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.
🐘 Whatever one thinks about the existence of viruses and the effectiveness of vaccination, excess mortality since 2021 cannot be ignored. Eurostat, for the EU, continues to be a good source of information when it comes to excess deaths. In Malta, for example, the country reached 29.9 percent above baseline - in June of this year. Insane. Ireland under the EU has also had high mortality, coupled with its nursing home crisis early on. Oddly, the Ireland data seemingly (and conveniently) disappeared from Eurostat's database, but independent researcher Aisling O'Loughlin tells us here how to reinsert it in the listings:
Yes. It does not matter how much proof of harm can be shown and proven, the jab enthusiasts will say it is worth it, because the jabs saved a trillion lives. And there is absolutely no way to prove that, all the numbers are suspect, made up, misreported, etc.
Initially I said no to the jab because things around it seemed strange. Not a scientific decision, for sure. But now, I am glad I waited. A good rule for life - think ten times before you do something that cannot be undone.
Medical was turned into “profit”, an industry that now causes “doctor treadmill”, medical bankruptcies and too many prescription drugs have become a detriment and endless cycle instead of a cure.
They need customers, not healthy people.. it is a conflit of interest. Corruption at it’s finest.
Pre- emptive pardons and no liability clauses speak volumes.
So does the opiod pandemic, the “calamari” clots, mrna, foreign dna and so much more.
Medical can simply not be trusted anymore.
Corporate greed. And possibly even darker motives..
You always amaze me Steve! Just when I think you've run out of astute strategies and challenge techniques, you come up with a whole new scheme! No wonder everyone is terrified of the thought of debating you! Keep it up!
Fantastic job Steve. Thanks. In Paul's defense he did break silence enough for you to be able to make your handsome offer. If he really does believe that medical vaccine truth can only be found in peer reviewed, prestigious, journals, accepted by a consensus of top medical scientist and statisticians etc., etc., then he has no way to refuse an open debate about one of them, does he? Probably he will fall back on his "debating stage not being the proper venue for serious scientific argument" as grounds for refusal to spend an hour debating so as to prove his truth and give a million to those in need. But maybe you can counter with a debate by peer reviewed paper, so to speak, like those essay competitions that were popular in 18th C France. Good luck. Probably he will just invite you - if he deigns to reply at all - to (something) off, the same as he did the polite vaxxed bus camera man. I hope not. Come on Paul.
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.
I want to be respectful Steve because you've done a lot of blessed, righteous work. I don't think the debates or attemps for 4 years have any lasting legs, like Offit's time in Congress with mall-cop power. He will likely be judged by our Lord and sent to Gehinnom where we are taught to pray for our adversaries, even controlled ones like him. He is clearly controlled by the families that make up the Private Federal Reserseve, that are neither private, nor have true reserves. The divinely-led Covid Audit is the only document which shows his handlers, many layers removed. The Lord sees it an shows the remnant. The remnant seeks righteous people like you who have a freshly anointed audience. The families are 100% irrefutable seen and incriminated with no debate necessary in #6, #9 & #11 in the Lord's work of peace. If you sit on it, that is absolutely your choice yet it squarely puts you in Ezekiel 3:16-19 territory, which is not the goal of this Shaliach's message, please understand
You have selected the most worthless paper in the controlled-journal world, and you have now challenged him to defend it. If he can, he gets a million bucks.
This was nicely constructed. "No, I don't want a million bucks because ... uh ... science!"
When will the rats start to leave this sinking ship?
I've noticed that inventors (seeing novel, and non-obvious = evolutionary advantage) are a whole lot quicker on the uptake than non-inventor mainstream "science" folks. It took you a few seconds to notice the vaccine problem. I exaggerate, but not by much.
Invention can happen quickly, while "science" advances one funeral at a time. Sorting out how to speed this "clogged science advancement" has not been easy - especially when there are trillions on the other side of the ledger motivating the non-advancement.
I like your new approach. "A million bucks to engage in - and win - an AI-mediated peer review process." AI selection might be key though.
Just ask the Dr Offit to explain the 1.1 million excessive deaths in 2021! In 2020 it was supposedly the year of Covid deaths accelerated by the wrong medical treatment.
In 2021 there should have been NO excessive deaths if the RNA injections were effective! He knows the truth and will not express it!
How he can continue promoting the charade is beyond my comprehension!
So why wasn't it 10x worse in 2020 then? Why did most countries have similar or higher excess mortality AFTER the "lifesaving" shots were rolled out, compared to before? Why did many countries like Japan, Korea, Germany, Australia, Canada, etc. have very low excess mortality when using NPIs only, but then saw a surge in excess mortality only after the "lifesaving" shots were rolled out?
And most of all, why did the RCTs done by Pfizer and Moderna themselves both have 15-17% increases in non-COVID deaths that completely negated the COVID death decreases, as in a net effect of "4 killed for every 3 saved"? Ivermectin had much more "lifesaving" results in RCTs overall than the mRNA vaccines did.
🐘 Whatever one thinks about the existence of viruses and the effectiveness of vaccination, excess mortality since 2021 cannot be ignored. Eurostat, for the EU, continues to be a good source of information when it comes to excess deaths. In Malta, for example, the country reached 29.9 percent above baseline - in June of this year. Insane. Ireland under the EU has also had high mortality, coupled with its nursing home crisis early on. Oddly, the Ireland data seemingly (and conveniently) disappeared from Eurostat's database, but independent researcher Aisling O'Loughlin tells us here how to reinsert it in the listings:
https://substack.com/@aislingoloughlin/note/p-181257005?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Dr. Paul Offit assimilates oral exposition to aluminum to be the same as injected aluminium!!!!
https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum
Is There a Difference Between Aluminum That Is Injected vs. Ingested?
And seems to forget, that only 0,1 % of aluminium is absorbed form food.
(quote):The overall bioavailability of ingested aluminum is low, with approximately ...... 0.1% from food." (end of quote).
https://www.videncenterforallergi.dk/.../PhD-Hoffmann.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=8H3sOzma22U&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.chop.edu%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY
He cant afford to accept he will be shown up as a fake.
These covidians believe benefits outweigh the risks . The MFM on your discussion last night was one of them.
Yes. It does not matter how much proof of harm can be shown and proven, the jab enthusiasts will say it is worth it, because the jabs saved a trillion lives. And there is absolutely no way to prove that, all the numbers are suspect, made up, misreported, etc.
Initially I said no to the jab because things around it seemed strange. Not a scientific decision, for sure. But now, I am glad I waited. A good rule for life - think ten times before you do something that cannot be undone.
Medical was turned into “profit”, an industry that now causes “doctor treadmill”, medical bankruptcies and too many prescription drugs have become a detriment and endless cycle instead of a cure.
They need customers, not healthy people.. it is a conflit of interest. Corruption at it’s finest.
Pre- emptive pardons and no liability clauses speak volumes.
So does the opiod pandemic, the “calamari” clots, mrna, foreign dna and so much more.
Medical can simply not be trusted anymore.
Corporate greed. And possibly even darker motives..
You always amaze me Steve! Just when I think you've run out of astute strategies and challenge techniques, you come up with a whole new scheme! No wonder everyone is terrified of the thought of debating you! Keep it up!
Fantastic job Steve. Thanks. In Paul's defense he did break silence enough for you to be able to make your handsome offer. If he really does believe that medical vaccine truth can only be found in peer reviewed, prestigious, journals, accepted by a consensus of top medical scientist and statisticians etc., etc., then he has no way to refuse an open debate about one of them, does he? Probably he will fall back on his "debating stage not being the proper venue for serious scientific argument" as grounds for refusal to spend an hour debating so as to prove his truth and give a million to those in need. But maybe you can counter with a debate by peer reviewed paper, so to speak, like those essay competitions that were popular in 18th C France. Good luck. Probably he will just invite you - if he deigns to reply at all - to (something) off, the same as he did the polite vaxxed bus camera man. I hope not. Come on Paul.
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.”
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.
pharma gives him way more money to NOT debate you, you efforts are appreciated, but futile
I love it!! He will never do it. Lots to say until you have to prove it!!
I want to be respectful Steve because you've done a lot of blessed, righteous work. I don't think the debates or attemps for 4 years have any lasting legs, like Offit's time in Congress with mall-cop power. He will likely be judged by our Lord and sent to Gehinnom where we are taught to pray for our adversaries, even controlled ones like him. He is clearly controlled by the families that make up the Private Federal Reserseve, that are neither private, nor have true reserves. The divinely-led Covid Audit is the only document which shows his handlers, many layers removed. The Lord sees it an shows the remnant. The remnant seeks righteous people like you who have a freshly anointed audience. The families are 100% irrefutable seen and incriminated with no debate necessary in #6, #9 & #11 in the Lord's work of peace. If you sit on it, that is absolutely your choice yet it squarely puts you in Ezekiel 3:16-19 territory, which is not the goal of this Shaliach's message, please understand
° The Covid Åudit
🌬️ https://WHOtoSTOP.com
You have selected the most worthless paper in the controlled-journal world, and you have now challenged him to defend it. If he can, he gets a million bucks.
This was nicely constructed. "No, I don't want a million bucks because ... uh ... science!"
When will the rats start to leave this sinking ship?
it's taking longer than i thought but i'm trying to accelerate the recognition.
I've noticed that inventors (seeing novel, and non-obvious = evolutionary advantage) are a whole lot quicker on the uptake than non-inventor mainstream "science" folks. It took you a few seconds to notice the vaccine problem. I exaggerate, but not by much.
Invention can happen quickly, while "science" advances one funeral at a time. Sorting out how to speed this "clogged science advancement" has not been easy - especially when there are trillions on the other side of the ledger motivating the non-advancement.
I like your new approach. "A million bucks to engage in - and win - an AI-mediated peer review process." AI selection might be key though.
Just want the truth. Just want a debate
me too. I'd like to know how i got it wrong, but they won't tell me, not even for $1M.
Just ask the Dr Offit to explain the 1.1 million excessive deaths in 2021! In 2020 it was supposedly the year of Covid deaths accelerated by the wrong medical treatment.
In 2021 there should have been NO excessive deaths if the RNA injections were effective! He knows the truth and will not express it!
How he can continue promoting the charade is beyond my comprehension!
Beyond mine too Thomas. But if anybody can get to the bottom of this, it's Steve Kirsch.
they have the belief it would have been 10x worse without the shots.
So why wasn't it 10x worse in 2020 then? Why did most countries have similar or higher excess mortality AFTER the "lifesaving" shots were rolled out, compared to before? Why did many countries like Japan, Korea, Germany, Australia, Canada, etc. have very low excess mortality when using NPIs only, but then saw a surge in excess mortality only after the "lifesaving" shots were rolled out?
And most of all, why did the RCTs done by Pfizer and Moderna themselves both have 15-17% increases in non-COVID deaths that completely negated the COVID death decreases, as in a net effect of "4 killed for every 3 saved"? Ivermectin had much more "lifesaving" results in RCTs overall than the mRNA vaccines did.
It really does boil down to that.
Slam dunk. Come to the table you coward. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!
I used that line to comment on Jenna McCarthy's post today! 😂
Great minds…
Which Jenna McCarthy - a search lists several these days ...
Please don't insult the hamsters. They have more integrity and honesty than Offit and the odor of his father you will find near dung beetles:}.
True, true
Paul Offit: Propaganda Minister to the Medical Cartel. The man who turned deflection into doctrine and misinformation into ministry. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/paul-offit-propaganda-minister-to