off his belly crawling around with all the other corrupt serpents in the medical/pharma cabal to even consider the facts and truths that are coming out. Time to round up the cabal and let justice reign.
Just wondering, who are Dr Paul Offit's friends and what is interested in him? What if you offered THEM the $1m dollars for Dr Paul Offit to debate you? Ones that could do with the money? He's always trying to find a way out of it.
Offit and Pharma have the liability protection they obtained in 1986 2002 and 2020. There will never be any "debate" until this abomination of "law" is repealed. It's unconstitutional on it's face.
Until then, they will gaslight the public and continue with the simple strategy:
From independent researcher, Mark Stronge, in refuting a Facebook post on the study: “The paper you reference (a French national data cohort study claiming mRNA vaccination lowers all-cause mortality and shows no long-term increases in death over ~4 years) sounds impressive on the surface, but a careful methodological analysis reveals that its conclusions are statistically misleading and epidemiologically fragile. Let’s deconstruct this properly.
🧩 1. “All-cause mortality reduction” — a paradox too large to be real
A 25% reduction in overall mortality in a population already overwhelmingly at low risk from severe COVID is implausible on biological grounds. COVID-19 vaccination could only directly reduce deaths caused by COVID or its sequelae — not all-cause deaths across cancers, accidents, suicides, and chronic degenerative diseases.
If a vaccine truly caused a quarter fewer deaths from all causes for nearly four years, it would imply the mRNA shot magically prevents cardiovascular, metabolic, and oncologic deaths—all independent of infection risk. That’s pharmacologically absurd. The only plausible explanation: selection biases.
🎭 2. Hidden “healthy vaccinee” bias
Despite claims they “adjusted for comorbidities,” such adjustments cannot remove the behavioral and socioeconomic differences between those who got vaccinated versus those who didn’t. These differences include:
Health literacy and healthcare engagement. Vaccinated individuals tend to pursue regular screening, early disease detection, and adhere to medical advice—each lowering overall mortality.
Socioeconomic and occupational gradients. In France (as in all countries), lower-income populations, rural residents, and individuals distrustful of government tend both to have lower vaccination rates and higher baseline mortality due to poorer access to primary care.
Unmeasured lifestyle confounders. Smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, medication adherence, and mental health are not perfectly captured by “41 comorbidities.”
These biases are massive and extremely difficult to control, even with “propensity-matched” models. As Norman Fenton and Martin Neil demonstrated (see medRxiv, 2024, “The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies”), even sophisticated matching frameworks cannot correct for systematic misclassification and contamination biases in real-world datasets.
📉 3. The “miscategorisation bias” trap
Critically, many national health analyses use the “14-day post-dose rule”—defining participants as unvaccinated until two weeks after their injection. As Neil, Fenton, and McLachlan’s simulations show, this alone can artificially manufacture vaccine efficacy even if the product had zero or negative biological effect.
In that interval, deaths occurring soon after injections (e.g., myocarditis, arrhythmias, immunological shock) are conveniently coded under “unvaccinated”—inflating deaths in that group and artificially lowering apparent mortality among the “vaccinated.” This “cheap trick,” as Fenton termed it, has been present in nearly every national-level dataset analysis since 2021.
Unless the French study explicitly demonstrated it counted all deaths from Day 0 post-injection in the vaccinated group, its results are statistically invalid.
⏳ 4. Duration bias and data censoring
Median follow-up of 45 months for mRNA vaccine exposure is conceptually impossible. The vaccines were first administered in France in late 2020; four full years of data would mean observation through late 2024—meaning large censoring windows, incomplete verification of death causes, and potential deletion of outlier excess mortality among high-dose repeat vaccinees.
Longitudinal survivorship bias almost guarantees that the healthiest members of the vaccinated cohort dominate later data, while those who may have suffered vaccine-related rapid deteriorations (e.g., early myocarditis) are excluded through right-censoring.
🔍 5. Real independent reviews show opposite findings
Recent non-industry analyses contradict such sweeping “all-cause mortality reduction” claims:
Raphael Lataster’s 2025 metacritiques (Journal of Independent Medicine) exposed pervasive reliance on “inadequate counting windows” and “selective model assumptions” that exaggerate effectiveness while excluding post-vaccination adverse events and mortality signals.
Yaakov Ophir et al. 2025 (“A Step-by-Step Evaluation of the Claim That COVID-19 Vaccines Saved Millions of Lives”) showed that the underlying models that generated these “millions saved” narratives rely on circular estimations of infections avoided—mathematically predetermined to validate the benefit hypothesis.
Lerch (2022, Drug Safety) showed “masking effects” in adverse-event databases where simultaneous reporting of other vaccines can hide statistically significant safety signals—meaning national pharmacovigilance data likely underreport mRNA-related harms.
🧠 6. The contradiction inside the claim itself
Even this French study’s summary admits that the vaccinated cohort had more “cardiometabolic issues.” That admission undermines the internal logic: if they were truly more comorbid yet still lived longer, that outcome must be driven by non-biological confounding, not physiological benefit. Demographically healthier, better-educated citizens “behaving health-consciously” voted with their feet early in the pandemic—and they remain overrepresented in the vaccinated group.
In short, the vaccine didn’t make them healthier; being healthier made them more likely to vaccinate.
⚖️ 7. Conclusion: a PR triumph, not a scientific one
When massive national datasets are filtered through pre-built institutional assumptions, you get beautifully packaged but meaningless correlations. The same pattern was seen with smoking and “mask-wearing” studies: correlation → attribution → political talking point.
So no—the study does not prove “vaccines save lives.”
It proves that when you consistently misclassify early deaths, ignore unmeasured confounders, and assume uniform risk baselines, you can simulate success indefinitely.
True independent meta-analyses now recognize this: repeated boosting shows diminishing or even negative adjusted efficacy against infection, and uncertainty remains regarding long-term all-cause outcomes.
🧠 Bottom Line:
The conclusion “vaccinated people lived longer” is a product of statistical illusion — not biological protection.
If the mRNA shots truly caused no long-term harms, we would see consistent decreases in excess mortality post-2021.
But across Europe, excess non-COVID mortality has remained chronically elevated, particularly in heavily vaccinated nations.
Hence, until independent researchers with unrestricted access to raw data reanalyze these findings—without 14-day misclassification, without preselected covariates, and with equal healthcare utilization accounted for—claims of “25% longer life” must be recognized for what they are: narrative manufacturing masquerading as science.”
Do you have a link to the post?
Certainly. It’s the 2nd thread down in the comments section of a Facebook post from the page, Snarky Gherkin. I commented after it, linking some data to another person. ➡️ https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02tCZVYektBP493Uxfk2zLi9EeToCXeyHsyXuxmi6FkwmG3giBsK4M9iKY1EsifvRul&id=100071289640857
Brilliant analysis, David! I salute you!
🙏Yes, Mike, a great analysis by Mark Stronge.
Excess mortality data sinks that French study. Eurostat’s data for Malta for example has the country at 29.9 percent above baseline as recent as June of this year.
These are the Canadian excess deaths:
Estimated Excess Deaths (Compared to Expected Baseline)
A key independent report (based on StatsCan data) estimates how many more deaths occurred than expected using historical baselines (typically pre-pandemic years):
Year Estimated Excess Deaths % of Expected Deaths Interpretation
2020 ~15,000 ~5.1% First pandemic year; clear excess above expected baseline
Justice Centre
2021 ~13,500 ~4.5% Continued excess mortality
Justice Centre
2022 ~31,400 ~10.3% Significantly elevated excess deaths relative to expected trends; ~2× higher than previous years
Justice Centre
2023 ~13,950 ~4.5% Excess mortality appears to have declined from the 2022 peak but remains above baseline. Something is not right but no one seems to be looking for an answer.
Disturbing. Thank you for the data. When I go into excess mortality in the website Our World in Data, for Canada, Canada I note still has unacceptably high levels of mortality up until May 2025. Down here in Australia is the same. It became so obvious at one stage that our Australian Bureau of Statistics’ excess mortality data had magically altered themselves, with changes having been made to historical points of reference: https://open.substack.com/pub/lettersfromaustralia/p/hey-presto-the-2022-non-covid-excess?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios
AI is wrong. Offit will not refuse to debate you. Instead, he will just ignore your offer and not say anything (which is not the same thing as a refusal although you will probably try to cast his silence as such). To have any chance of Offit seriously considering your debate offer, he needs to trust that the debate judges will, in fact, be truly impartial. So, please provide the names of three people who you believe would make excellent, impartial judges and who would be willing to serve as a debate judge.
Save me a front row seat for this one!
If someone offered me a million bucks to debate them on a subject where I was recognized as an acclaimed expert; I’d say ‘when and where.’ I find it curious that Peter Hotez found himself with the very same opportunity to ‘show the world that the anti-vaxxer RFK Jr, had no understanding surrounding the science of vaccines’; but he also declined Joe Rogan’s invitation. The issue comes down to one side having the knowledge and integrity to bring a proper argument, while the other fears their clothes falling off before the world. Paul Offit like Peter Hotez, have feet of clay. I’d pay to watch it - but it won’t happen.
Just tell him you want to have a discussion....nothing wrong with that, is there. Drop the "debate" from the offer. He seems to enjoy going on MSM and yammering a bit. Certainly an open discussion couldn't harm anything.
I can’t see a ‘discussion’ having significant effect on the overall narrative. Besides - people in Offit’s community already know they’ve been lying to the public over decades. Open dialogue between professionals only works when both parties have integrity. Offit is corrupt but isn’t stupid.
I think you're missing it. I’m assuming the word '“debate” keeps him on the run. What's wrong with having a little “talk?”
that's my next offer.
Checkmate.
You might unmask the truth behind his arrogance if you and he debated. Think Wizard of Oz.
Dr OFFIT will have to disclose whether he is fully vaccinated. If he is fully vaccinated the debate will not be fair because he will be brain damaged therefore, as in golf, he needs to be offered a handicap.
hahahahaha
He won't debate you Steve. Maybe he'll convince Hotez or another loser to stand in for him.
Either way your money is safe.
By the way, can anyone say how these frauds look at themselves in a mirror?
God bless you Steve! Don't ever give up fighting the good fight against these bastards.
I am reading Aaron Siri’s “Vaccines, Amen.” From what he reveals about Plotkin and Offal - I mean Offut, they would opt for waterboarding before tangling with Steve.
Thanks for your efforts but I think the million dollars would be better spent creating and promoting a quality platform for discussion and debate, which would poll the public as to who they would like to see engage with each other - under a fair format which doesn’t let people talk at the same time - and then publicly request the selected people to participate, offering them fair, but not exorbitant, compensation for their time (unless anyone wants to add to that, with everything transparent), reporting who refuses to engage and starting petitions of verified social media users beseeching them to reconsider. The platform could also interview people it thinks are important, as long as they agree to a follow-up discussion with someone the viewers would like to see them engage with. It could be a for-profit venture, with people paying to see the live discussions maybe a few days before the recording is released and with advertisers selling worthwhile products and services. You could even seek a co-founder who considers you to be a misinformation spreader, so it would be difficult to brand the platform as biased (with the partnership itself perhaps generating some publicity).
the $1M is only paid if he wins. that would be highly unlikely. and such a platform you describe would cost >> $1M.
Thanks for responding. My impression was that building the site would cost less than $1M and not much advertising would be needed because, for example, if RFK Jr. and Peter Hotez agreed to engage, they would tell their social media followers about it in advance and the site would get a lot of traffic just from that. But you may be right, I was just guessing.
I don't believe Offit will be able to get off his belly crawling around with all the other corrupt serpents in the medical/pharma cabal to even consider the facts and truths that are coming out. Time to round up the cabal and let justice reign.
Just wondering, who are Dr Paul Offit's friends and what is interested in him? What if you offered THEM the $1m dollars for Dr Paul Offit to debate you? Ones that could do with the money? He's always trying to find a way out of it.
see my next offer.
Offit and Pharma have the liability protection they obtained in 1986 2002 and 2020. There will never be any "debate" until this abomination of "law" is repealed. It's unconstitutional on it's face.
Until then, they will gaslight the public and continue with the simple strategy:
YOU CAN NEVER FIND WHAT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING FOR.
Did you use a picture of someone else for you photo. I don't know why but it doesn't look like you to me. I hope you get to have the debate. x